This One’s the Most Important Election of All Time Too
29 Friday May 2026
Written by redqueeninla in AD55 Newsletter, CA, COLA, Education, June 2026 Primary, Los Angeles County
Below please find my election choices for California’s June 2, 2026 primary ballot.
These are filtered for the two priorities which I understand to be imperative threats to our democracy, at this time. And I believe this prioritization should therefore be the driver of our electoral decisions:
- Privatizing and privatization; off-sourcing government – the method, and means, whereby the people’s money and mandate, trades hands with oligarchs and their tech-mediated, single-minded drive for personal wealth. It must be attenuated. And, …
- Fascism, which is the ideology and guiding principle underlying the application so threatening us all, as described in (1) above.
For a dozen years or more I have been learning and writing about privatization in its full glory across the education sector (please peruse this blog for more). Sold as “school choice”, one vehicle of which has been “charter schools”, there exist many ideologies and packages and buzz words for this “application”, from ‘Education Reform’ to ‘parent trigger’ to ‘portfolio models’ of schools management.
But the bottom line is the same: private control of public monies and spending. Such a deal… for the private entity. The people’s money, gobs of it, siphoned into the private pockets of oligarchs, a term popularized at the fall of the Soviet Union when droves of people (a prime example of whom moves in the LA-education world, as LAUSD’s former Superintendent and one-time mayoral hopeful Austin Beutner), made off with fortunes around the collapse of state-run industries and institutions.
So, engineering such collapse is at the heart of privatization, and we’re seeing plenty of it here and now. From captured narratives (‘my Post office branch does a great job (and my personal mail carrier is exceptional), but the institution is a mess from structurally mandated deficits to functional failures driven by management and leadership sabotage’; ‘my neighborhood school is fantabulous but those poor people in {xyz} suffer from failing schools and left-behind children, you wouldn’t understand because your children are not at such risk….’; yadayada), to out and out capture of migrants, immigrants and green card holders – US citizens.
The collapse paradigm is this: Broadcast a problem, Make it so through defunding and sabotage; Define one solution which just so happens to exclusively advantage private, and not public, interests; Collapse the public, Drain what’s left into private pockets. The playing field has morphed from disaster capitalism to a fraudulent-field of faked-failure in the face of fascism.
Like it or not, believe it or not, I was raised in a democratic socialist America – that is “… a political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy.” I want a country regulated for and by the people, centered on public health and welfare, based in science and fact. My choices for this election are cast through a lens that filters for oligarchy, plutocracy, and fascism, the existential threat to America just now.
Some ground rules. Because I write “too many words”, but recognize people just want to know “the answer,” not necessarily the logic driving it, what follows is a list of each race and my “answer”, linked by footnote to the rationale for those interested.
These are my opinions alone, developed over years now as a delegate to the Democratic Party of California, its Children’s Caucus’ chair, a Los Angeles County Dem Club co-founder, a biostatistician and data analyst, and… parent. Not to mention sentient human being and citizen.
Angle brackets following a race signify the number of unique <#incumbent, #challenger> high gloss mailers (totaling 3 lb-5 oz!) received at this westside (City of LA council district 11/Assembly district 55) household. The significance of this is not particularly clear nor uniform. In some cases the senders, particularly independent-expenditure committees (IEs or PACs), may intend to derail a candidacy; there is a vague sense that the volume and amount of money spent is a proxy measure for the desperation. Likewise the hubris of boosterism may reflect a loose connection to fact and truth amongst the shadow of glossy communications. Volume alone has different meaning between races since districts can be of very differing sizes from statewide to relatively small council district.
Candidates’ names are followed by the line they appear on the Los Angeles County ballot, and incumbency status in parentheses. When the seat is open with no challenger, this is blank. Candidate line order may differ between Counties. LAC Bar Association ratings are noted in curly brackets. These are strictly qualification rankings, so none exists where there is no challenger, and these are not an ideological analysis or assessment.
Practicalities. How to cast your own Vote ~
- First choice is using your VoteByMail ballot which should have arrived to your home, completing, SIGNING the envelope, and dropping this to a
- (a) Vote Center or
- (b) 24-hour yellow ballot box (eg: libraries, government centers, some parks).
