Voter Recommendations

LA County District Attorney: Nathan Hochman

 

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 39: Steve Napolitano

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 48: Renee Rose

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 97: Sharon Ransom

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 135: Steven Yee Mac

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 137: Tracey M. Blount

---

County Measure G: NO

Creates a new County Executive and an independent Ethics Commission that have no term limits and controls all county departments. It increases the Board of Supervisors from five to nine. It increases the bureaucracy and weakens the authority of the LA County Board of Supervisors. Opponents: LA County Firefighter & Sheriffs, LA County Supervisors Kathryn Barger & Holly Mitchell.

County Measure A: NO

Measure A Doubles the temporary sales tax for homelessness programs and makes the tax increase permanent.

The last time the sales tax was raised to address homelessness (2017 Measure H), only $500K of the $20M generated by Glendora taxpayers came back to us. During that same time frame, the LA Homeless Services Authority spent over $2B addressing homelessness only to see it increase 37%. Measure A is more of the same, only double. It is not for the homeless, it is for the Homeless Industrial Complex. To make matters worse, there is no expiration date on “A’s” sales tax increase from 10.25 % to 10.75%. A “NO” vote keeps Measure H funding in place and tells LA County to clean up their act.

No on Measure US:

This is a property tax increase to pay for $9 billion in borrowing for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

State Measure 2: NO

Why we’re against it Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2.

State Measure 3: NO

Ballot Title: Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Truth: Constitutionally opens the definition of marriage to whatever the imagination can conceive. Prop 3 is a ruse. MARRIAGE BETWEEN SAME-SEX COUPLES IS ALREADY LEGAL. This has been settled, constitutional law since 2015. Prop 3 approval could lead to the legalization of polygamy and undermine traditional family structures.

State Measure 4: NO

This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 4.

State Measure 5: NO

Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds (borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure” (nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55% approval instead of the current 66.7%. Local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California, which already has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is taken into account. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5.

State Measure 6: NO

Proposition 6 bans mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. It doesn’t seem fair to further increase the burden on taxpayers by creating the conditions to negotiate higher wages for inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6.

State Measure 32: NO

NO on 32 Why we’re against it Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it annually for inflation. Unfortunately, raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising government labor costs. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32

State Measure 33: NO

NO on 33 - Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33.

State Measure 34: YES

Some nonprofit healthcare organizations that receive federal funds to provide health care services have abused the system to spend large amounts of money on political causes. Proposition 34 would end this practice and require that healthcare providers spend most of the money they receive from a federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34.

State Measure 35: No position

State Measure 36: YES

Proposition 36 is the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” backed by law enforcement groups and retailers. It makes thoughtful changes to Proposition 47 (2014), which reduced some theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 would get tougher on third offenses and also offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail. The surge of retail theft, vehicle break-ins and open drug use on California’s streets has increased the burden on first responders, and on taxpayers, as well as raising insurance costs throughout the state.

---

National Election for President and Vice President: Donald J. Trump and JD Vance

United States Senator – Full Term: Steve Garvey

United States Senator – Short Term: Steve Garvey

---

The Lincoln Clubs Story

The Los Angeles County Lincoln Clubs were founded as an independent organization in 1979 by Reagan "Kitchen Cabinet" member Julian Virtue and a group of Los Angeles' most prominent Republican business executives. They filled the need for a self-directed Republican major donor organization that works in cooperation with the official Republican Party organization and GOP legislators. While the Lincoln Clubs accept input and recommendations from all responsible Republican sources. We take direction only from ourselves.

In addition to State and Federal campaigns, the Lincoln Clubs have been an instrument in the election of dozens of local elected officials. We do more then simply encourage Republican business and professional people to run for office. We provide political and financial support to help them win! Many of them have gone on to state or national partisan office.

Lincoln Clubs members may choose to participate in monthly chapter meetings featuring top-quality speakers and a distinguished group of attendees. They may also enjoy the satisfaction of knowing they are part of the most influential Republican organization in Los Angeles County.

Please join us at any one of our upcoming events. If you would like to join, please fill out the Membership Form herein, include your dues payment and indicate which chapter you would like to be a part of. Welcome to the Club!

---

Los Angeles County Lincoln Clubs

The Los Angeles Lincoln Clubs is the leading Republican political action committee in Los Angeles. Founded in 1979, we are a self-directed organization comprised of six chapters throughout the County.

---

SUPPORT OUR MEMBERS IN ELECTED OFFICE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISOR KATHRYN BARGER

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERVISOR CURT HAGMAN

CONGRESSMAN YOUNG KIM

CONGRESSMAN MICHELLE STEEL

CONGRESSMAN MIKE GARCIA

STATE SENATOR SCOTT WILK

ASSEMBLYMAN PHILLIP CHEN

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SUZETTE VALLADARES