guide

This runoff for a vacant seat on the bench features a longtime public defender running against a veteran alternate public defender. Both boast extensive trial experience.

Donna Tryfman, a deputy public defender, serves in the major cases unit, where she handles homicide and other high-profile defendants. She also has extensive experience in juvenile cases.

David Ross is an alternate in the Torrance branch of the public defenders office and also works in Bellflower and Long Beach. He claims to have represented more than 10,000 clients at hearings and in trials.

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rates both attorneys as “qualified” for office. Here’s more of what you need to know about the candidates.

Donna Tryfman, L.A. County deputy public defender

Bar rating: Qualified

Tryfman began with the public defender’s office in 1998, logging more than 100 jury trials. Her experience includes supervising Eastlake Juvenile Court, where she ran a branch with 15 lawyers and represented clients in the collaborative drug court. She is stationed in the major cases unit, focusing on capital homicide litigation.

Tryfman has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She has proctored teen courts at Dorsey and Hamilton high schools and last year received the peer-bestowed Gideon felony attorney of the year award.

Conversations on the campaign trail have helped her understand what works and what doesn’t in the justice system.

“It has reinforced for me that experience and knowledge of the law matter enormously, but so does how people are treated when they walk into a courtroom,” she said.

Tryfman said the heavy caseload of a public defender has prepared her for the bench’s rigors. She also cited her life experience as the daughter of immigrants, a single mother and a widow who was faced with the decision of whether to discontinue life support for her husband.

“Experiences like that teach you something about responsibility, compassion and judgment that cannot be learned from a law book,” she said.

Outside the office, Tryfman spent five years as president of the California Public Defenders Assn. and chaired the Rent Stabilization Commission for the city of Beverly Hills. She has served as vice chair of the L.A. County Bar Assn.’s Conference of California Bar Assns., where she helps develop state legislative proposals.

David Ross, L.A. County deputy alternate public defender

Bar rating: Qualified

Ross has more than three decades in the legal field, but it was not his original calling. The Los Angeles native served as a legislative aide to the late U.S. Rep. Floyd Fithian (D-Ind.) on Capitol Hill, then worked as a television journalist and documentary producer in Washington, D.C., Tennessee and Kansas.

“I grew up wanting to be Peter Jennings, not Clarence Darrow,” he told The Times.

Ross passed the bar in 1994, joined the Riverside County public defender’s office the following year and began as a Los Angeles County deputy alternate public defender in 2000. He has litigated 113 jury trials, conducted more than 2,000 preliminary hearings and represented some 10,000 indigent clients. Assigned to the Torrance office since 2018, he also has worked in the Bellflower, Long Beach and Pomona branches, among others.

Ross, who lives in Long Beach, said he has spoken with more than 60 Democratic clubs, unions and other organizations on the campaign trail and frequently has heard a desire for qualified and independent judges who will listen to all sides.

A priority would be ensuring that even if a party loses, they walk out of the courthouse knowing the judge paid attention.

Ross said his mix of legal and life experience and his time as a journalist, in which he “listened to real people, gathered the facts and told objective stories,” provide a unique perspective.

Dozens of groups have lined up behind the proposal, including the Trust for Public Land, TreePeople, Friends of the Los Angeles River and many others. At City Hall, the measure is backed by Rodriguez and several other council members as well as City Controller Kenneth Mejia.

Rodriguez and Mejia signed the ballot argument in favor of Charter Amendment PRK, as did Rev. Gregory Boyle, founder of Homeboy Industries, Nicole Chase, president and chief executive of the Boys & Girls Club of the San Fernando Valley, and several others.

Backers of the measure say the parks department provides an essential safety net for the city’s low-income residents, offering summer camps, sports activities and senior programs for free or at reduced prices.

When temperatures soar, the city’s recreation centers welcome residents who lack air conditioning. During emergencies, those facilities are converted into places of refuge from fires, floods or other disasters.

Despite those varied responsibilities, the department has been underfunded for years, said Tori Kjer, executive director of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust, who pushed for the measure to reach the ballot.

“If you talk to many Angelenos, they are unhappy with their local park, and that is because we have not funded it with the resources it needs,” she said.

Kjer said the department never recovered from the 2008 recession, when city leaders cut staffing by more than 25%, leaving it with about 1,500 workers last year. The city also began charging the department for the cost of water, electricity, trash pickup and other city services.

The measure aims to tackle the cost of what it takes to run a campaign and to broaden the pool of people who could run for office without being tethered to any individual, group or special interest.

“The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions,” the measure states.

There have been several attempts to allow for public campaign financing in California. Five charter cities, including Los Angeles, and at least 14 other states already allow some version of it.

“This bill will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns,” a Senate rules committee analysis states.

Money generated by Proposition 3, like the current tax, would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.

