That’s the question before voters as they weigh in on Proposition 1, which has been touted as California’s chance to finally do something about the epidemic on the streets. 

Prop. 1, the only proposition on California ballots this March, asks voters to green-light a $6.4 billion bond for treatment beds and housing units catering to people with mental illnesses and addictions. It also would restructure some current funding to funnel more mental health money toward housing. 
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has championed the measure, said it will “prioritize getting people off the streets, out of tents and into treatment.” The governor has a lot riding on its success, as voters become increasingly frustrated with the state’s lack of progress when it comes to cleaning up encampments and helping the people suffering within them.

But experts are cautioning against putting too much stock in Prop. 1 as a solution. 

It won’t help everybody — not by a long shot. Nor is it designed to. In addition to funding 6,800 beds in facilities treating mental illness and addiction, the $6.4 billion bond would create up to 4,350 new homes for people who need mental health and addiction services — 2,350 of which would be reserved for veterans, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In a state with an estimated homeless population of more than 180,000, that will hardly make a dent. 

“It will be great for those individuals, but still leaves almost 98% outside or in shelters,” said Bob Erlenbusch, executive director of the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness.

Prop. 1 also would require counties to spend 30% of their Mental Health Services Act funds on housing — including rental subsidies and new construction. Those funds, which come from taxing California’s millionaires, are expected to raise about $1 billion per year for housing programs. 

“It will be great for those individuals, but still leaves almost 98% outside or in shelters.”
Bob Erlenbusch, executive director, Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness

New homes funded under Prop. 1 would target homeless Californians who often are both the most visible and the hardest to help, including those in the throes of psychosis and addiction. Many unhoused Californians don’t fit that description. 

“The public perceives it as everyone, and it’s definitely not everyone,” said Dr. Margot Kushel, who directs the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, “but there are a fair number of people who have these disabling conditions.”

In a recent comprehensive study of homeless Californians, 27% of people surveyed had been hospitalized in their lifetime for a mental health problem. When asked if they had ever experienced a prolonged period of hallucinations, 23% said they had, according to the study by the Homelessness and Housing Initiative. 

About one-third of those surveyed reported using drugs three or more times per week. 
Even though it leaves people out, pouring resources into the sickest subset of California’s homeless community is the humane thing to do, said Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Democrat from Stockton.

“They count too,” said Talamantes Eggman, whose bill reforming the Mental Health Services Act became half of Prop. 1. “We can’t just see people as a problem. You have to see people as people and (ask) how do we do our best to help those who need it the most?”

Targeting the people with the highest needs may be politically savvy as well. Voters who are up in arms over the state’s increasingly dire homelessness crisis — and politicians’ seeming inability to fix it — aren’t complaining about the person who drives for Uber during the day and sleeps in his car, out of sight, at night. They’re complaining about the people living in encampments, walking into traffic and shouting at nobody. Those are the people this measure could help. And that’s where voters might actually see the measure make a difference on the street.  

“We’re at a point where voters need this,” said Christopher Martin, policy director for Housing California. “Voters are feeling fatigued on housing and they need to see some progress, and I think we need to demonstrate that.”
But Susan Ellenberg, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, doesn’t anticipate Prop. 1 will do much on that front.

“In terms of addressing homelessness, we need more housing, period,” she said. “And I worry that when people’s expectations are conflating, they’re disappointed and feel that problems aren’t being solved even though so much money is going out the door.”

“The public perceives it as everyone, and it’s definitely not everyone.”
Dr. Margot Kushel, director, UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative

She also worries that some of the unintended consequences of Prop. 1 could end up exacerbating her county’s homelessness crisis. To pour the required amount of Mental Health Services Act funding into housing, the county will have to take money from other programs. That means there will be fewer dollars for things like homelessness prevention and early mental health interventions. If the county skimps on the types of services that keep people off the streets in the first place, Ellenberg worries more people will fall into homelessness or their mental health will deteriorate to the point where they need even more care. 