- Second choice is to vote in person at a
- Vote Center. This is less-preferred since the ballot is long, overwhelming and in the case of electronic ballots some races are split across multiple pages, making it easy to miss your candidate or make a mistake. Far better to de-stress at your kitchen table and mark carefully. Also, no paper trail with in person Vote Center, just inscrutable QR code.
- Last choice is to use the USPS mail or its mailboxes. There was chicanery around the postal service ballot -> registrar delivery in previous elections and it is not worth the risk: utilize the County’s yellow drop boxes instead!
County 24-hour yellow drop boxes are safe and accessible and bypass the political weaponization (read: privatization wars) of our national postal system. The drop boxes are locked at the close of the polls on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, 8pm. While you can vote after this time if you are in line in person at a Vote Center, your dropped ballot must be in the box by that timed deadline.
>> Note that if you are eligible to vote in the City of LA’s streetlight assessment race, that ballot should also have arrived in your mailbox already. Instructions around the return of this ballot have been contradictory. But confirmed with both the City and County, it is alright to use the County yellow drop boxes to return your streetlights ballot by close of the polls on Tuesday, 6/2/26 @ 8pm. Streetlight ballots received timely will be sorted in Norwalk by the County, and driven back to the City for counting. The same 10 day grace period will apply for City and County to allow timely-submitted ballots to find their way to counting centers.
Sign up to track your County Registrar ballot via ballot trax here.
If necessary, check your voter registration here. Same-day registration for a provisional ballot that will be counted later, after verification and before the cessation of the 10 day counting grace period, is available at Vote Centers only.
Local representation to:
City of Los Angeles
Mayor[1] <0,1>: KarenRuthBass (line 8; incumbent)
City Attorney[2] <2,8>: HydeeFeldsteinSoto (line 3; incumbent)
Controller[3] <4,1>: ZachSokoloff (line 2; challenger)
City Council, CD11[4] <17, 10>: Faizah Malik (line 2; challenger)
Schools[5]
LAUSD, BD4[6]: AnkurPatel <6,0> (line 1; challenger)
Glendale[7]
State government[8]
State Senate <1>: LolaSmallwood-Cuevas (line 3; incumbent)
State Assembly: IsaacGBryan (line 1; incumbent)
Out-of-district: SionRoy[9]
Federal government
House of Representatives [10] <2>: TedWLieu (line 1; incumbent)
Measures
CB[11]: No
TC[12]: Yes
TT[13]: Yes
Street Lights[14] (separate ballot! – may go into County yellow drop boxes): Yes <3>
Countywide representation to:
Los Angeles County
Supervisor[15]: 3rd District ~ LindsayPHorvath (line 2; incumbent)
Sheriff[16]: EricStrong (line 1; challenger)
Assessor[17]: JeffreyPrang (line 2; incumbent)
Superior Court Judges[18] (uncontested races have no line descriptor) {LA Bar ratings code: “E” = ‘Exceptionally’, “W” = ‘Well’, “Q” = ‘Qualified’}
Office #2[19]: TalValbuena (line 2; challenger) {Q}
Office #14[20]: IreneLee (line 1) {WQ}
Office #39: BinhQDang
Office #60: AnnMMaurer
Office #64[21]: MariaGhobadi (line 1) {WQ}
Office #65[22]: ChelleiGJimenez (line 1) {Q}
Office #66[23]: BenForer (line 2) {WQ}
Office #81[24]: DavidWalgren (line 1; incumbent) {EWQ}
Office #87[25]: Anthony(AJ)Bayne (line 3) {WQ}
Office #116[26]: PatConnolly (line 2; incumbent) {WQ}
Office #131[27]: DonnaTryfman (line 3) {Q}
Office #141: MariellaTorres
Office #176[28]: ZacharySmith (line 2) {Q}
Office #181[29]: RyanDibble (line 2) {WQ}
Office #196: CandiceJHenry
Measures
ER[30] <9>: Yes
Statewide representation to:
California
Governor[31] <8>:
Lieutenant Governor[32] <2>: OliverMa (line14)
Secretary of State[33]: ShirleyNWeber (line 4; incumbent)
Controller[34]: MaliaMCohen (line 2; incumbent)
Treasurer[35]<4>: EleniKounalakis (line 5)
Attorney General[36]: RobBonta (line 2; incumbent)
Insurance Commissioner[37] <15>: BenAllen (line 8)
Board of Equalization[38] <1>: SamuelSSukaton (line 5)
Superintendent of Public Instruction[39] <3>: NichelleMHenderson (line 2)
[1] CoLA Mayor. I’m voting for K Bass. She’s a people’s choice, not a consultant’s. Her mayoralty may have fallen short of sky-writable stellar. Yet her administration is serious, focused, Hermione-geekish and compassion-based. Without drama they are inching governance forward, in contrast with the promise of her reality-star challengers, explicit and implied.