Then, because the state constitution requires minimum levels of spending on education, more dollars are freed up to pay for services including healthcare and the University of California and California State University systems, said Kayla Kitson, a senior analyst with the California Budget and Policy Center.

Proposition 3, like the current high-earners tax, has the added effect of raising the minimum levels of funding required to flow to K-12 schools and community colleges, because of the complicated formulas California uses to set its budget, Kitson said.

If Proposition 3 fails, the state could expect to lose between $5 billion and $15 billion annually in tax revenue starting in 2031, according to estimates from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The California Democratic Party is backing Ma, whose quarter-century in electoral politics includes stints on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in the State Assembly and on the State Board of Equalization. She was elected treasurer in 2019 and is termed out.

The California Republican Party has endorsed Romero, who has been campaigning with Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton on what the two term a “golden ticket” (though voters elect each office separately).

The Republican designation is relatively new for Romero. She was a Democrat when she served in the Legislature from 1998 to 2010. She became a Republican in 2024, asserting that Democratic party standards no longer aligned with her beliefs.

“I consider myself to be common sense, a new Republican with the values of American exceptionalism that once upon a time the Democratic party stood for, but it’s been overrun by the socialists and the communists that have taken over the party,” she told the Times.

Ma’s parents emigrated from China and eventually settled in New York. Her father started a design and manufacturing firm, and her mother was a high school art teacher. Fiona Ma played sports, was a Girl Scout — “a top cookie seller,” she boasts on her campaign website — and graduated from Rochester Institute of Technology. She moved to San Francisco, started an accounting practice and became a part-time field representative to Assemblymember John Burton. She won her San Francisco supervisor’s seat in 2002 and, four years later, was elected to the Assembly.

Romero grew up in a Catholic household in Barstow, with pictures of the Pope and President Kennedy on the walls. She described her parents, a railroad worker and a mother who once cleaned houses, as “Depression-era Democrats.”

She started in community college and eventually earned a PhD. She was a college professor, an L.A. Community College trustee and a city of L.A. charter reform commissioner before being elected to the state Assembly in 1998. She moved to the Senate in 2001 and became the first female majority leader. Today she lives in El Sereno.

For months before carrying out Canada’s deadliest school shooting in almost four decades, Jesse Van Rootselaar was consulting an unlikely adviser on how to perpetrate mass murder.

“In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal … Close quarters is its playground,” OpenAI’s ChatGPT guided the 18-year-old, according to reports.

On February 10, 2026, Van Rootselaar shot his mother and half-brother at home before going to a school in the small British Columbia town of Tumbler Ridge, where he killed another six people – including five students – before taking his own life.

Earlier this week, on October 14, US authorities charged a Washington State man with allegedly conspiring with Van Rootselaar to plan the attack. But the mass shooting incident has raised questions that go beyond the traditional legal understanding of culpability.

The British Columbia government in September filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, accusing them of failing to prevent the incident and claiming they were aware of the conversations that turned deadly. Families of the victims also filed separate lawsuits. OpenAI’s leadership issued a public apology for their failure to notify authorities.

The company has not responded to requests from Al Jazeera for its comments on the lawsuits.

But as the case against OpenAI progresses, it has spurred a familiar debate: Where should a line be drawn between reporting potentially dangerous behaviour and protecting an individual’s privacy?

“The question of whether companies should be required to turn such information over to law enforcement is extraordinarily difficult, particularly if they don’t already screen chats for indications of such types of threats,” United States-based civil liberties lawyer Jenin Younes told Al Jazeera.

“Forcing companies to implement a surveillance system implicates very serious civil liberties concerns, and that’s probably a bridge too far for me,” Younes added.

“On the other hand, AI gives individuals access to types and quantities of information they didn’t have previously that may facilitate the commission of mass casualty events, a concern it’s not easy to dismiss.”

AI’s ability to distinguish thoughts from threats

One of the biggest challenges facing AI companies is determining whether a user expressing violent thoughts actually intends to act on them.

In August, Anthropic, the company behind AI chatbot Claude, flagged a user to San Francisco police after discovering conversations allegedly threatening its CEO, Dario Amodei.

According to the San Francisco Standard, citing a police report, the user had claimed to possess an AR-15 gun and suggested he had Amodei “in his sights”.

However, when contacted by the newspaper, the man said he was joking and had no intention of carrying out any form of violence. The person was neither charged nor detained, the Standard said.

Fazl Barez, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford specialising in AI safety and governance, said current AI models cannot “reliably” determine whether an interaction with an AI chatbot “is purely hypothetical or is likely to lead to harmful behaviour”.

