The Brief

In 2022, the Los Angeles electorate voted to slap the sale of mansions and other high-value real estate deals across the city with a hefty tax.

Locals have been debating Measure ULA ever since. Supporters call it a vital lifeline for the city’s unhoused and housing insecure who stand to benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars the initiative has already raked in. Critics call it an economic own-goal that has choked off new apartment construction in a city where new housing is in excruciatingly short supply.

That debate is about to go statewide.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a low tax advocacy group, is currently gathering signatures to put a measure on California's November 2026 ballot. A central part of their pitch: No more Measure ULAs.

The proposed constitutional amendment takes aim at two types of taxation common across California:

• Transfer taxes on the sale of real estate. The measure would cap rates at a little more than one-twentieth of one percent of the value of the property. Los Angeles' highest rate is one hundred-times higher.

• Local tax measures put on the ballot by voter-backed campaigns (as opposed those put there by city councils) that are earmarked for a particular purpose. The tax-capping proposal would raise the electoral support needed to pass these types of “special” tax measures to two-thirds, up from a simple majority of more than 50%. 

Municipal governments across the state stand to lose billions of dollars (with taxpayers standing to save just as much) if the measure ultimately succeeds. Voter-proposed tax hikes have been approved by simple majorities in cities and counties across California. Transfer tax hikes have also been a popular funding source for certain local governments.

Measure ULA, which 58% of Los Angeles voters backed in 2022, happens to be both. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and its political allies appear happy to make it the face of the statewide campaign.

Putting a lid on both citizen-initiated tax measures and high transfer taxes “is something that we have always had as a priority,” said Rob Lapsely, president of the California Business Roundtable, a coalition that has yet to take a formal position on the measure but which backed an earlier version. “The question was, ‘can we actually find the right opportunity?’”

“And then suddenly, along came Measure ULA.”

The fight over the “mansion tax”

The City of Los Angeles’ measure was sold to voters as a “mansion tax,” because it sticks new, elevated transfer fee rates on only the highest value sales: 4% on properties between $5 million and $10 million and 5.5% for those above that. Those numbers have inched up with inflation. All sales below those thresholds are taxed at roughly half of 1%.

Since going into effect in 2023, the measure has raised some $830 million for affordable housing construction, subsidies for cash-strapped renters and legal assistance for tenants facing eviction. It is by far the largest single contributor to the city’s overall homelessness spending.

But ULA has its critics. Not just a tax on mansions, the high rates apply to commercial, industrial and multifamily residential projects too, including land sales for new apartment developments. Apartment construction has indeed slowed to a crawl across the city in recent years and developers and researchers have laid at least some of the blame on the city’s high transfer taxes which they argue has driven new construction down further than in surrounding cities. One report by researchers at UCLA and the Rand Institute estimated that the measure has resulted in 1,910 fewer apartments per year, including 168 fewer affordable units. Another study by researchers at Harvard, UC Irvine and UC San Diego, found that property tax collections fell steeply as a result of the dramatic slow down in sales, off-setting an estimated 63% of the collect transfer tax revenue, if not significantly more.

Backers of the mansion tax have taken issue with the UCLA study in particular. They also note that the program is currently accepting applications for its first major distribution of funds, with plans to push nearly $400 million out the door, which could ultimately ramp up affordable housing development across the city.

But there’s growing concern, both in Los Angeles and among Democrats in Sacramento, that ULA as it currently exists has become a political vulnerability — and one that could fuel the campaign behind the statewide tax busting measure.

“Measure ULA is the tail wagging the dog,” said Mott Smith, a developer and board member of the California Infill Builders Association who co-authored another study that found a chilling effect on the housing market. “Anyone with assets in Los Angeles is like, ‘please where can I send my check to Howard Jarvis?’”

In the final days of the California Legislative session, Mayor Karen Bass and former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg tried to hammer a grand bargain into state law. Senate Bill 423 would have exempted certain new residential developments from the tax, offering a reprieve to many multifamily housing developers. It would have also given the city more flexibility to renegotiate affordability requirements on housing projects funded by the measure, addressing concerns by some developers and financiers that ULA cash comes with too many strings attached to be of use.

The bill would have also exempted homes destroyed in the recent wildfires.

But there was a catch: The ULA tweak would only go into effect if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association pulls its ballot measure or it fails to qualify for the ballot.