Los Angeles County’s mental health department also has “some serious concerns” about Prop. 1, said Director Lisa Wong. Last year, the county spent 32% of its Mental Health Services Act funding on outpatient services — the psychiatric care, counseling, medication and more that helps stabilize someone living outside a psychiatric facility. If Prop. 1 passes and redirects a chunk of that funding into housing, the county will be able to spend less than 18% on outpatient services — and other programs such as crisis response and homeless services will have to dip into that funding pool as well. 

“We are concerned that missing those service dollars might compromise the ability of people to stay in housing once they’re housed, or to get to a place of wellness where they can be successfully housed,” Wong said. 
Recent expansions in Medi-Cal mean more people are covered for more services, which should help offset funding losses, Talamantes Eggman said.

“I don’t see it as cuts,” she said. “I see it as a reprioritization.” 

“In terms of addressing homelessness, we need more housing, period.”
Susan Ellenberg, president, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

There’s also the question of how counties will come up with the resources needed to make the necessary program shifts. Santa Clara County is facing a shortage of workers and hiring freezes brought on by a budget deficit, Ellenberg said. 

“I feel like we’re being asked to do significantly greater amounts of work with fewer and fewer tools,” she said. 
Kushel, who specializes in the intersection of homelessness and health, said the authors of Prop. 1 — Talamantes Eggman and Democratic Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks — have their priorities in the right place.

It’s nearly impossible to stabilize someone’s mental health or treat their addiction while they’re living on the street and pouring all of their effort into surviving day to day, Kushel said. But when given housing combined with the right treatment plan, even people who seem incredibly sick can thrive.

“Will it be enough? I don’t know,” she said. “But it seems like we should try.”

How can Prop. 1 funds be put to the best use? In San Diego, Deacon Jim Vargas says: detox beds. He runs Father Joe’s Villages, which has more than 1,000 shelter beds — none of which are specifically for detox. The entire county has only 77 detox beds — not nearly enough, he said. 

Vargas hopes to use Prop. 1 dollars to open more. “I’d like to think that yes, it will make a difference on the streets,” he said. 

Martin, of Housing California, has more tempered expectations. “It’s certainly a step in the right direction,” he said. “But it’s not everything.”

Published: Sep 13, 2023

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that he has signed SB 447 by Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego), which creates a new public awareness project that will consult with community leaders to promote California’s values of acceptance and inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community across the country. The bill also ends California’s restriction on taxpayer-funded travel by state agencies and departments to states that have adopted discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ laws.

“In the face of a rising tide of anti-LGBTQ+ hate, this measure helps California’s message of acceptance, equality and hope reach the places where it is most needed,” said Governor Newsom. “I thank Pro Tem Atkins for authoring this important measure that enables California to continue taking a stand for the rights of LGBTQ+ people throughout the country and combating intolerance and hate with empathy and allyship.”

“Today, we are sending a message to the rest of the nation – here in California, we embrace one another, not in spite of our differences, but because of them. And we are ready to reach across the aisle, and across state lines, to help open hearts and minds, and support our LGBTQ+ youth and communities who are feeling so alone,” said Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego). “There’s so much hate, so much hurt, so much harm being inflicted on people who are just trying to live their authentic lives. The BRIDGE Project is a chance to counter that with kindness and empathy, and I’m grateful to Governor Newsom for swiftly signing this bill into law, and to my colleagues in both parties who voted for it. We will be the bridge to a more understanding and compassionate nation.”

Governor Newsom alongside Assembly member Zbur, Pro Tem Atkins, Senator Eggman and Assemblymember Ward for SB 447 signing (left to right.)

