Guest editorial: Another voting check on Assemblyman Patterson

As citizens of the United States, it is our right and responsibility to review the records of candidates seeking offices in the Nov. 5 election. This editorial is an extension of one I wrote for the Journal on June 26. It reviewed some of the votes cast by Assemblyman Joe Patterson (District 5) in 2023, his first year in office. This document presents highlights of Mr. Patterson's more recent voting record to once again help voters determine if his votes are consistent with their values. In the June article, I was particularly critical of some of his votes against bills of interest to women and children. Fortunately, these bills, like many others he voted against, were later signed into law[1] because the Democratic majority prevailed. One egregiously wrong vote[2] was against AB 352, which requires information on fertility and menstrual tracking apps be subject to medical privacy laws, e.g. HIPPA laws. His negative vote makes me wonder, does he support government access to this information or the sale of this information to private parties? Also in the June article, I was critical of several votes Patterson took regarding firearms, especially since guns continue to be the leading cause of death for children between ages 1 and 19. He voted against SJR 7, which established various common-sense regulations including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and a purchase waiting period. This negative vote flies in the face of Californian's 2-1 support for better common-sense regulations. Although overridden by the Democratic majority, Patterson voted against SB 2, which prohibits persons from purchasing a gun if they are a danger to themselves, others or the community at large. He also voted against AB 1089, a bill that prohibits (unserialized) 3-D printed firearms, known as "ghost guns." As you can imagine, Mr. Patterson is well-loved by the National Rifle Association, with a 92-percent approval rating in 2024. Last year, Mr. Patterson sided with landlords against renters by voting against AB 12, which prohibits landlords from charging tenants more than one month's rent for a security deposit. Is he deaf to his constituents' complaints about housing costs? Fortunately, AB 12 did become law, notwithstanding his negative vote. Regarding gender policy, Patterson voted against SB 407, which amended the foster care vetting process to ensure LGBTQ+ youth are not placed in hostile homes. This year, he voted against AB 1955, which prohibits school districts from mandating parental notification of students' use of pronouns. Imagine the anguish of LGBTQ+ children placed in hostile homes. Requiring teachers to out their gender-questioning students would threaten the bond of trust between teachers and students. Last year, Patterson voted against AB 1078, which prohibits school book bans. It seems he supports parents and administrators having direct control over school libraries, rather than librarians and teachers. Patterson also voted against AB 1825, the California Freedom to Read Act, which requires that public libraries not exclude access to library materials solely on the basis of race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability or political affiliation. Finally, he voted against AB 2711, which prohibits suspension of students who disclose their own substance abuse in order to seek support or services. Would he have these students suspended for seeking help? Fortunately, three of these bills are now law, while the other two passed the Assembly and Senate and await Governor Gavin Newsom's signature. Furthermore, Patterson has consistently voted with oil and gas interests, ignoring environmental concerns. He voted against AB 3233, which would give local governments the power to limit or ban oil production in their areas, and against AB 1866, which requires timely cleanup of idle oil and gas wells. Both bills have passed the legislature and now await the governor's signature. Last year, Patterson took two votes that would have denied us the option of voting on two amendments to the California constitution. He voted against ACA 1, which reduces the supermajority vote requirement from 67 percent to 55 percent for local jurisdictions seeking to issue bonds or impose special taxes for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. The original two-thirds requirement was all but impossible to meet; housing and infrastructure suffered as a result. Patterson also voted against ACA 13, which requires ballot measures aiming to raise the threshold for new taxes to pass by the same threshold. Despite his votes to quash these measures and keep them off the ballot, you will get to vote on them in the General Election. That's democracy in action. Fortunately, we have an outstanding alternative to Patterson in Democrat Neva Parker. She opposes each of the Patterson votes highlighted herein. Parker is endorsed by, among others, the Sierra Club, the California Teachers Association and the California Labor Federation. Other key issues for Parker include protecting women's reproductive rights, improving education, better supporting seniors and better managing forests for wildfire mitigation and prevention. Please vote wisely, not just in the national races but also for your preferred state and local candidates. Dr. Roughgarden is a retired economist and mechanical engineer with degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University. [1] The current status of all bills mentioned herein can be found using the "Fast Democracy" website, https://fastdemocracy.com/.[2] Patterson's votes can be verified using the "Vote Smart, Facts for All" website https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/198005/joe-patterson/?p=1