Previewing the 2024 Los Angeles County District Attorney's Race

Can District Attorney George Gascon Lose to Challenger Nathan Hochman?

In 2020, George Gascon was elected District Attorney of Los Angeles County defeating incumbent Jackie Lacey on a platform of sweeping criminal justice reform, a major victory for the nationwide movement to elect progressive social justice warriors to local prosecutorial offices.

These progressive prosecutors include Kim Foxx (Chicago), Alvin Bragg (Manhattan), Chesa Boudin (San Francisco), Pamela Price (Alameda County), Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Gardner (St. Louis), and Mike Schmidt (Multnomah County), among others.  

George Gascon’s victory owed in large part to the response to the murder of George Floyd. Looking to play their role in the great racial reckoning, LA’s wealthy progressive donor class decided to financially back George Gascon against Jackie Lacey, an accomplished lifelong prosecutor who incidentally happened to be the first black person (and woman) to ever hold the office.

Most of the progressive prosecutors have had fairly controversial tenures that have been marked by their hard ideological governance and dramatic rises in local crime rates.

And George Gascon has been no exception.

Whether ghosting family members of murder victims¹ (or insulting them on live television),² prohibiting deputy district attorneys from attending parole hearings (including parole hearings that led to the release of Aariel Maynor who subsequently murdered Jacqueline Avant and convicted Manson Family killer Leslie Van Houten),³ implementing prosecution directives in direct contravention of California law,⁴ refusing to prosecute hate crimes,⁵ or having public disputes with his own deputies,⁶ George Gascon has personified the nationwide “progressive prosecutor” movement.⁷

However, soaring crime rates and his management style have not endeared George Gascon to residents. With low approval ratings throughout his time in office, he has faced two different recall attempts, both of which failed to make it to the ballot but gathered well over half a million valid voter signatures.⁸ At least 36 city councils in LA County have voted to declare no confidence in George Gascon.⁹

At a press conference last year of elected officials and law enforcement leaders on combatting mass retail theft that has been devastating local commercial retail stores, George Gascon was conspicuously absent.¹⁰ When asked why he was not there, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass explained that he hadn’t been invited.¹¹

And with low approval ratings and inner office turmoil, George Gascon managed to draw eleven (11) opponents including four Deputy District Attorneys from his own office (Jonathan Hatami, Maria Ramirez, John McKinney, and Eric Siddall), four sitting Superior Court judges (Debra Archuleta, Lloyd Mason, David Milton, and Craig Mitchell), and a United States Attorney (Jeff Chemerinsky).

In the March 2024 primary election, running against eleven (11) challengers, all of whom opposed his reform agenda, George Gascon had the opportunity to win re-election outright. Had he received a majority of the vote (50% plus 1), he would have been re-elected outright and would not have faced voters in the general election.¹²

While he won a plurality of the vote against 11 challengers, he received only 25.19% of the vote. He will face former federal prosecutor and former Los Angeles City Ethics Commissioner Nathan Hochman, who finished with 16% of the vote, in the general election.

It is always dangerous for an incumbent to finish below 50% of the vote in an open primary when a majority vote would have resulted in re-election. An incumbent finishing with 25% of the vote is in especially dangerous territory.

To my knowledge, no incumbent has received as low a percentage of the vote as George Gascon did in a primary and subsequently won re-election in the general election. The closest who has would be former Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty in 1969, who finished with just 26.09% of the vote in the primary election but managed to narrowly win the general election against rival Tom Bradley.

In recent elections, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva received 30.66% of the vote in the 2022 primary election and was defeated for re-election by over 22% in the general election. In 2000, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti received 37.30% in the primary election and was defeated for re-election by nearly 28% in the general election.

However, George Gascon may have an advantage for re-election: his opponent.

While his opponent, Nathan Hochman, recently re-registered from Republican to No Party Preference (an independent in California), he was the Republican nominee for Attorney General in California in the 2022 general election, losing statewide to Rob Bonta by a 59.1%-40.9% margin.¹³ For good measure, in Los Angeles County, Hochman lost to Bonta by a 67.4%-32.6% margin.