The Governor also announced that he has signed the following bills:

• SB 104 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Budget Acts of 2022 and 2023.
• SB 135 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Public safety.
• SB 137 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Health omnibus trailer bill.
• SB 138 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Human services.
• SB 140 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Early childcare and education.
• SB 141 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Education finance: education omnibus budget trailer bill.
• SB 142 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Higher education trailer bill.
• SB 143 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State government.
• SB 148 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employment: State Bargaining Units: agreements: compensation and benefits.
• SB 152 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Background checks and fingerprinting: state employment, licensing, and contracting.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

Multi-family housing does not need private outdoor spaces to build a community. Check out this welcoming development in NorCal near where I grew up. The condos/townhouses in San Mateo, CA by the train station have community gardens in the large, sunny area (instead of small private shady patios). They also have play equipment under the trees at each end and a BBQ area with lots of picnic tables.  

We were visiting a friend nearby and walked through this development. Look at the community garden! 

The largest survey of homeless Californians in decades aims to dispel myths about what drives that state’s most pressing crisis. It found that addiction and mental health conditions rarely cause homelessness.

Losing income is the No. 1 reason Californians end up homeless – and the vast majority of them say a subsidy of as little as $300 a month could have kept them off the streets.
That’s according to a new study out of UC San Francisco that provides the most comprehensive look yet at California’s homeless crisis.
In the six months prior to becoming homeless, the Californians surveyed were making a median income of just $960 a month. The median rent for a two-bedroom apartment in California is nearly three times that, according to Zillow. And though survey participants listed a myriad of reasons why they lost their homes, more people cited a loss of, or reduction in, income than anything else. 

The study’s authors say the findings highlight the idea that money, more than addiction, mental health, poor decisions or other factors, is the main cause of – and potential solution to – homelessness. 
“I think it’s really important to note how desperately poor people are, and how much it is their poverty and the high housing costs that are leading to this crisis,” said Margot Kushel, a physician who directs the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, which conducted the study.
Already the study – which the authors say is the most representative homelessness survey conducted in the U.S. since the mid-1990s – has drawn attention from high places.

Read the full article from CalMatters.org here.

By Ruben Vives, Doug Smith
Los Angeles Times June 14, 2023

More than 14,000 people experiencing homelessness have been moved off the streets during the first six months of her administration, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass reported Tuesday.
About 30%, or 4,332, acquired permanent housing.

An additional 10,049 people were placed in interim housing through city and county programs from December through May, Bass said — a 27% increase over the same period the year before.
Of those in permanent housing, about a third moved into new housing units, with the rest using subsidies to obtain rental units.

Bass said the housing placements resulted from executive directives she enacted upon entering office, including a state of emergency on homelessness and the launching of the Inside Safe program, which is designed to clear street encampments by moving unhoused people indoors.

“We believe the emergency obviously continues, but we do see a way forward,” Bass said at a press conference at City Hall.

Since Bass took office in mid-December with a promise to house 17,000 people in her first year, homelessness has been at the forefront of her agenda.

In April, she announced that $1.3 billion of her $13 billion proposed budget would go to addressing homelessness, including about $250 million for Inside Safe. Previously, the program had been leasing rooms around the city. Bass’ team has shifted the strategy to purchasing property and is looking to acquire at least eight motels or hotels.

Bass said Tuesday that in her first six months, Inside Safe cleared 19 encampments, with 1,323 people voluntarily moving into temporary housing such as hotels — a slowdown from her first 100 days.

A handout distributed at the City Hall briefing showed photos of streets in Hollywood, Venice, Harbor City and South L.A. before and after they were cleaned. More than 262,000 pounds of waste were said to have been removed.

The handout detailed several challenges to Inside Safe, including the cost of motel rooms, the difficulty of clearing RV encampments and limited capacity to provide services in part because of a lack of healthcare personnel and access to drug treatment as well as homeless service providers already being stretched thin.

“Community-based organizations have been stretched beyond what they’ve been asked to do,” Bass said. “When a person leaves a tent and goes into a hotel, on day one, they should have services, including a physical exam if they’re open to it, and meeting with a social worker.”

As a remedy, Bass said she has hired a director of community health to work with local universities and colleges that can provide nurses, doctors and dentists.