[2] Likewise the race for CoLA Attorney is beset by reality-TV drama: hubris, falsehoods around experience, and an excess of puffery. Our incumbent CA is doing the job of being a lawyer to/for city employees. The results are complex, not always ‘drama-ready’. For example, because far too many LAPD misbehave on the beat, working for democracy, yet even the disgraced deserve legal representation, … when CoLA declines to represent these individuals for ethical reasons, outside counsel will appear on the people’s books, our books, in order to sustain internal ethical employment practices and ethical prosecutorial prerogative; to hold LAPD to account, not the opposite. A single entity cannot accuse and defend simultaneously, so outside council is employed for our employees. The appearance is opposite from heralded. And likewise, claiming to do things not actually in your purview, is not courage, not innovation, it’s vanity and buffoonery. I will vote to sustain H Feldstein Soto’s tenure as public servant. Even while insisting on the prerogative of specifics: there should be zero tolerance of monopolistic, predatory real estate investment trusts in our midst.
[3] The CoLA Controller election is case-in-point for hubris and puffery, because – as former Controller Chick hilariously puts it, “… [Mejia], elected to be the taxpayers’ watchdog, has barked loudly but done little to improve the City or the lives of its people.” His campaigns feature performance art with social media as venue. In the end this nominal-accountant has put forth little actual-accountancy on the part of the public. Just pointing to budget proportionality amounts to correlation fallacy (false relation to causation) and lack of analysis around priorities or efficiency. Sniggering immaturity is not serious governance; we deserve someone who will at least try. I will vote for Z Sokoloff.
[4] I live in Council District 11 and the choice is awful. T Park has been an embarrassment ideologically and de facto. From insultingly bad constituent services to compassion-free focus against immigrants and the poor, and rampant housing-incompetence, even while espousing pro militarization amongst first responders to ICE. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for her. Her opponent is no panacea. While claiming the mantel of housing justice warrior, her own record in this realm is sparse to suspect. Even while her personal family prosperity draws from the very source that there is no justice in housing: investment speculation in housing – CBRE (kin to the better-known BlackRock, among others). Being “not a principal” at CBRE is no mitigation or justification or excuse: CBRE and venture housing speculation is the very source of the problem Malik seeks to address, yet she benefits from it personally. To me, that is disqualifying as any likely true provisioner of solution (cf the immorality and impossibility sketched above of being both accuser and defense simultaneously). Ugh. I have designed primary filters for this election to include anti-fascism, so my vote choice might switch at the last moment; I am so unhappy with either choice.
[5, 6] Schoolboards – my own is LAUSD BD4 captured for nearly a decade, since 2017, by the westside of LA’s own plutocrat-groomed, favorite son, charter school favorer and enabler, the union busting (see Vergara) and former undercover charter school lobby rooky-councilor. “Good Democrat” though he may claim to be and mindful that EducationReform as a doctrine is also driven from the left, I remain a never-he-whose-incumbent-name-I-can’t-bear-to-utter. I am voting instead for A Patel.
[7] In Glendale is a battle extraordinaire against MAGA control, in both schools and city council boardmember elections. Fascism is an existential threat, weaponized by an honest fear of education’s influence and a spurious terror of gender dysphoria. There is a difference between influence and indoctrination; particulars and propaganda. It is vital to support the candidates who will fight best against bigotry and fascism. That means (a) winning and (b) fighting with vigor, pushing back effectively. I support the teacher’s union choice {I Gunnell, S Kevorkian} though there are candidates tremendously well-qualified and apparently great in their own right.
But this election is a cooperative fight for community – and democracy. The pair above are most likely to prevail in that fight, as chosen by their incipient allies on the board currently and at the schoolsite. Gunnell/Kevorkian would therefore be my choice (not just a selection).
In LAUSD BD2, R Rivas is the stark, clear selection. Likewise not just ‘better’, but flat-out the “best”.
[8] Though their influence is statewide and national, our state senator, assembly member and congressional representatives all are elected “locally”.