“Suppose you are a creative writer working on a fictional story and want to explore how a murder plot might unfold. From the context, it may be clear that this is simply a fictional narrative. If the threshold for flagging potentially harmful content is too low, such a writer could be wrongly flagged,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Similarly, consider a graduate student in biology or chemistry studying pathogens that, if misused, could have serious consequences. They might be trying to understand the risks associated with these pathogens and how to mitigate them. Such discussions may be necessary for legitimate research and education. Even when the subject matter is sensitive, they should not automatically be flagged without considering the broader context.”

The researcher said identifying a credible threat may require examining a user’s interactions across multiple conversations, rather than relying on isolated statements.

Barez said someone experiencing intrusive violent thoughts might turn to a chatbot for support, while another person planning an attack may reveal their intentions gradually across several conversations.

“Distinguishing between the two requires careful consideration of context, intent and patterns of behaviour, rather than relying on individual statements alone,” he added.

Chinmayi Sharma, a law professor at Fordham University, said the debate has parallels with the duty imposed on mental health professionals to warn identifiable third parties about credible threats.

However, she said there was a key difference – therapists have professional training, knowledge of their patients and enforceable standards governing their conduct. AI companies do not necessarily have comparable safeguards.

“My concern with AI companies is that right now there’s not a concerted effort to hire mental health professionals, sociologists, individuals that would have the unique expertise on what the indicators of threat are here,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

“Secondly, licensed professionals are accountable to concrete, legally enforceable standards in their discipline. We don’t have something like that for AI companies.”

The privacy dilemma

The privacy implications extend beyond whether AI companies can accurately identify threats. Millions of people use chatbots to discuss relationships, emotional distress, mental health concerns and deeply personal experiences.

Civil liberties lawyer Younes said many users may not realise how vulnerable those conversations could be to disclosure.

“They often reflect a person’s innermost thoughts, questions, and desires. The majority of people assume that these dialogues will never be viewed by another person,” Younes, president and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said.

Younes warned that the consequences of greater monitoring could extend well beyond those planning violence.

“If people fear their chats can be turned over to law enforcement simply because they express disturbing thoughts/violent fantasies etc, many will be dissuaded from using them,” she told Al Jazeera.

Younes argued that forcing companies to establish systems for monitoring users and reporting conversations could raise serious constitutional concerns in the US, including protections against unreasonable searches.

Meanwhile, Fordham’s Sharma also raised an issue about who could be disproportionately affected by heavy monitoring by AI chatbots.

“The concern is always there about either intentional or unintentional targeting, because if you have models trained on what we consider dangerous speech, they’re almost always going to reflect biases,” she said. “Certain minorities’ speech is over‑flagged as a threat, while other comparable speech is not.

“Even in a world in which everyone is benevolent, we should still be concerned about disparate outcomes,” she said, warning that machines could reproduce such disparities at scale.

‘Not a licensed therapist’ – When do AI companies become liable to report?

While AI companies may face moral pressure to prevent violence, their legal obligations are less clear, legal experts say.

Bryan Choi, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder, said US law recognises a duty to warn in certain circumstances, including when mental health professionals become aware of imminent threats or when a special relationship exists between parties.

But those principles do not necessarily apply to AI companies.

“Under present case law, it seems unlikely that a company such as OpenAI would be held to have such duties to warn,” Choi told Al Jazeera. “The chatbot is not a licensed therapist. There is no special relationship between the company and the victims.”

Choi said existing negligence and product liability laws could potentially be applied to AI companies, but proving responsibility would present significant challenges.

Finding a balance

Fordham’s Sharma suggested that independent institutions could help establish reporting standards rather than leaving decisions entirely to private companies or requiring immediate disclosure to police.

Such bodies she said could develop procedures for assessing threats and explore ways of sharing only relevant information while protecting users’ identities and other personal details.

Meanwhile, Younes argued that users should, at a minimum, be clearly informed about whether their conversations are monitored and what circumstances could lead to information being shared with law enforcement.

“This is almost certainly an issue that will be wrestled with over the coming years, and I’m not sure anyone knows the solution at this particular point in time,” she said.

“Events that have not yet occurred will likely influence how these policies are shaped.”

Carlos Dammeier, administrative law judge, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
Bar rating: Qualified

Dammeier began in law enforcement, working for a decade as a dispatcher, jailer and police officer. He went to law school and, for a quarter-century, represented police and other public-sector unions, “handling employee rights cases at every level from administrative hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said in an email.

In 2013, The Times reported, a law firm in which he was a named partner dissolved after two Costa Mesa City Council members sued one of his clients, the city police union, over legal and political tactics the politicians asserted were overly aggressive.

Dammeier recently said his team was the focus of “antiunion attacks by political forces” and said that after multiple investigations, none of the firm’s attorneys faced charges or disciplinary action.

In 2022, Dammeier became an administrative law judge. His campaign website states he has heard and issued decisions in more than 2,000 unemployment, disability and tax appeal cases.