A natural Democratic partisan advantage in Los Angeles County benefits George Gascon. As of the most recent voter registration report, registered Democrats accounted for 52.94% of all registered Los Angeles County voters, while registered Republicans accounted for only 17.74%. of all registered voters.¹⁴

While George Gascon is clearly unpopular, he is a Democrat in a heavily Democratic county, backed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party as well as some powerful labor unions.

Does this foreclose the possibility of a Nathan Hochman victory?

Not necessarily.

Local Politics in Los Angeles County

Even though Los Angeles County is a heavily Democratic county, its politics are not uniformly Democratic at the local level. From 1980 through 1991, Republicans controlled the County Board of Supervisors, losing control only after a successful Voting Rights Act lawsuit to end the disenfranchisement of Hispanic/Latino voters.

Los Angeles County has also frequently elected non-Democrats to its countywide offices, including District Attorney and Sheriff. In fact, between 1884 and 2018, no Democrat was elected Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Most recently, Republican Steve Cooley served for three successive terms between 2000 and 2012, after defeating then Democratic incumbent, Gil Garcetti in 2000.

One might ask, how in a heavily Democratic jurisdiction like Los Angeles County, can a Republican or non-Democrat win an election?

In California, all local offices, including that of District Attorney, are non-partisan.¹⁵ Unlike elections for statewide executive office, the State Legislature, the U.S. Senate, Congress, and the State Board of Equalization, where candidates may run with their registered party preference, voters never see the party affiliation of the candidate running for a local office like District Attorney.¹⁶

That said, partisan affiliation still matters. All but one elected official in non-partisan county office in Los Angeles County are Democrats. Most competitive non-partisan races for county office often feature two registered Democrats running against each other in the general election.

Moreover, Los Angeles County has seemingly become more Democratic since Steve Cooley defeated Gil Garcetti in 2000. In 2000, Los Angeles County voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush by a 63.5% to 32.4% margin. In 2004, Los Angeles County voted for John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 63.2% to 35.6% margin.¹⁷

By contrast, in 2016, Los Angeles County voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 71.8% to 22.4% margin.¹⁸ In 2020, Los Angeles County voted for Joe Biden by a 71% to 26.9% margin.¹⁹

However, in 2000, registered Democrats accounted for 53.20% of Los Angeles County voters (a larger share of voters than today) while registered Republicans accounted for 27.79%.²⁰ In 2024, The largest change has come from the increase in registered No Party Preference voters, who in 2000, accounted for only 14.20% of voters while today account for 22.46% of voters.

This demonstrates that voters in Los Angeles County have not necessarily embraced the Democratic Party so much as the Republican Party has simply become too toxic for voters who have left it. Seemingly, this GOP toxicity has influenced Hochman himself, who has adamantly stated that he’s voting for Joe Biden for President.²¹

Thus, while the voter registration numbers give George Gascon a decided advantage, he does not have any greater percentage of Democratic voters to rely upon for re-election in 2024 than Gil Garcetti had in 2000 when he lost re-election.

A more in depth look at the March 2024 results also demonstrates some key potential weaknesses for the incumbent.

First Key Takeaway - Broad Dislike Across the County for George Gascon

While George Gascon won a plurality countywide, his victory was not uniform across its jurisdictions. Out of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County, George Gascon failed to win even a plurality in 53 of them, coming in second place or even lower.²²

Those cities are:

1. Agoura Hills (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

2. Arcadia (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*²³

3. Artesia (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

4. Avalon (First Place: Jonathan Hatami, Second Place: Nathan Hochman)

5. Azuza (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

6. Bell (First Place: Jonathan Hatami)

7. Beverly Hills (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami)*

8. Bradbury (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami)

9. Calabasas (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

10. Cerritos (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

11. Commerce (First Place: Jonathan Hatami, Second Place: Debra Archuleta)

12. Covina (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami)*

13. Diamond Bar (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Debra Archuleta)*

14. Downey (First Place: Jonathan Hatami, Second Place: Nathan Hochman)*

15. Duarte (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

16. Glendora (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami)*

17. Hidden Hills (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jeff Chemerinsky)*

18. Huntington Park (First Place: Maria Ramirez)

19. City of Industry (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: David Milton)

20. Irwindale (First Place: Jonathan Hatami, Second Place: Maria Ramirez)

21. La Canada Flintridge (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

22. La Habra Heights (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

23. La Mirada (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami)*

24. La Puente (First Place: Debra Archuleta, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami)

25. La Verne (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami, Third Place: Debra Archuleta)*

26. Lakewood (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

27. Lancaster (First Place: Jonathan Hatami, Second Place: Nathan Hochman)*

28. Lomita (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

29. Lynwood (First Place: Maria Ramirez)

30. Manhattan Beach (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

31. Montebello (First Place: Jonathan Hatami)

32. Norwalk (First Place: Debra Archuleta)*

33. Palmdale (First Place: Jonathan Hatami, Second Place: Nathan Hochman)*

34. Palos Verdes Estates (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

35. Paramount (First Place: Maria Ramirez)

36. Pico Rivera (First Place: Debra Archuleta)*

37. Rancho Palos Verdes (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

38. Rolling Hills (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

39. Rolling Hills Estates (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

40. San Dimas (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami, Third Place: Debra Archuleta)*

41. San Fernando (First Place: Maria Ramirez)

42. San Marino (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

43. Santa Clarita (First Place: Jonathan Hatami, Second Place: Nathan Hochman)*

44. Santa Fe Springs (First Place: Debra Archuleta, Second Place: Nathan Hochman)*

45. South El Monte (First Place: Debra Archuleta, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami)

46. South Gate (First Place: Maria Ramirez)*

47. Temple City (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

48. Torrance (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

49. Vernon (First Place: Debra Archuleta, Second Place: Maria Ramirez, Third Place: Jonathan Hatami, Fourth Place: Nathan Hochman, Fifth Place: John McKinney)

50. Walnut (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Debra Archuleta)*

51. West Covina (First Place: Nathan Hochman)*

52. Westlake Village (First Place: Nathan Hochman)

53. Whittier (First Place: Nathan Hochman, Second Place: Jonathan Hatami, Third Place: Debra Archuleta)*

George Gascon failing to garner a plurality of the vote in a majority of cities is a significant statistic for many reasons. In the primary, he ran against eleven (11) challengers who all uniformly opposed his agenda and his record. Because they split the vote, he was nearly guaranteed to win a plurality of the vote. Failing to do so in so much of the county demonstrates a critical weakness in his campaign.

Why?

First, these smaller cities often serve as a political microcosm for the county. With a population of over 10 million people, Los Angeles County is the largest county in the country and one of the largest electoral jurisdictions in the world. At a countywide level, grassroots organizing will usually have limited impact.

However, the politics of smaller cities is vastly different. Residents are far more likely to know their local elected officials. Engagement in local politics, whether citizen lobbying of government, electing candidates to office, or passing or defeating ballot measures, tends to be significantly greater.

In these smaller cities, it is far easier for candidates and their supporters to reach the electorate. Smaller amounts of money can even defeat well-funded political campaigns. Grassroots political organizing from smaller political groups can have a much larger influence on the electoral outcome.

Thus, it was easier for the various challengers to reach voters and win a plurality. At the same time, however, it should have been easier for supporters of George Gascon to help him win a strong plurality, if not the required majority. The results reflect a trend that could potentially be replicated in November.

Second, these cities represent a broad cross section of the vast and diverse countywide electorate. The dislike for George Gascon is not limited to any particular area of the county or any particular group of voters.

These cities are scattered geographically around the county and include urban, suburban, exurban, and even quasi-rural jurisdictions. They are home to the wealthy, middle class, and poor alike. They also reflect LA County’s broad racial and ethnic diversity. They are also largely politically representative of the county as a whole (all but three of the cities voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump).