I have not been thrilled by the innovation or legislative accomplishments of any of these representatives but in the absence of strong challengers, am not likely to vote against the incumbent. Asm I Bryan (AD55) has been focused on criminal and social justice with many good bills passed in the last session. He deserves the chance to carry on this work.
[9] In state Senate District 24, S Roy would be my choice as a physician capable of withstanding the hospital’s lobbying to thwart a single payer healthcare system. We are so well-passed the need to see universal healthcare enacted. Come November when HR1 kicks in, we will all be hurting tremendously and needing expertise in the right places.
[10] Likewise for our federal representative T Lieu. I have appreciated his strong words opposing DJT and yet, do not see the results in opposition needed. But in the absence of a strong challenger, do not see the point in voting against incumbency.
[11] Measure CB proposes to tax unlicensed cannabis businesses the same as licensed ones. Which sounds reasonable until … recognizing this gives an imprimatur to no-licensure, a perverse incentive that serves no one well. We institute laws for the good of the Commons, because they are useful. Undermining that by tacitly condoning no-licensure is silly, and the end-run around licensure is unworkable as well. An unlicensed shop brought to heel for paying taxes will simply shut down and change names, so… neu? Taxing an enterprise that is considered illegal is like voting democratically to shut down democracy: don’t undo what you are. How do you do and not-do the same thing at the same time? I’m voting no.
[12] Measure TC is nominally similar to CB in the sense that it goes after taxes that should have been being collected. But this measure isn’t undermining rules, it supports and upholds the principle there already. There is an actual loophole to close in occupancy taxation: online vendors must charge this tax the same as any vendor would in person. Making it so is a no-brainer: I’m a yes.
[13] Measure TT proposes to increase that occupancy tax which is paid by out-of-town visitors – by two percentage points through the Olympics, then lower it back down one percentage point afterwards. So lower increase long-term, but the tax hike is not erased. I’m a yes; you can’t run a city without money. Prop 13 has crippled tax revenue and we need public income not held to 1970’s ransom. The tax could be more progressive if it were actually designed without denial, but it’s a start. Its only opposition is from Republicans who believe taxes are an inherent problem, rather than the means to purchase the kind of society we want and need.
[14] There’s one more local measure, the streetlights measure, which arrives via separate ballot; it’s administered by the CoLA and not the County. You must mail it back separately*. The measure is a “special benefit assessment” for property owners, a process mandated since 1996 to focus payment and beneficiaries. Judging from my neighbor’s reaction, it seems unlikely to pass without the raising of more information and consciousness. CoLA’s streetlight operating budget was frozen in 1996 and by now current infrastructure is just decrepit. With skyrocketing copper wire vandalism, the problem accelerates in affect. Infrastructure matters and needs maintenance. I’m voting yes.
[15] There are three challengers to incumbent Supervisor of the 3rd District, L Horvath, and none appears to be a registered voter. I am not happy with the political gamesmanship of our Supervisor, but I cannot see how one could vote for a politician who has not engaged civically or actively. I have heard nothing from these candidates and cannot recommend any.
[16] The race for Sheriff is a rerun of last cycle’s three-way contest, with the specter of former Sheriff Villanueva presenting an electoral threat of split vote between the more conservative, law/order and arguably inadequately reformist “challenger”-now-incumbent, R Luna, and his challenger, bonafide Democrat, Eric Strong. We’re told we cannot ‘afford’ to enable return of the former Sheriff and therefore to keep MAGA at bay we must reup the conservative Luna. Yet, it would be nice to vote for the truly Democratic E Strong because he’s who we want, not against him from out of fear. I am voting my heart not political stratagem. If you fear the return of radical rightism more than good-enough/too-conservative Luna, then choose him instead.
[17] The race for County Assessor is a pleasure for its non-drama. Incumbent J Prang is a great politician to like. He has been an active, engaged truly public service for decades. Not grasping upward on some political trajectory but finding his métier and working with that. He recently brought millions into LAC’s coffers by assessing yachts that were being falsely stabled out-of-state. His modernization efforts have saved taxpayers millions and facilitated processes sorely in need of improvement. His is a record we can be proud of for electing him to this office.
[18] These nominal offices have no inherent meaning whatsoever. There is no room, there is no physical office attached with the number given. There is no challenge for a specific job description even. The winners of these “offices” go into an employment pool from which judges are assigned to various courts not as a function of this “office” they have won, but rather as a function of their own skill set and system need.