Other solutions to getting more people off the streets were described generally, without detail, in the document: more persistent outreach to overcome resistance from some homeless people to moving indoors, more long-term leasing and more permanent housing to avoid spending money on motel rooms.

Bass said her executive directive to cut red tape had streamlined the processing of more than 8,000 units of new housing in 456 projects that are in the development pipeline.

She said approvals are now being obtained in 37 days as opposed to six months.

The numbers released Tuesday included an update of a report Bass gave after her first 100 days, more than doubling the number of people she initially said had gone indoors. In March, she had reported just under 4,000, a number that was revised to 8,726.

Va Lecia Adams Kellum, chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, said the earlier undercount was due to lag time and the need to verify the data that was entered.

“We didn’t have a full accounting of the people who had been helped,” Kellum said. “The data has been reviewed and corrected, and it gives a true sense of how many people were moved from tents into hotels.”

Published: Jun 08, 2023

Principles of proposed 28th Amendment broadly supported by the American public and gun owners
SACRAMENTO – Today Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to enshrine fundamental, broadly supported gun safety measures into law. While leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition, the Governor’s proposal guarantees common sense constitutional protections and gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, independent voters, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – including universal background checks, raising the firearm purchase age to 21, instituting a firearm purchase waiting period, and barring the civilian purchase of assault weapons.
“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”
The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:

• Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
• Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
• Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
• Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.

Additionally, the 28th Amendment will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations that save lives.

Passage of the 28th Amendment will require a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also known as an Article V Convention or amendatory convention. Working in partnership with members of the California State Senate and Assembly, California will be the first state in the nation to call for such a convention with a joint resolution being introduced by California State Senator Aisha Wahab and Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer. The Governor will work with grassroots supporters, elected and civic leaders, and broad and diverse coalitions across the nation to fight for the passage of similar resolutions in other state legislatures to ensure the convening of a constitutional convention limited to this subject. 33 other states, in addition to California, would need to take action to convene such a convention.
“A man of action, Governor Gavin Newsom has the backbone to actually do something about the gun fetish culture around weapons of war, and tackle the relentless problem of gun violence and mass shootings,” said Senator Aisha Wahab. “As someone impacted by gun violence, I have an obligation to elevate the voices of victims and those of us left behind in the wake of tragedy.”
“I am proud to introduce this resolution to protect the common sense gun reform legislation our Assembly Public Safety Committee has championed over the years,” said Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer. “We cannot stand idly while courts roll back our work and diminish the ability of our Legislature to keep Californians safe. This bold but fair resolution calls on other states to join us in protecting some of the most effective ways of reducing gun violence.”
With gun violence claiming the lives of over 110 Americans a day, California’s nation-leading gun safety laws serve as a valuable blueprint for other states and Congress to save lives. California’s gun safety laws work. In its most recent scorecard, California ranked as the #1 state for gun safety by the Giffords Law Center, and according to the most recent data, the state saw a 37% lower gun death rate than the national average. According to the CDC, California’s gun death rate was the 44th lowest in the nation, with 9 gun deaths per 100,000 people – compared to 16.36 deaths per 100,000 nationally, 33.9 in Mississippi, 21.2 in Oklahoma, and 15.6 in Texas.

What People Are Saying About Governor Newsom’s Historic 28th Amendment Proposal

Los Angeles Times By Russ Mitchell Staff Writer 

When Teslas are in self-driving mode, they’ve been recorded crossing into oncoming traffic and hitting parked cars. But what would happen if an 80,000-pound, 18-wheel driverless truck suddenly went off the rails?
That’s an experiment some California legislators aren’t ready to run. They argue that the state Department of Motor Vehicles has so badly mishandled the driverless car industry that it can’t be trusted to oversee big rigs barreling down the highways autonomously.

AB 316 — which would wrest control of driverless truck testing and deployment from the DMV and require human drivers in the cab for at least five years while a safety record is collected — passed in the Assembly on Wednesday. The bill now goes to the state Senate and if passed will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.
Its proponents argue that effective laws and regulations depend on shared data, institutional trust and public transparency, and that the DMV is struggling with all three.