George Gascon’s struggles are not just in one geographic area of the county or with one specific subset of voters. The dislike for him is universal and cuts across typical dividing lines of geography, class, politics, and race.

Second Key Takeaway - Severe Weakness Among Hispanic/Latino Voters

Most progressive supporters of George Gascon have assumed that he will win handily among Hispanic/Latino voters (or “Latinx” as progressives who aren’t Hispanic/Latino frequently use), as they are a typically key voting bloc of the Democratic Party.

However, it appears from detailed results that George Gascon is significantly unpopular among Hispanic/Latino voters, who represent a significant voting bloc in Los Angeles County. This can be seen by his performance in the most heavily Hispanic/Latino jurisdictions in the county.

According to the Los Angeles Almanac and Zip Atlas, there are seventeen (18) cities and fourteen (14) unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County with Hispanic/Latino populations of 75% or higher.²⁴ George Gascon received the following percentage of the vote in each of these jurisdictions:

1. Unincorporated Walnut Park (98.17% Hispanic/Latino) - 22.46% (In Second Place behind First Place Maria Ramirez)

2. Maywood (97.59% Hispanic/Latino) - 25.13%

3. Huntington Park (97.04% Hispanic/Latino) - 19.81%

4. Cudahy (96.99% Hispanic/Latino) - 25.53%

5. Bell Gardens (96.10% Hispanic/Latino) - 21.82%

6. Unincorporated East Whittier (95.47% Hispanic/Latino) - 12.62%

7. South Gate (95.25% Hispanic/Latino) - 20.21%

8. Unincorporated East Los Angeles (95.16% Hispanic/Latino) - 27.11%

9. Commerce (95.05% Hispanic/Latino) - 17.22%

10. Unincorporated Florence-Graham (93.61%) - 21.66%

11. San Fernando (92.37% Hispanic/Latino) - 17.69%

12. Irwindale (91.51% Hispanic/Latino) - 13.45%

13. Vernon (91.49% Hispanic/Latino) - 6.66%

14. Pico Rivera (90.45% Hispanic/Latino) - 14.56%

15. Bell (89.14% Hispanic/Latino) - 18.32%

16. Unincorporated West Whittier/Los Nietos (88.29% Hispanic/Latino) - 14.54% (In Second Place behind First Place Debra Archuleta)

17. Unincorporated Lennox (87.59% Hispanic/Latino) - 21.46%

18. Lynwood (87.58% Hispanic/Latino) - 20.89%

19. Unincorporated South San Jose Hills ( 86.1% Hispanic/Latino) - 18.06%

20. Unincorporated East Pasadena (83.59% Hispanic/Latino) - 25.02%

21. Unincorporated East Compton (83.6% Hispanic/Latino) - 27.72%

22. Unincorporated Avocado Heights (81.54% Hispanic/Latino) - 14.69% (In Third Place Behind Second Place Nathan Hochman and First Place Debra Archuleta)

23. Paramount (81.30% Hispanic/Latino) - 18.61%

24. La Puente (81.08% Hispanic Latino) - 14.11%

25. Unincorporated West Puente Valley (80.7% Hispanic/Latino) - 20.18%

26. Unincorporated Citrus (80.50% Hispanic/Latino) - 10.73% (In Third Place behind Second Place Jonathan Hatami and First Place Nathan Hochman)

27. Unincorporated South Whittier (78.90% Hispanic/Latino) - 13.66% (In Third Place behind Second Place Jonathan Hatami and First Place Nathan Hochman)

28. South El Monte (79.8% Hispanic/Latino) - 14.25%

29. Unincorporated Willowbrook (79% Hispanic/Latino) - 34.94%

30. Montebello (78.1% Hispanic/Latino) - 16.56%

31. Hawaiian Gardens (77.1% Hispanic/Latino) - 17.35%

32. Downey (75% Hispanic/Latino) - 14.21%

In all but one city (Cudahy), George Gascon received a smaller percentage of the vote than he did countywide. In all but three cities (Bell Gardens, Cudahy and Maywood), he also failed to win even a plurality of votes. In the unincorporated areas, George Gascon received a smaller share of the vote than his countywide percentage except in Willowbrook and East Los Angeles.