This is a wholly artificially constructed electoral setup. If ever there were a system that could benefit from ranked choice voting these judicial races would be it. The totality of candidates should be tossed into one single candidate pool from which the number of places available are elected at large.
In this case there are fifteen “offices” for consideration and thirty two candidates. All should be rankable by voters, and the top 15 vote-getters assigned to the judge pool. Gone would be artificial contests where wonderful candidates compete resulting in losers who may be far superior to others in uncontested races. Why not jettison this artificial opposition and avail ourselves of the cream of the lot rather than dividing, separating and parsing quality?
[19] T Valbuena is young and energetic, brings diversity to the bench and a stark contrast with the incumbent who conducts suspiciously racialized discussions and has clearly passed his sell-by date.
[20] This is a hard race to choose and therefore unlikely to matter terribly in the outcome: either way is fine. I Leeis judged by the LA Bar to be better-qualified than Christides, but these are narrow distinctions of point-in-time rather than underlying capacity. Both seem observant and compassionate and in such cases I often ask ‘whom would the system feel more absence from the loss of as advocate?’ To me Christides seems likely to be such a superior advocate that it is in front of the bench where she best belongs, not behind it?
[21] M Ghobadi is simply a delightful, diligent, dedicated, hard worker. We should be so lucky to have her as judge.
[22] Office 64 is another race with many equally qualified and seemingly good choices. But for different reasons. J Clayton would bring an extremely important homeboy perspective. His manner has morphed through the election cycle from impresario to a far more thoughtful demeanor. The ability to code switch seems manifest and would likely be an important understanding-skill to bring to the bench. But the element of showmanship can feel forced, not that it’s there always. Still I was moved by the stories of C Jimenez and her different legal background as a private-sector, rather than public lawyer. That third realm is rarely represented at all in the tango between public defender:prosecutor.
[23] B Forer is not only judged better qualified than his opponent but is a tremendously talented and moral person in his own right. Another tremendous asset on an absolute basis.
[24] The rare designation of exceptionally well qualified makes incumbent D Walgren an easy choice compared with his perennial candidate challenger.
[25] A Bayne is the strongest candidate in this race, judged better-qualified by the LA Bar than either challenger. There is an air of entitlement to the college professor that startled. Transient perhaps but given the higher bar rating this choice feels more right.
[26] This is a hard choice because while the incumbent judge has been admonished three times for intemperate remarks, for which he offers an explanation and apology, his challenger seems clearly driven by singular animus in a display of non-judicial temperament that also gives pause, in a less-qualified package. I will go with the sitting judge P Connolly because the focused judgement amidst broad ignorance of the actual process in which he is engaging, fairly exudes from the challenger even in a supposedly neutral, candidate space. That challenger’s-route would seem to be out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire.
[27] PD D Tryfman gives kind and strong vibes that match her reputation as courageous in defending against improper deportment. All challengers are equally qualified in this race but the sharpness of interest coming from this candidate was compelling.
[28] My conversations with Z Smith were so interesting and sympathetic it is hard to imagine a more empathic person on the bench, experiential qualifications notwithstanding. I am excited to know he will be curating bench hearings with such a sensitive, and sensitized ear. His experience with family court seems very important.
[29] The popular commissioner, “baby judge” R Dibble is already doing the work to great acclaim, there is no question about the wisdom of this choice.
[30] Measure ER is a crucial stop-gap to staunch some of HR1’s funding pauperization of $2.4b from Medi-Cal and other public health services. The partial mitigation is a no-brainer decision. It is why we have money.
[31] Governor – still undecided and still not deciding until June 1, 2026. I will do my duty as anti-fascist, democracy-committed, Dem Party obliged (meaning, until a third party is sufficiently viable to offer realistic alternative to the present Party duopoly, I am committed to the Democratic Party as the only functional Party-backstop against tyranny, fascism and the collapse of democracy promulgated by the GOP, “no difference” notwithstanding).
But note that the fear of occluding a Democrat from either top-two general ballot positions has passed. There will be at least one Democrat on the ballot and the only concern is whether the runner-up Dem will out perform any Republican, properly reflective of the state’s > 75% non-GOP constituency.