Priorities are addressing case backlogs and making thoughtful, unbiased decisions.

“Win or lose, everyone needs to know they had fair treatment by our courts,” he said.

He ran for Superior Court seats in Merced and San Bernardino counties in March 2024, losing both races, and also ran unsuccessfully in San Bernardino County in 2016.

David Ross, deputy alternate public defender
Bar rating: Qualified

Ross worked as a legislative aide for an Indiana Democrat in Congress and as a TV reporter and documentary producer before becoming a lawyer in 1994, according to his campaign website.

His legal career began in Riverside County, where he served five years as a deputy public defender. In 2000, he became a Los Angeles County deputy alternate public defender in regional branches, including Long Beach and Compton. He has been at the Torrance office since 2018.

Ross, according to his website, has represented more than 10,000 indigent defendants and completed more than 110 jury trials.

A priority would be ensuring people feel recognized in his courtroom.

“My goal is to hear everyone out, so that even if a party ultimately loses, they will walk out of court knowing the judge listened,” he said in an email.

Troy W. Slaten, administrative law judge, state Department of Industrial Relations
Bar rating: Qualified

After roles as a child actor on “Cagney and Lacey” and “Parker Lewis Can’t Lose,” Slaten began a two-decade law career in 2005.

He first worked as a private criminal defense attorney, then spent 11 years at an international firm where he focused on criminal, civil and administrative law and, for a time, managed the criminal defense division. He’s regularly cited as a legal analyst on TV and in The Times.

Slaten volunteered as temporary Superior Court judge from 2016-20 and in 2021 became a full-time administrative law judge presiding over workers’ compensation hearings.

“I have uncovered fraud and have helped when injured workers have been denied healthcare and other benefits,” he said in an email.

He has twice run for Superior Court, falling short in 2020 and 2022.

He would prioritize fairness and efficiency. “I would work to ensure cases move forward in a timely and organized manner while preserving due process,” he said.

Outside the courtroom, Slaten announces and deejays UCLA men’s and women’s water polo games.

Donna Tryfman, L.A. County deputy public defender
Bar rating: Qualified

A deputy public defender since 1998, Tryfman has had assignments countywide. From 2016-19, she supervised 25 attorneys and mentored new hires as deputy in charge of Eastlake Juvenile Court. She’s worked in collaborative drug court, coordinating with prosecutors, judges and others to help individuals dealing with addiction.

Her current assignment is in the Major Crimes Unit, where she exclusively handles homicides with special circumstances.

Tryfman spent five years as president of the Public Defenders Assn., according to her campaign website, and has proctored a high school program on civic duties and constitutional principles. She has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She received the peer-decided Gideon Award as felony attorney of the year in 2025, her bio states.

“I would champion further access to justice by exploring and expanding digital access to the courts in underserved communities,” she said.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.

Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.

The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.

California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.

The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.

In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.

For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.

Business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Teachers Assn. and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California oppose the proposal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, who are running to replace Newsom, also have spoken out against it.

Opponents describe the wealth tax as a “flawed experiment” that will harm California’s economy because companies and rich people will flee the state.

“If they leave, it will create a huge hole in our budget, threatening core services like education, healthcare and public safety,” arguments against the proposition say.

Opponents of the measure say the proposal is an ineffective attempt to address the long-term effects of the healthcare cuts and would harm California’s economy and budget.

The state budget in California already is largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

Billionaires such as Palmer Luckey, the co-founder of defense tech startup Anduril Industries, and entrepreneur Mark Cuban have pushed back against the proposal on social media. Some tech executives have been relocating or moving their assets to try to avoid the potential tax. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has been cutting ties to California, relocating to Nevada while funding groups such as Building a Better California that are backing ballot measures that could nullify the billionaire tax.

More than $187 million has been spent opposing the proposition, with the bulk coming from Building a Better California, cryptocurrency company Ripple Labs and its co-founder Chris Larsen, data from the secretary of state show.

Proposition 39 is opposed by leading state Democrats, major civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and major labor unions in the state, who say the measure would disenfranchise eligible voters and expose voters to identity theft by forcing them to write personal ID numbers on mail ballot envelopes.

According to campaign finance reports, the ACLU of Northern California has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeating the measure. Quinn Delaney, a major Democratic donor and fundraiser for former President Obama, and Patty Quillin, a major philanthropist and wife of Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, both have given $1.5 million.

The Service Employees International Union Local 2015, which represents long-term caregivers, provided $1 million, the SEIU California State Council for Working People gave $500,000, and the California Teachers Assn., through its independent expenditure committee, gave another $500,000.