This pattern is repeated in city council districts of larger cities that have large Hispanic/Latino populations.

For example, in the two most heavily Hispanic/Latino City Council Districts in the City of Los Angeles, the 6th District and the 7th District located in the northeast San Fernando Valley, George Gascon earned 24.22% and 19.06% of the vote respectively.²⁵ In contrast, in the 5th District and 11th District, located on Los Angeles’s affluent westside, he earned 33.8% and 32.66% of the vote respectively.

In the City of Carson’s 2nd District, which was drawn under the California Voting Rights Act to be a Hispanic/Latino opportunity seat, George Gascon received 17.49% of the vote and failed to win a plurality, finishing in second place to Nathan Hochman.²⁶ In Palmdale’s 5th District, which was drawn under the California Voting Rights Act to be a Hispanic/Latino opportunity seat, he received 15.16% of the vote.²⁷

As an obvious caveat, Hispanics/Latinos are not a monolith. However, it is clear that George Gascon is unpopular among this key group of Los Angeles County voters and that bodes poorly for him in the general election.

A Potential Political Precedent

Nathan Hochman remains at a disadvantage because he was not only a lifelong registered Republican but has previously run for major elected office as a Republican.

But does this prevent him from winning? A recent election in California demonstrates it might not.

In 2020, the incumbent Mayor of heavily Democratic Stockton, Michael Tubbs, faced re-election. A Democratic rising star with a national media profile and a progressive champion, who had been elected with over 70% in 2016, Tubbs was expected to cruise to re-election. However, while winning a very large plurality in the March 2020 Primary, he failed to secure a majority of the vote, forcing a runoff election.

In the runoff, Tubbs was still expected to easily win re-election as he faced a Republican, Kevin Lincoln. Lincoln, who had not served in office before, had run for major elective office before as a Republican. He was the Republican Party’s nominee for the 13th Assembly District in 2016, where he lost to incumbent Democrat, Susan Talamantes Eggman, by a 64.8%-35.2% margin.²⁸

In the general election, Michael Tubbs not only lost re-election in an upset but lost by a double digit margin, 56.44%-43.56%.²⁹ This occurred even though the City of Stockton voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump by 66%-32% margin.³⁰

The victory of Kevin Lincoln over Michael Tubbs gives further evidence to the longstanding political credo that “All Politics is Local”. It also demonstrates how non-partisan elections in California can enable candidates who are from small minority parties to win elections against a majority party.

Comparing the results is useful here. In the March 2020 Primary, Michael Tubbs received 41.53% of the vote. In the March 2024 Primary, George Gascon received 25.19% of the vote.³¹ Certainly, if Kevin Lincoln could defeat Michael Tubbs, Nathan Hochman could defeat George Gascon.

Predictions

I’m typically reluctant to make political predictions. Often, our best political instincts can be undone by real world events beyond our control.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s race of 2024 presents a wildcard. It is usually a sign of near certain defeat when an incumbent earns as low a percentage of the vote as George Gascon did in the March 2024 Primary. Had there been just one challenger or perhaps only two or three, it’s very likely that George Gascon would have lost re-election outright in the primary.

If voting patterns repeat themselves in the general election, George Gascon will lose. However, there are several wildcards that are unknown.

• Will those candidates who ran in the primary get behind Nathan Hochman? (At least two, John McKinney and Maria Ramirez, have endorsed him).

• With or without their direct support, will Nathan Hochman be able to consolidate their voters from the primary?

• Will Nathan Hochman be able to take advantage of George Gascon’s unpopularity among Hispanic/Latino voters to win this crucial voting bloc and do so overwhelmingly?

• Will the electorate be significantly different in the general election such that it is more progressive and more amenable to re-electing George Gascon?

It is still very difficult for a non-Democrat like Nathan Hochman to win countywide in Los Angeles County. Of course, the election remains non-partisan and George Gascon’s primary numbers are historically weak. Both these trends are in conflict and leave the race rather unpredictable.

