Connect with us


We can fix Los Angeles: The people of this city can and will come together

I have the plans, the experience, the leadership, the support, and the passion.



Courtesy of Craig Greiwe

Editor’s note: The following essay is written by a mayoral candidate seeking the office of the mayor of the City of Los Angeles. The essay is an independent viewpoint published by the Los Angeles Blade without endorsement and is additionally not a paid political advertisement.

By Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Craig Greiwe | I have been thinking a lot lately about what it means to run for office in America.  

You see, when I started running for Mayor of Los Angeles in late 2021, I had an idea about what it meant to serve my city.  

I had real, concrete plans; in fact, the only published plans of any candidate. I had experience in leadership, both in business and in nonprofits. I had a successful career and track record of bringing solutions to seemingly impossible and complex problems of all sizes. I had a full campaign team of experts. I had a message that resonated with people, and which still does: Knowing that the people who created our problems cannot be the people who solve them.  

Above all else, I had passion. The kind of fire-in-your-belly, true-believer passion that makes you wake up early and go to bed late believing that no matter how bad things seem in this city, they can and will be better.  

We can fix Los Angeles. The people of this city can and will come together to choose change based on common ground and common sense. I had all these things, and still do, proudly. But I did not have the experience of what we expect of people to become a public servant.

The last four months, along with my life experience, have taught me that everything I read about, everything I knew from advising other candidates, everything I learned from building the fastest-growing grassroots movement in the city — all of it was informative, educational, redeeming, challenging, and impressive, and very much not enough.  

It has also taught me that I am ready to be the next Mayor of Los Angeles. 

I have the plans, the experience, the leadership, the support, and the passion. I have also realized that what we expect of people to become Mayor, or City Councilmember, or even Block Captain, may be what is tearing Los Angeles, and this country, apart. The way we hold our elections is not just part of the problem, it is the problem.

I did not grow up wanting to be a politician, or in politics in any capacity. Growing up the way I did, public service was not even on the map. I was too busy running from work to school and back again in an effort to survive to be able to think about changing the world. I grew up poor, dirt poor. The kind of poor where you cannot afford shoes and where you must forage in the forest for food. Today, hipsters think it is kitschy and fun. To me, it was necessary to live.  

Things got worse when I was abandoned at age 14. I was left to fend for myself and faced the type of impossible questions that no one should ever confront, and yet all too many people have to. I had to figure out life on my own, without parents, even bad ones, and always just a knife’s edge away from homelessness and starvation. Only through determination, hard work, and helping hands from other people did I find a way out.  And along the way, I learned that every decision mattered. What I did in the morning, what job I took, what too-quick-turn that caused a flat tire I could not afford, it all mattered. It was the difference between a roof over my head and hunger pains at night.  

Though I would grow up and emerge from poverty to become a successful business leader and executive, I never lost the feeling that every decision mattered. If anything, that is why I became successful in my job. Some of America’s most trusted corporations and individuals, from Verizon and the late Kobe Bryant, trusted me to lead strategy and business operations because every decision always mattered, and I usually made the best one for them based on exhaustive research, common sense, and a deep understanding of every issue and alternative.

In late 2019, I approached the crises confronting Los Angeles with the same rigor I did my client work. I wanted to help the city that I loved, the city with the only friends and adopted family I had ever known. After extensive research and interviews, I discovered that we had a ruling class that no longer responded to the people they were supposed to serve.  

Eric Garcetti was elected Mayor with just over 200,000 votes in a city of four million people. Elected city officials were just on a carousel of personal ambition with lifetime pensions attached. The vast majority of the people in this city did not vote or even know who represented them, and the vast majority of elected officials preferred it that way, as they pilfered from the public – three indicted city councilmen in under 20 months is just the start – and built-up power that surpasses that of any other local official in America. 

My research also led me to see an opportunity that, because of a date change in our city elections, we would have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to bring real change. Our citywide elections, including Mayor, would align with federal elections for the first time, sending turnout soaring by 300 percent. The ballot box would be flooded with new city voters who could overwhelm the ruling class of Los Angeles by sheer volume. All they had to do was believe it was possible, something they did not yet do.  