Arnulfo De La Cruz, president of SEIU California and SEIU Local 2015, said in a statement that the group’s members “know our nation is stronger when working people make their voices heard and have their ballots counted,” and that strict voter ID laws “are part of Trump and MAGA extremists’ agenda to rig the election system so they can cling onto their own power and get richer from corporate corruption.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) recently convened a news conference where a slate of Democratic leaders — including state Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — called on Californians to vote no on Proposition 39.

The Democrats called the measure a “dirty trick” from “Trump acolytes” akin to historic poll taxes designed to disenfranchise Black voters, and a power grab that would seriously harm millions of eligible voters, especially in Black and Latino communities.

“Proposition 39 is a direct assault on everything California stands for. Our people, our values and our fundamental belief that every eligible voter here in California deserves to have their voice heard and deserves to have their vote counted,” Rivas said.

Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” that take effect after Jan. 1, 2026. That includes financial assets, investment accounts, intellectual property, personal belongings and other assets used for retirement or financial planning.

It also would bar retroactive taxes on past earnings unless the state is using revenue from the tax to respond to emergencies such as a fire or a flood.

Proposition 42 could nullify Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax, because the two measures conflict with one another. If voters approve both, the one with the most “yes” votes generally would become law, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Proposition 42 could reduce state tax revenue but it’s unclear by how much, according to the office’s analysis. Currently, the state does tax certain personal property such as vehicles. It doesn’t tax people for owning financial assets like stocks and investment accounts but does tax income from them.

California Professional Firefighters, the California Federation of Teachers, the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California and the California School Employees Assn. all oppose the measure. They argue that it will make it harder to pass tax hikes to pay for police and fire departments, fix and repair local roads, staff local schools or backfill federal healthcare cuts.

They also argue that Proposition 43 skirts the California Supreme Court’s opinion on the threshold.

Gubnatorial candidate Xavier Becerra opposes Proposition 43. In a statement, he called corporations “special interests” that want the proposition to pass in order to block new taxes.

“Prop. 43 would hand special interests the power to block the resources our communities count on most: fire protection, safe roads, good schools,” Becerrra said.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Jarvis taxpayers group that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

The California Taxpayers Assn., the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce and others back the proposition. They say it would result in the government spending taxpayer dollars more wisely while improving transparency.

The bulk of the contributions to support the proposition have come from Building a Better California, data from the California secretary of state’s website show. Top contributors to Building a Better California include Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder; John Doerr, chairman of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins; and Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google.

Proposition 41 “requires more accountability, transparency and trackable progress of programs funded by our taxes, so that we stop funding failure and start funding successful outcomes,” a website for the proposition states.

As a candidate in 2022, Cohen said she’d conduct audits of homeless spending, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Employment Development Department if elected. However, her office didn’t do audits of homeless spending, a spokesperson said.

Cohen said her office sought funding from the governor and the state to conduct homeless audits but was denied. Her office clarified the request was for money for high-risk audit investments but didn’t specifically mention homelessness.

Cohen also acknowledged that she didn’t conduct reviews of the DMV and EDD, because, she said, other agencies were doing those audits and she didn’t want to duplicate their efforts.

After Cohen’s election, her office found itself in a public dispute over the state’s annual comprehensive financial report, a summary of California’s spending.

The report, published each year by the controller’s office, is used by credit agencies to monitor the state’s fiscal health and for years has been published months after it is due. Cohen blames other departments’ delays in turning over data as part of the reason for its chronic lateness.

The state auditor, a separate agency that reports to the state Legislature, launched its own audit about the timeliness of the report. In a 2025 letter, the auditor accused the controller’s office of spending more than a year “resisting an independent review” of the delayed report, which almost led to a legal showdown between the agencies.

Cohen, in an interview this year, said she succeeded in getting the report published closer to its due date. Her office also disputes the state auditor’s version of events.

Also this year, Cohen’s press officer secretly was recorded by a woman who pretended to be on a date with him. In the recording, the officer is heard saying that the office’s auditing team was cut by the state and that the office doesn’t have the resources to proactively perform audits. The recording was procured by conservative activist group O’Keefe Media.

Cohen called the recording illegal and declined to comment. The officer didn’t respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Organizations publicly opposing Proposition 44 include the California Medical Assn., the California Hospital Assn., which represents hospitals and health systems, the Assn. of California Healthcare Districts, which represents the state’s 76 public healthcare districts, the California Teachers Assn., the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliate, the state Democratic Party, the state Chamber of Commerce and Reform California, a conservative advocacy group.

Opponents say the proposition’s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted in the 90% of revenues, prompting clinics to cut programs to avoid financial penalties. A study commissioned by the California Primary Care Assn. found that clinics could face up to $1.7 billion in collective penalties in the first year of the measure’s implementation alone, an additional expense that could leave up to 88% of clinics operating in the red.

Opponents also say the measure adds an expensive layer of bureaucracy to the state’s budget and grants elected officials — in this case, the attorney general — authority to determine which services clinics can offer.