Read the full article by Myah Ward at Politico here. 12/06/2022

Amid intense criticism from the left that the White House and Congress haven’t done enough to stop gun violence, the Biden administration has been underwriting an initiative that’s drawn barely any notice.

The work started on the campaign trail, when Joe Biden pitched community violence intervention as a component of his gun violence prevention plan. Once he took office, Biden secured tens of billions of dollars that can be used for community violence intervention, which he and advocates say is critical for reducing recidivism rates.

For a year and a half, city and county leaders around the country have received funding, training and technical assistance, and met regularly with White House officials to bolster community violence intervention programs that have been shown to break cycles of violence.

Learn more about Community Violence Intervention

 Elections up and down the ballot present voters with important choices. Whether it's a local race that will affect your community or a national race that could change the direction of the country, elections are a time to consider the issues that you care about and decide which candidate you support. 

But is it possible to move beyond campaign ads, social media chatter, and noisy news cycles to find the best substantive candidate who represents your values and needs? The answer is yes! 

Six Steps for Judging Candidates 
The 6 steps outlined here are designed to help you judge and choose the best candidate for you in the next election. 

Step 1: Determine what you are looking for in a candidate You can judge candidates in two ways:

1. The positions they take on issues; and,
2. The leadership qualities and experience they would bring to the office.

Your first step in picking a candidate is to decide the issues you care about and the qualities you want in a leader. 

When you consider issues, what problems do you want people in government to address? For example, you may be interested in national security, government funding for student loans, or climate change.  

When you consider leadership qualities, what characteristics do you think make an effective elected official? Do you look for intelligence, honesty, humility, an ability to communicate? What else?

Step 2: Visit Votersedge.org and learn about the candidates on your ballot

Find out which candidates are running in your area by using the League’s online election resource VotersEdge.org. When you input your address, VotersEdge shows you all the races and candidates on your ballot. 

VotersEdge also includes information about each office on your ballot, candidate background information, stances on issues directly from the candidates themselves, and extensive background and explanations on ballot questions. 

Step 3: Gather materials about the candidates 
Research and collect information about the candidates. Read their positions on their campaign website, watch media coverage, review online discussions, and check out their stances on VOTE411. Sources of information you may choose to review include: 

• VotersEdge.org candidate stances 
• Direct mail letters, flyers, and postcards 
• Media coverage
• Online, radio, and television ads 
• Candidate endorsements by individuals, organizations, and news outlets 
• Candidates’ speeches 
• Candidate debates 
• Online candidate forums and town hall events 

Step 4: Evaluate candidates’ positions on issues 
In a local race, interviews with the candidates can be helpful.
For incumbents, a look at their voting records on issues important to you (which you identified in Step 1) can also tell you a lot.  
Ask yourself the following questions: 

• Does your collected information give you an overall impression of the candidates?  
• What specific conclusions can you draw about the candidates’ positions on issues?  
• Record what you have learned about where they stand on your priority issues from each source you review in Step 3.  

Step 5: Learn about the candidates’ leadership abilities 
Deciding if a candidate will be a good leader is difficult. How can you know if someone will be honest, open, or able to act under pressure if elected to office? Here are some ways to read between the lines: 

• Look at the candidates’ background and their experience. How prepared are they for the job? 
• Observe the candidates’ campaigns. Do they give speeches to different groups (even those who may disagree with them)? Do they accept invitations to debate? Do the campaigns emphasize media events, where the candidates can be seen but not heard? (For instance, a candidate is seen cutting ribbons to open new bridges rather than going on record about transportation and infrastructure challenges.) 
• Review the campaign website, social media content, and materials. As you watch the campaign develop, consider information that provides insights into candidates’ personalities and leadership qualities. For example, do campaign materials emphasize issues or nice images? Do materials paint a true picture of a situation? Add this information to the Candidate Report Card shared below. 