All of that ultimately proved too complicated, contentious and of questionable legality to ram through the Legislature in the final days of the session. Long Beach Sen. Lena Gonzalez and Inglewood Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, both Democrats, vowed to pick it up again in January.

But that may be too late to neuter the anti-tax campaign. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is already gathering signatures and raising funds.

“This was an attempt to cut us off early in the process, but since we’re moving forward I think the attempt to leverage this is not going to prevail,” Jon Coupal, the association’s president. “Their opportunity to ambush us is now over.”

That’s given local government groups billions of reasons to worry. Along with making it more challenging to raise revenue in the future, cities with existing high transfer taxes would see them slashed. Parcel taxes currently on the books that were approved by majorities of less than two-thirds would be similarly nixed.

Cities would lose between $2 billion and $3 billion each year if the measure becomes law, according to an analysis commissioned by the League of California Cities, a lobbying group. That includes hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone funding dedicated for new housing and homelessness services in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. But it also includes hundreds of millions more for cities that don’t use these transfer dollars for new, specific purposes and projects, but simply to top up their budgets.

The City of Berkeley, for example, stands to lose between $33 million and $63 million, according to the League’s analysis. That’s the equivalent of between 15% to 30% of the town’s general fund.

California’s favorite fight

Californians have been having some version of this fight for nearly half a century.

In 1978, voters passed Proposition 13, which capped property taxes and put strict limits on local and state governments’ ability to raise revenue. Defending, rolling back and revising those limits in court battles and subsequent state ballot measure campaigns is now a storied California political tradition.

The latest chapter begins in 2017 when the California Supreme Court ruled in a case against the southern California city of Upland that citizen-initiated special tax measures only need to get more than 50% of the vote to pass. Up until that point it was presumed that the required threshold was the much more electorally formidable two-thirds.

Since then cities and counties have passed two dozen of these measures by margins of less than two-thirds. That includes taxes on parcels, sales and gross receipts that have been used to fund local schools, parks, street repairs and housing and that have been put on the ballot by homeless advocates, environmentalists and organized labor groups. It also includes Measure ULA.

And since then, business groups have been clambering to close the “Upland loophole.”

“This is now the vehicle for unions and others to be able to try and pass new taxes on targeted business sectors using a majority vote,” said Lapsely. “That only hurts job growth.”

Over that same period some cities have also turned to transfer taxes as a new source of revenue. It’s a fiscal avenue only available to a select number of cities. Under state law, most municipalities max out their transfer taxes at 55 cents for every $1,000 in sale value. But for “charter cities” — local governments with their own municipal constitution — there is no upper limit. Twenty-six have taken advantage of that fiscal opportunity.

They include Santa Monica, which passed its own version of a high-value transfer tax (Measure GS) in 2022, and Los Angeles. Voters in cities across the San Francisco Bay Area have voted to make more modest or incremental hikes over the last 10 years.

Electoral hurdles to come

The transfer tax trend has particularly irked landlords and real estate developers.

Last year, they joined forces with anti-tax advocates and other business groups to rein in both types of bothersome taxation with a ballot measure. The California Supreme Court took the unusual step of striking it from the 2024 ballot, ruling that it proposed too “substantial” a change to state government to be enacted by a mere ballot measure.

This year’s version is much more carefully targeted making it less likely to hit this same constitutional snag.

But even if the signature gathering effort is successful, the Howard Jarvis campaign has its work cut out for it — even for a conservative-coded measure in reliably blue California. In late 2023, the Legislature floated its own head-spinning ballot measure that would require future initiatives that want to hike the threshold needed to pass other measures (see: the business-backed measure) to meet that same higher threshold (in this case, two-thirds) before becoming law.

That effort to hoist the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association on its own petard is already slated for the November 2026 election. If it passes, it would apply to any other measures also on the ballot.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Before he heads out the door, Gov. Gavin Newsom must decide whether California will join 31 states in a new multibillion-dollar school choice program, funded by private donations, that President Donald Trump included last year in his One Big Beautiful Bill.

Like most Democratic governors, Newsom hasn’t signaled whether he’ll opt in to the law that advocates promise will greatly increase full or partial scholarships to private and religious schools, while potentially paying for auxiliary services in public schools, like tutoring.

The law’s intentionally broad, unrestricted language has made it contentious, with contrasting scenarios for how the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program, also called the Education Freedom Tax Credit, will play out.