Fewer City Council meetings

McOsker, who represents the Harbor Area and parts of South L.A., said he’d like to spend less time on the 110 Freeway getting downtown and more time serving his community directly. He called the frequent council meetings the “most nonproductive part of my week.”

Many cities, including Long Beach, San Diego and Sacramento, have councils that meet just once a week, McOsker noted, adding that the council still could meet more frequently if needed.

Fewer meetings also would make it more likely for the council to settle issues at one meeting, he said — a benefit to constituents who show up at meetings only to see a vote on their issue deferred to another day.

Fewer meetings also may encourage people to instead attend council committee hearings, McOsker said, which often discuss measures in more detail and allow for robust public comment.

Rob Quan, an organizer with the watchdog group Unrig LA, opposes the amendment but said he would support fewer meetings if the council made other changes to improve public access to city government, including releasing meeting agendas further in advance and scheduling committee meetings in the evenings when more people can attend.

But Quan expressed skepticism the council would make those changes.

Rodriguez noted that Measure EE also includes a measure to raise fines for city ethics violations, which she described as a cynical attempt to shift the focus away from the reduced requirement for meetings.

“My big problem with EE is that it’s a ruse of reform,” she said.

Referendum signatures increase

Amendment EE also would make it harder for voters to overturn City Council actions through the use of ballot referendums.

To qualify a referendum for the ballot, petitioners must collect a number of signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election. Amendment EE would increase this threshold to 15% of ballots cast.

For example, 929,000 votes were cast in the 2022 mayoral general election — meaning referendums need about 93,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. With a 15% threshold, nearly 140,000 signatures would be needed.

McOsker said the change makes the number of signatures needed for referendums and voter initiatives consistent in the city charter. Both methods should have enough support from the public to make it to the ballot, he said.

“Measure EE seeks to make the ballot box powers equal to either overturn or to adopt legislation,” he said.

Quan took issue with that, noting that with ballot initiatives, organizers have four months to collect the required signatures. With a referendum, they have just 30 days.

“It is going to be functionally useless. There is going to be nobody that has the money to pull this off in 30 days,” he said.

The city’s most recent referendum effort came last year, when business groups sought to repeal the $30 minimum wage for tourism workers. The effort fell about 9,000 signatures short despite backing from Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, the American Hotel and Lodging Assn. and others.

More power to police and fire watchdogs

The L.A. Police Department inspector general and Fire Department independent assessor provide civilian oversight over their respective departments. Amendment EE would remove the ability for the police and fire commissions to stop an audit by their independent inspectors.

“As an independent entity, it is important for them to be able to proceed with the work that they deem appropriate,” McOsker said.

Quan said the reform is potentially helpful but said he knows of no instances in which commissions blocked an audit. Quan speculated that this was included — at the very top of the ballot measure — as a sweetener to help sell the less palatable provision to reduce the number of required council meetings. “It’s a really marginal reform,” he said.

Ethics commission changes

Amendment EE would increase civil fines — those imposed by a judge through the court system — to the same level as administrative fines levied by the ethics commission.

McOsker said the higher penalty should lead to fewer violations.

Quan said this was another marginal change, noting that under Charter Amendment ER, approved by voters in 2024, the ethics commission can impose fines of up to $15,000. Under EE, private citizens or others filing ethics suits in civil courts could seek fines of the same amount.

In addition, Amendment EE would ban ethics commissioners or the executive director from running for City Council or the LAUSD Board of Education for five years after they leave office.

McOsker acknowledged that there hasn’t been a precedent, but said “we need to anticipate the potential that someone could get on the commission and take a look at the seat they want and use their position to improve their chance of getting that office.”

A final change proposed by the amendment would clarify the definition of a “stakeholder” in the charter as it relates to who can sit on a neighborhood council, which makes recommendations to the City Council but lacks formal legislative power.

Stakeholders currently are defined as anyone who lives, works or owns real property within the neighborhood boundaries, or community organizations like chambers of commerce or nonprofits.

Kay Hartman, president of the Palms Neighborhood Council and chair of the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition’s subcommission on charter reform, said there was “no substantive change” to neighborhood councils in the amendment.

Whitesides was the first chief executive of Virgin Galactic, which employed hundreds of people in Antelope Valley. Previously, he worked on President Obama’s 2008 transition team and was chief of staff for NASA in the Obama administration. Whitesides co-founded nonprofit organization Megafire Action to advocate for policy solutions to prevent massive wildfires and served as a member of the Antelope Valley Economic Development and Growth Enterprise board of directors.

He was elected to Congress in 2024 and is running for reelection to continue creating jobs and expanding opportunity in California’s 27th District.

