With Senator Ben Allen termed out, voters in the 24th Senate District have an open seat to fill
The district, which spans from the South Bay cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Torrance up through Santa Monica, Malibu and up to Calabasas, features two sharp Democratic candidates.
Brian Goldsmith, who holds a law degree from Stanford, brings to the race a professional background spanning both journalism and the business world — though he is no stranger to politics, having advised campaigns stretching back to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate run in New York. Clinton has endorsed his campaign, as has his former Harvard college roommate and friend Pete Buttigieg, among others.
While he has never held elected office, Goldsmith vows to leverage his outsider perspective and private sector experience to seek practical policy solutions to the problems facing the state. He is also the more discernibly center-left candidate in this race.
John Erickson, who holds a PhD in American Religious Studies from Claremont Graduate University, likewise brings extensive civic experience to the race. A member of the West Hollywood City Council, he has previously served as a vice president of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and president of the ACLU of Southern California. He touts endorsements from Treasurer Fiona Ma, most members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the California Teachers Association.
Erickson is the political insider here and as such can make the case he has the know-how to work within the system to get things done. He is the more progressive candidate in this race.
While there’s considerable overlap in their priorities and approach, there are also major differences.
One area they agree is a shared frustration with the California High-Speed Rail Project.
Goldsmith is blunt in his assessment. “It is a worthy goal that has become a symbol of our mismanagement and dysfunction,” he said. “Unless I see a realistic plan for concluding this project on time and on budget, I will not support throwing good money after bad.”
“My position is to finish the Central Valley segment, as abandoning it would waste billions already spent,” said Erickson, who says he wouldn’t support a new tax to fund the project. “Get trains running there, connect the line to Metrolink and Caltrain so it serves additional riders, and prove this can work before asking Californians for another dollar.”
While both recognize the need for more housing, Goldsmith emphasizes supply-side solutions and Erickson tenant protections. “I would measure our success based on housing units produced, not on rhetoric,” Goldsmith told us, arguing the state needs to promote solutions ranging from modular housing to reexamining building codes.
Erickson criticized Goldsmith for not backing rent control, but stresses he will be a champion for more housing, especially near transit. “I will be a voice on day one to bring about practical zoning changes,” he said.
On tax policy, they diverge further. Goldsmith opposes Proposition 40, the wealth tax, and supports Proposition 13’s protections for homeowners, but is open to revisiting the measure in the long-term for non-residential properties. “I am not supporting any changes to Prop. 13 but am open to longer term reforms so long as homeowners and apartment owners are protected.”
Erickson is a staunch supporter of Prop. 40, despite concerns that the measure could trigger capital flight in the long-run and hurt the state’s broader tax base. “I take the concern seriously,” he argues. “A tax that shrinks the base over time is a bad deal for everyone. Prop. 40 is built to limit that risk, though. It’s a one-time assessment tied to residency on Jan. 1, 2026, a date that has already passed.”
That’s true, but what’s also true is that passage of Prop. 40 risks opening the door to further tax measures that prompt billionaires to leave the state and others to never come in the first place.
Illuminating their differences further, Goldsmith distinguishes himself with his sensible approach on K-12 education policy, reminding us of the Democratic education reformers of the Obama-era. Citing the “Mississippi Miracle,” he is a rare Democrat who will say, “Social promotion is a problem. Students need to meet basic standards.”
Erickson, meanwhile, affirmed his status as the candidate who will put the interests of public employee unions ahead of taxpayers. He expressed disappointments with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of Assembly Bill 1383 to allow cities to boost pensions for police and firefighters, and vowed “to get it to the governor’s desk again.”
Taken together, we think the state Legislature would benefit from the perspective of Brian Goldsmith. His perspective is balanced, practical and thoughtful. Erickson will be a consistent vote for public employee union interests that already dominate state policy matters, to the detriment of myriad outcomes and taxpayers.
Brian Goldsmith has our endorsement.