As of the weekend prior to election, the dilemma is to decide which is more onerous: (a) choosing either T Steyer (line 48) or X Becerra (line 37) (current runner-up and poll-leader respectively), or (b) the prospect of any Republican at all appearing on the ballot. If (a), then you are free to vote for any of the remaining 61 gubernatorial candidates on the ballot. If (b), then you must go with one of the above two candidates (listed in (a)).
I will forego the Sophie’s-choice opportunity altogether; I will not care which I prefer, the most popular or penultimate. On Monday night I will choose the popularity runner-up (#2-polling) to boost chances of a functional Dem-Dem general election. In the words of another: ‘I don’t want to listen to 5 months of lies about immigrants should someone representing <20% of Californians manage to statistically claw their way onto that ballot disgracefully’.
[32] Lieutenant Governor may be the most inscrutable of the eight statewide offices. It’s hard to understand the duties of the position The responsibilities of this independently elected office are largely concerned with “…matters of higher education, natural resources management, and economic development”. My concern is filtering for oligarchic dependency, which is fairly easy from among the top three Democratic choices, F Ma/M Tubbs/J Fryday. M Tubbs was shunned by his own city amidst charter school scandals, and J Fryday seems to accept the imprimatur of that other oligarchic realm, the housing and tech bros. Leaving F Ma whose record, it seems to me, is long and distinguished though curiously underemphasized. I think she is skilled at governance and caring, and could bring an important financial expertise as well as educational advocacy to the position.
But there are two other candidates of interest, J Kellman, an environmental lawyer and O Ma, a truly principled civil rights lawyer whose moral drive is inspiring. The office is largely ceremonial and collaborative as a member of so many boards; his strong ethical voice is important.
[33] No question S Weber has been a stellar Secretary of State. Well deserves returning to this vital role.
[34] M Cohen has done a fine job as Controller and should be reelected.
[35] As the globe’s fourth largest economy, the investment of California’s money is an important job. E Kounalakis has long been a financial hound, and a public servant as well. This job exists at the intersection of her skills and strengths – supportive, protective, interactive, her agenda seems straight-forward enough: “manage the state’s finances and ensure a strong, inclusive economic future”, and within her demonstrated capacity.
[36] Little choice but to send enthusiastic appreciation for reelection behind R Bonta for repeated defense of Californians from Kids to Seniors.
[37] With an admirable environmental record but less glowing labor and educational one, donations to B Allen for state insurance commissioner are a little concerning. But he is an accessible politician who listens and reconsiders, a quality of considerable value on occasion, with a long record of diverse legislative interests. He is also the only state constitutional officer likely to win from southern California, a not inconsiderable political jeopardy, where there is much at risk. Arguably he may be less captured by tech infatuation than some of his Insurance Commissioner opponents, an influence very much buried as a key but hidden part of the race. But I will trust in his capacity for course-correction and his commitment to working hard to master a whole new arena of public policy.
[38] Not thrilled with the incumbent legislator’s voting record or other complaints by challengers, S Sukaton is a candidate with a fairer, cleaner plan.
[39] The race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) has been hardest of all to decide. The office is the Zelig of statewide constitutional offices. Its prerogative is what it is, molded by the current SSPI to taste. Read what experts on its governance prerogative and constituent’s decision-making process have to say about the office here. The job is a bully pulpit for articulating “… a powerful vision for public education that captured the public imagination and inspired unprecedented state and local system transformation for children and youth. Imagine a California leader who helped create a vision for state leadership for transformational public education in our current national political context.”
Teacher’s unions have been divided in their endorsements which makes sense given the ambiguity of job description. If housing is a preoccupation, it is possible to conceive of schools’ real estate as assets available to this end. If legislative process is a defining role there are candidates expert and experienced in this to choose from. If moral articulation is in itself a priority, then I would choose N Henderson. The practicalities of managing a K12 classroom provide important insight, though the experience of public education is important from all angles, preK to post-graduate to the parent’s. Most vital is to seize the moment, effectively, for explaining why and how educational opportunity is the key to individual’s citizenry and the group’s bedrock of our country as a citizen-driven democracy.
Ours is a republic if famously “we can keep it”. We need a process for bringing new citizens into awareness and the knowledge they need to contribute to the political process. It is vital that educational opportunity be equally and equitably available to one and all, as constituent part of that on which democracy itself is based. To see this brought as a passionate fight is what I want to see from our SSPI.