Watch this space.

1. https://www.theblaze.com/news/mom-of-la-shooting-victim-confronts-da-gascon-about-progressive-policies-that-show-more-sympathy-to-criminals

2. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/la-county-da-gascon-complains-murder-victims-family-cant-keep-their-mouth-shut-issues-apology

3. https://theavtimes.com/2022/07/14/op-ed-gascon-delivers-another-gut-punch-to-victims/

4. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/politics/2022/06/02/appeals-court-panel-upholds-injunction-blocking-gasc-n-directives

5. https://lamag.com/featured/george-gascon-hate-crimes

6. https://lamag.com/featured/gascon-jon-hatami-district-attorney

7. The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author’s scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.

8. There is an ongoing lawsuit regarding the second recall attempt, which proponents believe gathered the sufficient number of signatures to qualify a recall of George Gascon but was improperly denied by the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office.

9. See https://www.foxla.com/news/pico-rivera-becomes-3rd-city-to-approve-vote-of-no-confidence-in-gascons-reforms ; https://www.recalldageorgegascon.com/

10. https://www.californiacountynews.org/news/2023/08/george-gasc%C3%B3n-conspicuously-absent-las-retail-crime-task-force-announcement

11. https://medium.com/stone-cold-crime-stories/la-county-da-george-gascon-not-invited-to-a-press-conference-on-organized-retail-theft-4878d4671c37

12. Cal. Elec. Code § 8140 (“Any candidate for a nonpartisan office who at a primary election receives votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for that office shall be elected to that office. Where a candidate has been elected to a nonpartisan office at the primary election, that office shall not appear on the ballot at the ensuing general election, notwithstanding the death, resignation, or other disqualification of the candidate at a time subsequent to the primary election.”).

13. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/34-ag.pdf

14. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/15day-presprim-2024/county.pdf

15. Cal. Const. Art. II, § 6(a)(“All judicial, school, county, and city offices, including the Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall be nonpartisan.”).

16. Cal. Const. Art. II, § 5(b)(“Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute.”); Cal. Elec. Code § 8002 (“If a candidate is a candidate for a nonpartisan office, all reference to party affiliation shall be omitted on all forms required to be filed.”); Cal. Elec. Code § 8002.5(a).

17. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2004-general/formatted_pres_detail.pdf

18. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/sov/17-presidential-formatted.pdf

19. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2020-general/sov/18-presidential.pdf

20. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/ror-pages/29day-presgen-00/county.pdf

21. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1791546555247595770

22. https://content.lavote.gov/docs/rrcc/svc/4316_final_svc_community.pdf (Pages 137-143)

23. An asterisks denotes that the city council of the city previously voted to declare no-confidence in George Gascon. George Gascon was able to win a plurality of the vote in the following cities whose city councils had voted no confidence in him: El Monte (16.95%), Monrovia (17.97%), Redondo Beach (22.91%), Rosemead (16.33%), and San Gabriel (19.02%).

24. http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po18a.php ; https://zipatlas.com/us/ca/city-comparison/percentage-hispanic-or-latino-population.2.htm

25. https://content.lavote.gov/docs/rrcc/svc/4316_final_svc_citycounsil.pdf (Page 606)

26. https://content.lavote.gov/docs/rrcc/svc/4316_final_svc_citycounsil.pdf (Page 117)

27. https://content.lavote.gov/docs/rrcc/svc/4316_final_svc_citycounsil.pdf (Page 732)

28. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/sov/45-state-assembly-formatted.pdf

29. https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/registrar-of-voters-documents/statements-of-votes-cast/2020-november---presidential-election/final-official-results-cumulative-report.pdf?sfvrsn=7f6fa662_3 (Page 15)

30. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2020-general/ssov/pres-by-political-districts.pdf

31. https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/registrar-of-voters-documents/statements-of-votes-cast/2020-march---presidential-primary-election/full-statement-of-votes-cast.pdf?sfvrsn=43f8b60_3 (Page 17)