CANDIDATE FORUMS
Listed below are all the Candidate Forums currently scheduled by all five Leagues in Santa Clara County. They are listed by date. Be sure to double click on the link to register for all those you wish to attend. If you register and can’t attend, you will still be sent the link to the recording of the forum. Remember that some of your districts may have changed due to redistricting. You can confirm those that will be on your ballot by accessing VOTE411.org for a c opy of your personal ballot.
SCC Board of Supervisors District 5 (currently represented by Supv. Simitian)
Hosted by: LWV SWSCV
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024 at 7:00 p.m.
Recording here: https://youtu.be/7FwFTbuF2FE
US Congressional District 16 (currently represented by Rep. Anna Eshoo)
Hosted by: LWV Palo Alto
Date: Saturday, Feb. 3, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.
Recording here:
SCC: Judge of the Superior Court, Office 5
Hosted by: LWV SWSCV
Date: Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Recording here: https://youtu.be/4WbX2bFullw
CA State Assembly District 23 (currently represented by Asm. Berman)
Hosted by: LWV Los Altos/Mountain View
Date: Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2024 at 7:00pm
Recording here: https://youtu.be/Uxx0l-Sa6xA
US Congressional District 17 (currently represented by Rep. Khanna)
Hosted by: LWV Cup/Sunnyvale
Date: Monday, Feb. 12 at 7:00pm
Recording here: https://youtu.be/wF_9tNy4NP4
CA State Senate 13 (currently represented by Sen. Becker )
Hosted by: LWV SWSCV
Date : Feb 12 2024 7:00 pm PT
Recording Here: https://youtu.be/5DsGjfQ2lr8
CA State Assembly District 26 (currently represented by Asm. Low)
Hosted by: LWV Cupertino/Sunnyvale
Date: Thursday, Feb. 15, 2024 at 7:00pm
Recording here: https://youtu.be/Wam5KeE6xeg
Our League is not hosting a Primary Candidate Forum for CA State Assembly District 28, which covers Los Gatos and Monte Sereno, because there are only two candidates. Thus, current Assemblyperson Gail Pellerin and Candidate Liz Lawler will appear on the November ballot.
PROS and CONS
There is only one state measure on the primary ballot, Prop 1, which actually proposes two items: reallocation of some of the current funds counties receive as part of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) passed in 2004, and a bond measure to build more facilities for mental health needs and housing for the homeless. You can find much more detailed and unbiased, neutral information in the links below.
- Pros & Cons - The shareable PDF version is available and has excellent information on Prop 1.
- Pros & Cons video - The video explainer is available on YouTube. You can also find the slide deck.
- Easy Voter Guide - Our Easy Voter Guide helps the election make sense. English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese language versions are currently available at easyvoterguide.org. The Easy Voter Guide also has an excellent analysis of Prop 1.
LWVC ADVOCACY: VOTE WITH THE LEAGUE
VOTE NO ON PROP 1: Mental Health Care and Addiction Treatment Reform & Bonds to Build Places for Treatment and Supportive Housing.
Although California has a critical need to resource better mental health and addiction services and to address our crisis of homelessness, the League of Women Voters of California opposes Proposition 1 for a number of important reasons. While the additional housing resources offered through Prop 1 are sorely needed, they do not outweigh its flaws.
The bond portion of the measure was rushed through the legislature with last-minute amendments that opened the door to funding involuntary treatment in locked facilities. The rushed nature of these amendments precluded substantive debate and ignored arguments from diverse community-based organizations and health care and civil rights advocates. These groups contend that community-based care is more effective than institutionalization and that incentivizing institutionalization will both lead to worse health outcomes and curtail individual liberties.
Furthermore, Prop 1 does not increase the overall funding for mental health services for counties – the bond money is to build treatment units and supportive housing. Under the changes this measure makes to the Mental Health Services Act, more of the money received by counties must be used for housing of a certain group of patients and for intensive, personalized support services like assistance finding employment and accessing educational opportunities. This reallocation reduces the funds available for other mental health services that counties currently offer to patients, like treatment, crisis response, and outreach. It has the overall effect of reducing counties’ ability to set priorities based on local needs for mental health services. Any variances that may allow counties to spend more or less on specific categories would increase their administrative costs and do not erase the lack of flexibility they would have to meet specific needs.
Finally, budgetary decisions should be made by the legislature, not by earmarking funds through ballot initiatives. Earmarking restricts the counties and the state from redirecting funds to alternative models of care that may arise in the future, or to other emerging and essential needs.
VOTE NO ON PROP 1