Under the program, an individual taxpayer can donate up to $1,700 annually to a qualifying grant-making organization, up to $3,400 for couples, and then receive a federal tax credit that lowers their taxes by the full amount. The nonprofit “scholarship-granting organizations” then combine individuals’ donations and distribute the money to school districts or to eligible families for private schools.

Advocates say federal tax credits will boost tuition assistance for families in voucher states, while introducing school choice in states like California, which bans using state funding for private and religious schools.

Although it was not their main intent, Republicans included public schools in the law. One nonpartisan analyst, Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, predicts that public schools will eventually become the biggest beneficiary, once they figure out how to tap into it.

“Given that anyone and everyone can donate without it costing them, it’s like a cost-free donation. We think the average taxpayer is going to lean toward donating to a [grant maker] that serves public schools.”

But opponents argue the program is a tactic to undermine public schools, which are already facing declining enrollments in blue states that have historically opposed voucher-like programs. One critic characterized the program as “a Trojan horse designed to bring the chaos of privatization into Democratic strongholds.”

Others say the program will primarily subsidize existing private school parents, not help low-income families trapped in their neighborhood schools. And the law’s free-market focus, its lack of oversight and failure to require civil rights protections will reinforce inequities and lead to abuse.

“The FSTC will become the largest source of waste, fraud and abuse we’ve seen in education — and most of it will be legal,” wrote Jon Valant, the director of Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.

Congress’ hands-off policy

Valant and other critics blame Congress for tying governors’ hands. Under the law, governors cannot add accountability provisions or favor some scholarship-granting organizations, called SGOs, over others, such as those that give to public schools. Once they opt in and submit a list of all SGOs, their job is done.

SGOs must check students’ income eligibility and audit the money, but they’re not required to monitor programs or keep school achievement records.

Thomas Toch, founding director of FutureEd, an independent education policy institute at Georgetown University, said Congress should have learned from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The law provided billions of dollars for parents in low-performing schools to obtain tutoring from contractors who were often unvetted, inexperienced and unmonitored. The Education Department’s inspector general found widespread fraud, falsified records, conflicts of interest and deceptive marketing.

“Sounds familiar,” Toch said.

Governors can’t tell the SGOs which students to serve, but SGOs can determine where to funnel dollars — to a public or private school, an elementary or high school, only to parochial school students or for specific programs. They’ll determine the scholarship amounts and the public school programs they’ll support.

There will be a wide universe of students to serve.

Students in families earning up to 300% of an area’s median income will be eligible — more than $400,000 in some wealthy Californian cities. Some donors may give to SGOs committed to services and scholarships for low-income children, but others may not.

The American Federation for Children, a proponent of the tax credit, projects that 51.7 million children — 90% of the total public and private school students — will be eligible for the benefits.

Based on an analysis of donors to a similar tax credit program in Ohio, Brookings predicts that more tax-credit program money will end up in wealthy communities. “We expect the FSTC to become a regressive funding source, even where those funds go to public school students.”

Lance Christensen, who has drafted school choice proposals as vice president of tax policy and government relations for the conservative California Policy Center, says the Brookings analysis is “shortsighted.” If 100,000 people — not even 1% of California’s 17 million income tax filers — donated $1,700, it would generate $170 million, he said. That amount would rise to $1.7 billion if one million taxpayers — only 6% of the state total — gave the maximum.

“You’re talking about real money that could impact the way that parents legitimately think about their kids’ education,” Christensen said. “We have a lot of kids right now that are stuck in a system that doesn’t work for them and hasn’t worked for them for a long time, and the parents are just really frustrated.”

The Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that, by 2030, more than 11 million taxpayers will contribute $26 billion for scholarships and other grants.

Two visions for California donations

So far, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis are the only Democratic governors among the 31 participating states to opt in. (Virginia joined before Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger took office.) This year’s opt-in deadline is Jan. 1.

Two Californians who hope for different reasons that Newsom will sign on are Rachel Elginsmith and Evan Marwell.

Elginsmith is chief executive of the BASIC Fund in Oakland, the state’s largest nonsectarian SGO. Since its founding in 1998, it has distributed $200 million in partial scholarships for 30,000 students, from preschool to eighth grade attending 266 Catholic and nonreligious schools in the Bay Area.

The BASIC Fund would be well positioned to capitalize on the tax-credit by expanding its base of donors. “It would be more money, more kids, bigger scholarships — more of what we’re doing. It would be exciting,” she said.

