Navigating the upcoming 2024 elections can be challenging, but with insights from trusted voices, voters can make informed decisions. This voter guide, inspired by the recommendations of the renowned radio host John Kobylt, aims to provide clarity and direction for voters, particularly in California and Los Angeles County. Drawing upon Kobylt’s direct and no-nonsense style, and with input from organizations like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and former State Senator John Moorlach, this guide breaks down key races and propositions.
Presidential Election: A Clear Choice
Endorsement: Donald Trump
John Kobylt’s endorsement for President is clear: Donald Trump. The rationale is straightforward: Trump’s previous term provides a tangible record. Voters know what to expect based on his established policies and actions during his first four years in office. In contrast, the alternative, Kamala Harris, is critiqued for what is perceived as an undefined and insubstantial campaign. This endorsement emphasizes a preference for a known quantity over perceived political ambiguity.
Senate Race: Backing Steve Garvey
Endorsement: Steve Garvey (For both the unexpired and six-year terms)
In the California Senate race, Steve Garvey receives a strong endorsement for both the special election to fill an unexpired term and the full six-year term. Garvey is presented as a candidate with genuine convictions. Conversely, Adam Schiff, a prominent figure in the opposing camp, is heavily criticized, particularly for his role in the “Russian Collusion hoax,” suggesting a deep distrust and opposition to his candidacy.
Los Angeles County Races: Focusing on Law and Order
District Attorney: Nathan Hochman for a Return to Basics
Endorsement: Nathan Hochman
For Los Angeles County District Attorney, Nathan Hochman is the endorsed candidate. The core message here is a return to fundamental principles of law enforcement: prioritizing the imprisonment of criminals. This endorsement is a direct reaction against the current DA, George Gascon, who is described in extremely negative terms – labeled as the “worst, most destructive D.A.” in Los Angeles history and a “horrible failure.” This strongly signals a desire for a significant shift in the county’s approach to criminal justice.
LA City Council – 14th District: A Strategic Endorsement
Endorsement: Kevin De Leon
In a surprising move, John Kobylt endorses Kevin De Leon for City Council in the 14th District. This is highlighted as a “SHOCKER ENDORSEMENT!” because De Leon might not typically be Kobylt’s preferred candidate. However, this endorsement is framed as a strategic decision driven by strong opposition to De Leon’s opponent, Ysabel Jurado. Jurado is identified as a “radical, self-described socialist” and criticized for a recorded statement expressing extreme negativity towards the police (“F*** The Police”) in the context of LAPD funding. This endorsement underscores a prioritization of preventing a candidate perceived as radically anti-police from holding office, even if it means supporting a less ideologically aligned candidate.
California State Propositions: Navigating Key Ballot Measures
Prop 2: NO – Questioning School Bonds
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 2, concerning borrowing $10 billion for public schools, is recommended as a “NO” vote. The reasoning is rooted in skepticism about the effective use of funds within the education system. Concerns are raised about money being wasted on teacher salaries and pensions while student performance in core subjects like math and reading remains low. This “NO” vote reflects a demand for greater accountability and efficiency in educational spending.
Prop 3: YES – Aligning with Existing Law on Marriage
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 3, which aims to constitutionally allow two adults to marry regardless of sex, receives a “YES” recommendation. The justification is that this proposition essentially formalizes existing California law, making the Constitution consistent with current practices. It is presented as a largely symbolic change with minimal practical impact.
Prop 4: NO – Debt and Vague Climate Spending
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 4, proposing another $10 billion in borrowed funds for “climate” programs, water, and fire projects, is recommended as a “NO” vote. The primary concern is the state’s existing “tremendous debt.” Additionally, the proposition is criticized as a “racket” with vague objectives and no guarantee of benefiting the general public, suggesting that the funds might primarily benefit organizations administering the programs.
Prop 5: NO! NO! NO! – Strongly Opposing Lower Vote Threshold for Local Bonds
Recommendation: NO! NO! NO!
Proposition 5 receives an emphatic “NO! NO! NO!” recommendation, signaling strong opposition. This proposition, allowing local bond proposals to pass with 55% of the vote instead of a two-thirds majority, is deemed a “disaster.” The core concern is that it will lead to a surge in property tax increases due to the easier passage of local bond measures.
Prop 32: NO – Minimum Wage Hike Concerns
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 32, aiming to raise the minimum wage to $18 by January 1st, is recommended as a “NO” vote. The economic argument against it is that it will lead to job losses and increased prices. Instead of mandated wage increases, the recommendation suggests focusing on personal skill development and education to improve earning potential.
Prop 33: NO – Against Rent Control Expansion
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 33, which would significantly expand rent control, is recommended as a “NO” vote. The concern is that expanded rent control will disincentivize the construction of new rental housing. The argument is based on basic economics: if property owners cannot control rental prices, investment in new apartment buildings will decrease, ultimately reducing housing availability.
Prop 34: YES – Restricting Political Use of Federal Nonprofit Funds
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 34, restricting nonprofits receiving federal funding from using those funds for political activities and requiring them to focus on patient care, is recommended as a “YES” vote. This endorsement supports directing federal funds towards their intended purpose of patient care rather than political advocacy.
Prop 35: No Opinion – Neutral Stance
Recommendation: No opinion
For Proposition 35, a neutral stance is taken with “No opinion” provided, suggesting either insufficient information or a lack of strong feelings for or against the measure.
Prop 36: YES – Repealing Parts of Prop 47 for Stricter Crime Measures
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 36 is highlighted as the “most important proposition, by far” and receives a strong “YES” recommendation. It aims to repeal significant portions of Proposition 47, reclassifying repeated theft and drug use as felonies. It also introduces felony charges for fentanyl dealing and provides an option for treatment instead of jail for repeat drug offenses. This proposition is clearly endorsed as a crucial step towards stricter crime control measures.
Los Angeles County Measures: Taxing Homelessness?
Measure A: NO! NEVER! – Opposing Homeless Sales Tax
Recommendation: NO! NEVER!
Measure A, which would double the homeless sales tax and make it permanent, receives an extremely strong “NO! NEVER!” recommendation. It is criticized as a complete failure, similar to the assessment of DA Gascon. The argument is that despite the existing temporary sales tax intended to address homelessness, the homeless population has actually increased. This “NO” vote expresses deep dissatisfaction with the current approach to homelessness and resistance to increased taxes without demonstrable results.
Conclusion: Informed Voting in 2024
This voter guide, inspired by John Kobylt, provides clear recommendations for the 2024 elections, emphasizing conservative principles and a focus on law and order, fiscal responsibility, and limited government intervention. Voters are encouraged to consider these endorsements as they prepare to cast their ballots and shape the future of California and Los Angeles County.