Step 6: Learn how other people view the candidate 
Other people’s opinions can help clarify your own views, but do not discount your own informed judgments.  

• Seek the opinions of others in your community who are affected differently by decisions of political leadership. Talk to people of diverse backgrounds and positions, such as a person of a different race than you, a teacher, a member of the business community, an Indian tribe member, or a sexual or gender minority person to find out which candidate they support and why.  
• Learn about endorsements. Endorsements provide clues to the issues a candidate supports. For instance, a candidate endorsed by the Sierra Club (an environmental organization) will be in favor of legislation that protects the environment. A candidate endorsed by the National Rifle Association would be opposed to gun control laws. Get a list of endorsements from each of the candidates’ campaign websites. Find out what these groups stand for and find out why they are endorsing this candidate. 
• Look into campaign contributions. Where do the candidates get the funds to finance their campaigns? Do they use their own money or raise funds from a few wealthy donors, from many small contributors, or from Political Action Committees? (PACs, as they are known, are groups formed to raise and distribute money to candidates without disclosing individual donor names.) Many types of information about campaign contributions must be reported to the government and are watched by the press, so the information is relatively easy to find. Check your local newspaper for stories on campaign finance or go to www.opensecrets.org.  
• Which candidate’s views on the issues do I agree with the most? 
• Who ran the fairest campaign? 
• Which candidate demonstrated the most knowledge on the issues? 
• Which candidate has the leadership qualities I am looking for? 
• Is the choice clear? If so, pick a candidate.  __ 

Other Considerations

• Avoid Distortion Techniques Candidates try to sell themselves to voters, but they can sometimes distort the truth in ways that are difficult to detect. Here are seven examples of distortion techniques that you should watch for as you review candidates’ campaign materials: 
• Name-calling/Appeals to prejudice: Accusations such as, “My opponent is arrogant and full of hot air,” do not give any real information about the candidate. Reference to race, ethnicity, or marital status can be subtly used to instill prejudice. 
• Rumor mongering: These include statements such as “Everyone says my opponent is a crook, but I have no personal knowledge of any wrongdoing,” which imply (but do not state) that the opponent is guilty. 
• Guilt by associations: These are statements such as “We all know Candidate B is backed by big money interests,” which attack candidates because of their supporters rather than because of their stands on the issues. 
• Catchwords: These are phrases such as “Law and Order” or “un-American,” designed to trigger a knee-jerk emotional reaction rather than to inform. 
• Passing the blame: These are instances in which a candidate denies responsibility for an action or blames an opponent for things over which they had no control. 
• Promising the sky: These are unrealistic promises that no elected official could fulfill on their own.  
• Evading real issues: These include instances in which candidates may avoid answering direct questions, offer only vague solutions, or talk about the benefits of proposed programs but never get specific about possible problems or costs.  
• Evaluate Candidates’ Use of Video:  Candidates are aware of the potential power of video and try to use it to their advantage. When you see videos about a candidate or that feature the candidate, consider that the picture you see may be staged by a media advisor whose job is to make the candidate look good on camera. As you watch news coverage of campaigns, be aware of staged events (also known as photo opportunities) and try to instead focus on what the candidate is saying about the issues. The same applies to political advertisements on television or online. When you watch political ads, be aware of how the medium influences your reactions. Ask yourself: Did you find out anything about issues or qualifications, or was the ad designed only to affect your attitude or feelings about a candidate?  

Now Take Action

• Back the candidates you believe in.
• Talk to your friends and family about “your” candidates. 
• Don’t be afraid to ask questions at candidate meetings, debates, or rallies or when a campaign worker rings your doorbell. 
• Write letters. Tell candidates, newspapers, and party leaders how you feel about the issues. 
• Volunteer to work on a campaign or make a donation. 
• Register to vote. 
• Make a voting plan.
• Vote by mail, absentee, or in person before or on Election Day.