Marwell, a San Francisco nonprofit entrepreneur, founded EducationSuperHighway, which helped districts plan and fund high-speed internet during the pandemic, and then co-founded Ignite Reading, an online tutoring for the early grades. His new mission: rechartering the EducationSuperHighway into a national SGO that will compete for taxpayers who want to choose first grade tutoring in reading for their tax credit donation.

Marwell said he has reached out to 45 governors, and expects that Democratic states will opt in. They will see the success of Colorado and New York, he said, and “they will start to hear from voters, ‘Why the heck are you not allowing our kids to get these scholarships that we’re contributing to?’ ” 

Newsom’s dilemma

Newsom will get grief whether he opts in or out. The National Education Association and teachers unions in California will thrash him if he signs on. “Taxpayer dollars should go to public schools open to all students, not private schools that can pick and choose their students,” the NEA said in a press release.

If he doesn’t opt in, he’ll be criticized for denying low-income families money to close the achievement gap, while forcing California taxpayers to give to out-of-state SGOs. As New York Gov. Hochul said in her Oct. 9 announcement, “I’m not going to leave money on the table when it could help our kids.”

There is a third option — do nothing, citing fatal flaws in the tax credit program’s design. That’s the advice of Rachel Cantor, director of education policy at the Progressive Policy Institute.

“If I was advising a Democratic governor, I would say, ‘No, don’t opt in. Expand public school choice in your state so that people do have choices. But this is a risky way to do it if your goal is to improve educational quality and open opportunity for people who don’t have it.’ ”

What we know about Trump’s Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program

Gov. Gavin Newsom must decide whether California will join 31 other states in participating in President Donald Trump’s school choice program. Here is how the program works: 

• Governors must opt in by Jan. 1 annually to participate in the program.
• Federal income tax filers, whether living in a participating state or not, can receive a tax credit of up to $1,700 ($3,400 for couples) by donating to a state-approved Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO).
• Governors cannot determine which organizations can serve as SGOs, beyond requiring 501(c) (3) nonprofit status and compliance with state nonprofit laws.
• SGOs certify scholarship recipients; the family income of recipients must be below 300% of the median income in the counties they live in (more than $400,000 in wealthy counties).
• SGOs determine the size of scholarships and grants and where the money they collect can be spent; they must spend 90% of the money they collect on scholarships and grants.
• The FSTC law does not require academic reporting and accountability requirements of private schools receiving program funds.
• Private school scholarships can cover tuition, fees, uniforms, books, technology, transportation and certain room-and-board costs.
• Grants for public school recipients can cover tutoring, extended-day and summer programs, college credit or Advanced Placement courses and potentially services and other expenses not covered by students with disabilities’ individualized education programs.

Timeline for the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit

July 4, 2025: President Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill that includes the  Education Freedom Tax Credit, also known as the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit.

Oct. 1, 2026: U.S. Treasury Departmentreleases draft regulations for the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit (FSTC) program; 60-day public comment period begins.

Dec. 15, 2026: The Treasury Department will host a public hearing at the IRS building in Washington, D.C.

Dec. 31, 2026: Deadline for states to submit their participation in the FSTC.

Jan. 1, 2027: Individual taxpayers can begin donating contributions to eligible SGOs.

Feb. 15, 2027: Deadline for states to submit their list of eligible scholarship-granting organizations to the IRS.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to sit for a deposition in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC by Dec. 11.

The order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett came as lawyers for the British broadcaster complained that Trump had delayed his appearance. Charles Tobin, attorney for the BBC, said that with two months left in the discovery period, “we still haven’t been able to depose the plaintiff.”

He noted there was an agreed-upon date of Oct. 16, but that Trump had canceled it for a “matter of national importance.” Tobin said the Republican president was in fact campaigning in Georgia that day. “He was participating in party politics and prioritized that over sitting for the deposition,” Tobin said.

Lett said Trump must sit for a deposition by Dec. 11, or face sanctions up to dismissal of his lawsuit -– unless the discovery period was extended past Dec. 18.

Discovery, where lawyers for both sides exchange documents and other evidence, is scheduled to end Dec. 18, and the BBC’s attorneys want to make sure they have Trump’s deposition before that deadline. Lett said only the presiding judge assigned to the case can alter the trial schedule, and the defense said it would be open to scheduling the deposition at a later time if the trial schedule was also moved back.