Gibbs was elected to Santa Clarita City Council in 2020 and chosen by his fellow council members to serve as mayor in 2023. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering from Cal Poly and, according to his campaign website, worked on the the Delta II, Delta IV and Atlas V rocket launch systems in the local aerospace industry. Gibbs has served on the board of the Boys and Girls Club, the Valley Industry Assn. and the Salvation Army, according to his website.

He is running for Congress because he feels Washington is broken and believes in “common sense, accountability, and putting our community ahead of politics,” he says on his website.

Tran, 45, is an attorney and U.S. Army veteran who served in the U.S. Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. He runs a pharmacy with his wife, Michelle. He is the son of refugees who fled communist Vietnam and grew up in the San Gabriel Valley, graduating from Rosemead High School.

Tran’s first term included small victories for his constituents, including helping trim processing time in the social security system for small businesses and individuals and small business loan payouts totaling $5 million this year, his office reported. He also delivered $1 million to the city of Cypress for flood prevention infrastructure.

He also has championed bills, such as the WARRIOR Act, which codifies a woman’s ability to serve in combat in the Armed Forces. He and Republican Rep. Don Bacon (Neb.) also teamed to author the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Foreign Interference Safeguard Act, which aims to protect such entities against hacking and cyberwarfare.

Tran is endorsed by the unions for Orange and Los Angeles counties’ deputy sheriffs, the International Assn. of Fire Fighters, the California Federation of Labor Unions and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Vo, who fled Vietnam as a child, served as the mayor of Cerritos while a member of the city council from 2020 to 2025. Vo, 50, recently retired after working as an officer for the Torrance Police Department since 1999.

On the city council, Vo touted some of Cerritos’ success, including the creation of the city’s annual Moon Festival, the extension of a Kia automotive dealership extension until 2045 and the redesign of the city’s website.

He differentiates himself from Tran by saying he is “not a career politician promising to fix D.C. from the inside.”

“I’ve spent my life doing the work on the ground and serving our community,” he said.

Vo is endorsed by the California Republican Party, Los Angeles County Lincoln Clubs, Orange County Supervisors Janet Nguyen and Don Wagner and a slew of city mayors from Fountain Valley to Garden Grove and Norwalk.

Kounalakis is well known in state politics. She is serving her final term as lieutenant governor, a largely ceremonial role that includes seats on various higher-education boards including the University of California Board of Regents and the California State University Board of Trustees.

A major Democratic donor, Kounalakis in 2023 launched a campaign to become California’s next governor before dropping out of the race and announcing in August 2025 she would run for state treasurer.

Kounalakis holds a master’s in business administration from UC Berkeley and is the daughter of Sacramento real estate magnate Angelo Tsakopolous. She spent 18 years working for AKT Development, the business her father founded, eventually becoming its president. In 2009, she was appointed to the U.S. ambassador post in Hungary by President Obama.

“I have been using my international experience serving the state as our representative for international trade and investment, which has a very heavy economic development piece to it,” she said this year.

Hawks is a retired businesswoman and a Republican activist. She has served as president of Palo Alto Republican Women Federated, been involved with the California Federation of Republican Women and has gathered signatures for the GOP-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39.

Hawks spent two decades working as an executive assistant at the Sacred Hearts School, a private Catholic school in the tony Silicon Valley town of Atherton, before her retirement in 2021. Before that, she worked in various human resources and office manager roles.

“I am a people person,” Hawks said on Assemblymember Carl DeMaio’s (R-San Diego) Reform California podcast. “I’ll get to know [the] rank-and-file in there, and I will garner their trust.”

Gabriel Buelna is running for Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees Seat 6.

(Gabriel Buelna)

Name: Gabriel Buelna

Age: 54

Occupation that appears on the ballot: member of the board of trustees, Los Angeles Community College District, Seat 6

Website: https://www.buelna4laccd.com/

Experience: Buelna serves on the board. He also is an attorney and teaches history and political science at Cal State Northridge. He previously led Plaza Community Services, a nonprofit that provides education, health and other services to children and families.

“I bring an unusual combination of personal, professional and governing experience,” he said. “I understand higher education from several perspectives — as an educator, a policymaker and someone who has spent much of his career working with families facing economic and social barriers.”

District challenges: “Our biggest challenge is not simply getting students through the door. It is making sure they can afford to remain enrolled, complete their education and translate that education into economic opportunity.” Among the barriers Buelna cited were the high cost of housing, food insecurity and child care.

Buelna said the board also must conduct strong fiscal oversight of the billions in voter-approved bond funds. “The board has a responsibility to ensure those resources are spent transparently, responsibly and in ways that produce measurable benefits for students,” he said.

Priorities: Buelna said his priorities include addressing student affordability, better connecting education to economic opportunity and “removing barriers to access and completion.”

