August 27, 2021

There are a lot of people in this country who vote in ways with which I strongly disagree. When their choices enrage me, I understand the temptation to want to silence those voices. But fortunately, my Jewish practice puts the brakes on that notion, reminding me that as messy as it is, democracy is absolutely fundamental. People must have a say in their government, for as Rav Yitzhak teaches in the Talmud, “one may only appoint a leader over a community if one consults with the community and they agree to the appointment” (Berakhot 55a).

And as much as I might grumble to admit it, every single voice in the community is necessary. As I turn through the pages of Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael, I learn that we could not receive the Divine revelation of Torah “if even one person was missing” from Mount Sinai. A people can grow and thrive only when no one is left out.

But the temptation to exclude those with whom we disagree is very strong. Right now, politicians across the country are passing a slew of anti-voter bills, 30 new laws in 18 states this year. They’re taking away early voting options on nights and weekends to make it harder for working people to have a say. They’re restricting the types of IDs folks can use to vote, which is especially hard for older Americans who don’t drive. They’re forcing people who vote by mail to pay money to a notary or have someone else watch them, threatening the privacy of our political choices. This makes it particularly hard for college students who are trying desperately to vote for the first time. They’re removing options to vote on Sunday, a direct attack on the time-honored “Souls to the Polls” tradition of many Black churches.

I’m adamant about having safe and accessible elections, with a transparent process we can trust. But some places refuse to adopt paper ballots, so it’s hard to conduct an accurate recount. And some won’t give the public reasonable notice to changes in voting laws, enacting new restrictions in the dead of night. And quite often they remove some of us from the rolls or toss out our ballots based on trivial technicalities, without giving us any warning or time to correct the issue.

And those of us who have not yet been victims of this should not assume it will never happen to us in the future. The same abuses that may help our side win one election will deny us our voices in the next. The only system that truly gives us the freedom to vote is one that ensures we can cast our ballots freely, safely and equally, enshrining the moral value that every single American is heard.

The only system that truly gives us the freedom to vote is one that ensures we can cast our ballots freely, safely and equally, enshrining the moral value that every single American is heard.

That’s why Jewish communities across the country have been meeting with their Senate offices in an initiative organized by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Hundreds of fellow Jews and allies joined me in meetings with staff members of Senators Feinstein and Padilla. We were upset, we were angry, and we were fired up to protect the freedom to vote. We demanded our senators do everything they can to pass legislation like the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, creating national standards for voting access.

Our country needs to guarantee Americans have a say in the laws that affect our lives, whether it’s pandemic relief, health care or spurring job growth. We can’t let some politicians take away our right to be heard. So in the coming weeks, let’s use that voice loudly. Call or write your senators and representatives. Let them know we need to stand up for our freedom to vote.

This needs to be an urgent, top priority—or soon it might be too late.

David Chiu works in communications for a Jewish nonprofit. He is a member of Temple Isaiah, a West LA synagogue, and a leader with RAC-CA.

“It’s no use painting a lofty picture if you don’t have the brass tacks to pin it up on the wall.”

So said Eric Garcetti on the steps of City Hall in 2013, at the swearing-in for his first mayoral term. He built his brand as a man of the people, emphasizing better infrastructure, technological advancement, and an inclusive Los Angeles for all. For such an optimistic start, current public opinion couldn’t be further from that era. As Garcetti cuts his second term short in favor of an ambassadorial post to India, the city must weigh the progress and problems alike of the past eight years. And there’s ample fodder for both.

Garcetti’s defenders, and the man himself, can rightfully point to his economic track record, such as attracting new investment and raising minimum wage, as well as his landmark environmental protections, support for new technologies, and of course, LA’s successful bid for the 2028 Olympics.

Yet detractors will inevitably bring up the historic levels of inequality currently plaguing Angelenos, exemplified by the tents, blankets, and makeshift shelters scattered like flotsam across the city. Housing was a central tenet of Garcetti’s campaign and a prime focus throughout his term—his administration budgeted nearly $1 billion to address homelessness as recently as April 2021—and yet it also remains a point of constant criticism. The choice of ambassadorship has certainly raised eyebrows for its parallels with Los Angeles, as “one might argue that Garcetti should not be sent to a country with a massive unresolved homelessness crisis.”

Garcetti began his first term in 2013 facing a critical mass of 23,000 unhoused Angelenos, and he leaves his second term with over 40,000.

Our own crisis has undeniably grown, particularly during the past year, and at a rate that has outstripped attempts to house individuals. Garcetti began his first term in 2013 facing a critical mass of 23,000 unhoused Angelenos, and he leaves his second term with over 40,000. It is a damning figure, especially in the wake of his much-touted Measure HHH and the Bridge Home initiative, which were meant to allay homelessness and build affordable housing, yet vastly underperformed.

Garcetti’s stilted action on police reform is a more recent point of criticism, but no less damaging. It was hardly a good look when the ACLU had to file a suit in order to end the city-wide curfews that infringed on First Amendment rights during the height of BLM protests last summer. Who could forget the Zoom call heard ‘round the world during the fateful LAPD Commission meeting last June? Despite strong calls for the resignation of Chief Michael Moore, Garcetti defended him and sought to appease the public with the creation of a vaguely-worded Community Safety Partnership Bureau. Nor was Garcetti able to deliver on the proposed $150 million-dollar cut to the LAPD’s $1.8 billion annual budget, and in fact added $50 million back into the budget after less than a year. For a self-described progressive mayor, Garcetti’s policy choices in this area have proven to be anything but.

When considering Garcetti’s accomplishments and his shortcomings, public sentiment has decidedly fixated on the latter. The LA Times puts it bluntly: “accomplishments of the past are never greater than the problems of the present.” The LAnd Magazine, one of the last bastions of local journalism, puts it even more bluntly: “He’s the embodiment of neo-liberal vacancy: nominally progressive but always kowtowing to business, pro-immigrant in public but cozy with ICE.”

Admittedly, Garcetti gets an outsized portion of the blame simply due to his visibility. While the mayor remains the face of the city, the role itself “was constrained by the 1925 City Charter (slightly revised 70 years later) and is seen by many as largely symbolic,” with the 15-member City Council being where the true power rests. Furthermore, the mayors can also find themselves marred by staff behavior because the question naturally arises of what they knew and when. In Garcetti’s case, the scandal of former Chief of Staff Ana Guerrero making disparaging remarks against labor icon Dolores Huerta and the high-profile sexual harassment lawsuit against former aide Rick Jacobs have both arrived near the end of his term—meaning that they will be memorable.

Whether or not Garcetti deserves all the blame heaped on him by a city in the throes of multiple crises is debatable. He’s just one man, after all.

Whether or not Garcetti deserves all the blame heaped on him by a city in the throes of multiple crises is debatable. He’s just one man, after all. But he is a man who held the highest political office in the city for eight years. He is a man who campaigned and built his brand with words like “community” and “development” and “revitalization.” He is a man who Angelenos believed in at first, but were ultimately disappointed by.

Garcetti’s departure opens up the possibility of a new direction for Los Angeles. But as voters search for options amidst a small pool of heavyweight candidates—which include several current City Council members and possibly U.S. Representative Karen Bass—what we can expect in the short term is a fraught electoral season stretching all the way into a November runoff. Rather than meaningful change, what we have for now is a waiting game.

Seth Jacobson is the founder and principal of JCI Worldwide, a Los Angeles-based communications and research firm. He spent several years in the Carter and Clinton administrations in positions focused on economic development, foreign policy, and media relations. He is a frequent lecturer on policy and public affairs at Pepperdine University and UCLA.