Trump, who has often avoided depositions, filed his lawsuit against the BBC last December. He accused the publicly funded broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices related to a documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance.”

The BBC acknowledged that filmmakers spliced together quotes from different sections of the speech Trump delivered to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before the storming of the U.S. Capitol, to make it seem he was directly urging violence. The broadcaster apologized over the editing, and the head of the BBC and its top news executive both resigned. But the BBC has denied Trump’s claims that it defamed him.

Trump’s lawyers say Jack Smith lacks ‘personal knowledge’ of issues in the case

To bolster its defense, the broadcaster subpoenaed former special counsel Jack Smith earlier this month. Trump’s lawyers argued, in a joint filing asking for a hearing on the matter, that there was no good reason for Smith, who is not a party to the case, to appear.

Tobin, the BBC lawyer, told the judge Thursday that Smith has not objected to being deposed for this case, meaning the only objection is coming from Trump. Tobin said the BBC is not trying to relitigate the events of Jan. 6, but that Smith is one of the leading experts in what happened that day, and his deposition could lead the BBC to evidence that could help their case.

“We can argue later on whether his testimony is admissible,” Tobin said, “but we are entitled to that deposition.”

Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, said Smith has no personal knowledge of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech or Trump’s state of mind when he gave it. All of Smith’s knowledge about the case is secondhand, Brito argued, and the special counsel’s report, along with Smith’s testimony before Congress, is all public and available to the BBC’s attorneys, he said.

There was no immediate ruling with the hearing expected to resume in the afternoon after a lunch break.

Judge says the BBC can see membership records for Mar-a-Lago

Turning to the damages issue, the judge agreed that the BBC should be allowed to see records for the total number of applications for membership at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida from Jan. 6, 2020, through Jan. 6, 2026, as well as the total cost of membership and initiation fees for new applicants.

Tobin said one aspect of any defamation case is showing actual damages, and the popularity of Mar-a-Lago is a significant indicator of Trump’s reputation. The BBC’s lawyer described the private club as “a place where he exhibits his reputation in front of people who are important to him.”

Brito argued that Trump does not actually run Mar-a-Lago, and that his reputation is not associated with the club.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Get your costumes ready because the Halloween festivities are here!

From parties and scary movie screenings to galleries and trunk-or-treats, here are events to check out on the Eastside this spooky season. 

Halloween gallery at East LA Film Shop 

East LA Film Shop is partnering with Amigas Photogenicas to bring a Halloween-themed exhibit showcasing local photographers. The night will include music, giveaways, a photo booth, treats and more. Costumes are encouraged and prizes will be awarded to the best-dressed.

Museum on Haunted Hill: A celebration of Vincent Price

The Vincent Price Art Museum will host a celebration honoring horror actor icon Vincent Price. Enjoy screenings of his films as well as a costume party, with music, a photo booth and access to the exhibitions.

Horror movie night at Birrieria Don Boni

Writer and director Glitzel Gonzalez is hosting a double feature horror movie screening of “Lost Boys” and “Trick R Treat” to help fund her film, “NecalliI,” which highlights generations of immigrants facing ICE raids. The night will also include horror trivia, a costume contest, vendors and themed drinks and food.

Halloween party at Eastside Luv

Enjoy a fun night out at Eastside Luv’s Halloween Party presented by Bad Taste and Last Rockeros. Live bands will perform sets of garage rock, punk, and rock en español. Vinyl DJs will also play a set. 

Boyle Heights: Most Haunted Tours 

Hollenbeck Terrace used to be Linda Vista Hospital.

(

Alma Lucia

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

Halloweenizate 2026

Join The Wall Las Memorias’ 4th annual Halloween celebration, a night of community, wellness and costumes created for LGBTQ+ adults. The event will feature food, dancing, performances, mental health and wellness resources, and prizes for best costumes.

Trunk or Treat at Wilson High School

Wilson High School’s 5th annual Trunk or Treat event will include spooky activities, surprises and treats for the entire family. Don’t miss the opportunity to take photos at the pumpkin patch and create something special at the arts and crafts table. 

Legacy’s Halloween Harvest 

Get your costumes ready because the Halloween festivities are here!

Halloween party at Lincoln Park

The Lincoln Park Recreation Center is hosting a Halloween party for the entire family. Enjoy a spooktacular night of carnival games, mariachi performances, jumpers and a costume contest that begins at 6:30 p.m. A screening of the movie  “Coco” will start at 7:15 p.m.