He said the district needs to “move aggressively to implement” its commitment of up to $500 million for affordable student and staff housing and “strengthening food assistance, mental-health services and other basic-needs programs.” Buelna said the district also needs to expand career technical education and paid internships, while “strengthening transfer pathways for students seeking four-year degrees.”

In addition, he wants to expand multilingual education and support for working adults and students with families while “protecting immigrant and undocumented students.”

Budget: Buelna would continue to advocate for state and federal funds as well as community partnerships that bring additional resources to the colleges. He said the district also must scrutinize its own spending, including ensuring “major construction and capital projects are completed responsibly.”

“LACCD must be both an advocate for greater investment in community colleges and a responsible steward of the resources taxpayers have already provided,” he said.

Student enrollment and success: “We need to design our colleges around the students we actually serve rather than expecting students to adapt to unnecessary institutional barriers,” he said.

“LACCD students include recent high school graduates, working adults, immigrants, parents, first-generation college students and people returning to school for new skills. Their barriers are different, so our solutions must be flexible.”

Tonia Arey is running for the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees Seat 6.

(Tonia Arey)

Name: Tonia Arey

Age: 56

Occupation that appears on the ballot: realtor

Website: https://toniaarey.com/

Experience: In June, Arey ran unsuccessfully to represent District 3 on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, a campaign that allowed her to travel throughout the district to hear the concerns of constituents. “My experience in real estate, public advocacy and community engagement has taught me how to listen, solve problems, manage complex transactions, and hold people accountable,” she said. As a realtor, she said she handles contracts, budgets, negotiations, legal requirements and competing interests — helpful skills in a trustee role.

District challenges: “The biggest challenges facing the Los Angeles Community College District are campus safety, student success and career readiness, and accountability to students, employees, and taxpayers,” she said.

Arey would work to implement campus safety plans, support additional academic advising and career education and more “closely examine spending, contracts, program outcomes and administrative costs to ensure resources reach classrooms and directly support students.”

“Although LACCD is a four-year term, there are no term limits and current trustees can no longer be trusted,” she said.

Priorities: She cited campus safety, student success and career readiness, accountability and respect for employees.

Budget: Arey would review the district’s budget to “identify waste, duplication and spending that does not directly improve student outcomes” and said “cost reductions should begin with unnecessary administrative expenses, not classroom instruction, campus safety, counseling or essential student services.”

She‘d work to strengthen the competitive bidding process for contracts and work to ensure the district’s construction bond program is effectively managed. On the revenue side, she’d work to pursue government grants, raise money from donors and “explore responsible uses of underutilized district property.” She‘d also look at ways to boost enrollment, since state funding is tied to the number of students served.

Student enrollment and success: Arey would work to make “enrollment simpler, faster, and easier to navigate” and do more to help students who enter the classroom.

That includes flexible class offerings, basic needs assistance, robust counseling and the use of data to understand where students are falling through the cracks.

Randall Winston is running for Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees Seat 6.

(Randall Winston)

Name: Randall Winston

Age: 44

Occupation that appears on the ballot: architect

Website: https://www.randalljwinston.com/

Experience: Winston, a licensed architect and attorney, serves as Los Angeles’ deputy mayor of infrastructure and climate resilience under Mayor Karen Bass. This fall he is teaching a class in public sector leadership skills at West Los Angeles College and said he’s also lectured at UCLA and mentored graduate students.

Under former Gov. Jerry Brown, Winston ran the California Strategic Growth Council, which helps fund sustainable development.

District challenges: Winston listed enrollment and the inability of students to afford basic needs as major challenges. Citing the district’s $5.3-billion bond-funded construction program he said: “Every dollar lost to delays, litigation or fraud is a dollar not reaching students and the faculty and staff who serve them.”

Priorities: Winston’s priorities for the district include ensuring colleges are a pathway to opportunity and good jobs, students can afford basic needs and people historically shut out of higher education are let in.

All colleges should partner with labor and employers to offer apprenticeships and “family-sustaining union careers,” he said, and the district should expand dual enrollment to allow more high school students to earn college credit. He also cited a need to provide more support to groups like veterans and first-generation students.

Budget: Winston said boosting enrollment to increase state funding is the “most direct” way to increase revenue. He‘d also pursue other government funding as well as employer and philanthropic partnerships. There also needs to be “rigorous” oversight of the district’s construction program, he said.

“What I won’t do is balance budgets on instruction or on the people who deliver it,” he said. “Classrooms, faculty and staff come first.”

Student enrollment and success: Winston said most barriers to enrollment and student success are “logistical, not academic.” He‘d push to “invest in simplified onboarding, proactive advising and better counselor ratios.”

“Students who connect with a counselor early are far more likely to finish, and our counselors are stretched too thin to reach everyone who needs them,” he said.

Name: Roberto David LaCarra

Occupation that appears on the ballot: community college professor

Did not reply.