Halloween Slime Party

The El Sereno Walking Club and Amara Colectiva are teaming up to bring a slime party for kids this Halloween. The community event will include a slime station, music, treats and drinks for the kids. The event is free but space is limited to 30 kids, so be sure to register online here. 

Wababoo! Bash Halloween

The Wabash Recreation Center is hosting an all-ages Halloween costume party. Kids will have the opportunity to trick-or-treat, play games, do face painting and enjoy some food.

“It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown” screening at Libros Schmibros Lending Library

Libros Schmibros will screen “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown” to mark the film’s 60th anniversary. Costumes are encouraged and free candy will be provided for those who attend. 

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

On a Friday evening in Boyle Heights, several dozen people gathered on Whittier Boulevard for a night out.

It was open mic night at InnerCity Struggle, but a crowd of about 60 got there an hour early. Elders, youth, Spanish and English speakers packed a room inside the community center with a larger mission in mind: They were training to become neighborhood vote protectors. 

Trainees were advised to encourage voters to stay in line. To observe, document and report any form of voter suppression. To know their First Amendment rights.

“These are your everyday community members … that came out for a common goal, which is to learn how to protect our community,” said Michelle Benavides, InnerCity Struggle’s director of civic engagement.

Voter education forums are being held across the state as California experiences a surge in immigration enforcement that community and labor organizations condemn as a coordinated campaign by the federal government to intimidate voters. That’s on top of the U.S. Department of Justice’s deployment of 1,000 federal election observers that State Attorney General Rob Bonta has labeled as “the source of interference.”

In Los Angeles, immigrant rights advocates and elected officials have urged residents to remain vigilant and to vote early, either by mail or by dropping their ballot off at an official ballot drop box as soon as possible.

“The timing of these actions, just weeks before the midterm elections, is no accident,” CHIRLA’s policy director Jeannette Zanipatin said at a convening with election leaders last Friday. “These tactics seek to silence immigrant communities, suppress civic participation and divide our neighborhoods.”

Commerce resident Martha Moya attended the training at InnerCity Struggle last Friday and shared an experience she had at a polling place some years ago when she was asked if she was a U.S. citizen as she prepared to drop off her mail-in ballot.

“It was ridiculous. If I wasn’t a citizen, then I wouldn’t have been there at all,” Moya recalled telling the worker. 

That experience emboldened her to fight for voter rights, she said.

A voter casts their ballot in the California Primary Election at Weingart East LA YMCA on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, in Los Angeles, Calif.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

The training on Friday was held in partnership with the nonprofit Catalyst California, through its coalition known as We Are California, which includes partners like CHIRLA and PICO California. The Can’t Stop California campaign is holding statewide vote protector trainings in Koreatown, the Inland Empire and the San Fernando Valley.

About 20 who attended the training signed up to monitor polls. Organizers said they can choose which poll locations they’d like to monitor. They’re encouraged to show up with a partner. Trainees will be provided with “NEIGHBORHOOD VOTE PROTECTOR” hats and T-shirts.

Residents were taught how to observe, document and report voter suppression at a training on Friday, Oct. 16 at InnerCity Struggle.

(

Alejandra Molina

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

Attendees of the training in Boyle Heights learned that intimidation tactics can include voters being blocked from accessing polling locations, being threatened with criminal actions or being questioned about their citizenship. People holding signs reading “Only Citizens Can Vote – We’ll Be Checking” are a form of voter intimidation, they learned.

The training covered how election workers are also at risk of intimidation if they’re disrupted from opening or closing polling locations or from counting ballots, and offered a hotline number to call if they witness any kind of suppression happening at their local polling sites.

Trainees discussed their First Amendment right to photograph or film anything in plain view, including law enforcement. However, they were told, filming anyone within 100 feet of a polling place could be interpreted as intimidation. 

Directing focus to voters and encouraging them to stay in line is key, they learned.

Kaylanie Santos, an 18-year-old first-time voter, attended the training. “There’s a lot more intimidation tactics than I realized,” she said. 

Santos said she planned to monitor polling sites on Election Day from a safe distance, despite the fear of being profiled.

“There should be people there protecting other people, help out the village, be there for another person even if you don’t know them. That’s your people. … It’s important to look out and defend,” Santos said.