As a result, I created Rise Together, a grassroots organization focused on common ground and common sense. We worked to shift the public narrative and succeeded. When we started our messaging campaign, more than 75 percent of Angelenos did not believe change was possible. Within six months that number had dropped to under 38 percent thanks to our work to accelerate a desire for change already underway in the city. Candidates in almost every race began using, if not copying, our organization’s language, and self-identifying their affinity for common sense. We amassed a movement of over 100,000 people.  

There was just one problem: No one in the Mayor’s race was focused on that change or common sense. Every leading candidate was a career politician, and the remaining expected candidate who later declared, has also been a career insider for more than 30 years, though unelected. 

 I faced the daunting reality that if no one did anything, all our work to bring change to this city would be bulldozed by a more-of-the-same Mayor. So, I made the difficult decision to step away from Rise Together to run for office – something I had never in my life wanted to do.

It was not a decision I took lightly. I did more than 2,000 interviews, meetings, and calls with folks around the city. I digested over 100,000 pages of research.  I wrote exhaustive, real plans to address our crises, and lined up experts and supporters in every field who could support the campaign and our movement for change. We mapped a clear, if hard, path to votes and victory, in spite of the millions of dollars we knew institutionalists would spend trying to paper over their own failing records. I became a candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles. 

Almost immediately, however, I realized that being ready to be Mayor, as I was and am, had nothing in common with being ready to be a candidate. It was not the mean tweets; my clients had taught me not to fear or care about basement bloggers simply hoping for a big break with salacious rumors and lies. It was not the endless fundraising calls, which I took as an opportunity to talk with voters, something I loved. It was not the 18-hour days or the endless events, all of which filled me with energy and passion, seeing the look of inspiration and hope in people’s faces. Those things, I was ready for.

What I did not expect was the combination two factors in a perfect storm. First, the willingness of those in power to do anything to stay in power and, second, the public’s willingness to stay disengaged. 

First, the power. One candidate sent a surrogate to ask me to drop out of the race in exchange for becoming Deputy Mayor and designated successor, as if the office was something that could be doled out like party favors. Not one, but two leading reporters told me that they would not cover me or mention my name because, substituting their judgment for the public’s, they felt I “should not be a candidate” because I had not “followed the rules” to get a Commission seat or run for smaller office first.  

Those who have governed this city, lobbied this city, run elections, and even marched in parades lined up, one after the other, to explain to me my candidacy was not credible. Their reasoning? Because I was not a current elected official or billionaire willing to pump endless money into it. No matter how many supporters I had, or how much money I raised, they would continue to ignore me, hoping to strangle my outsider candidacy, and its threat to their world order, on the vine. 

All of this coalesced in a recent Mayoral debate. A seemingly respectable university, Loyola Marymount, allowed a professor moonlighting as a paid lobbyist to control and manipulate their debate. He, too, tried to silence me because I “should not be a candidate”. Hundreds of citizens wrote to Loyola Marymount to advocate for my inclusion, including civic leaders with strong consciences.  

Yet others did not. Three organizations who represent the LGTBQ community in politics refused to publicly advocate on my behalf for fear of alienating favor with a leading straight candidate (so much for community!). Three former elected officials said they believed my exclusion was “abhorrent” but there were challenging “political circumstances” that prohibited them from speaking out in spite of their principles. Loyola Marymount buried its head in the sand.

All of this, for what? To prevent me from speaking on a single debate stage? To prevent an honest exchange of ideas? What do these institutionalists, the elected officials, and their staffs who have governed this city for decades of failure, have to fear from an outsider that, by their own attacks, they claim is not credible? Every voter should find an answer for themselves.

And I hope that they do. Because the second, and most trying circumstance of being a candidate, is the voter and their apathy. When I declared my candidacy, I believed and still do — that the voters here care about their lives and making Los Angeles a better place. They know that this city has gone from being a place that serves its people to one that breaks them down.  They know that we cannot trust the people who created our problems to be the same people who solve them. They can look out their windows, no matter how many ads my opponents run, and see the track record of failing leadership in their streets. I believe in the people of this city, every day. Even when they challenge me not to.

Every day, I talk to dozens of people who say they “do not want to get involved in politics” even while they complain about the homeless on their block. They are focused on the dangers of a neighborhood encampment, not looking down the road far enough to see we have the chance to end all encampments while housing all the homeless in a comprehensive plan. They listen to my speech in a town hall or zoom meeting and applaud. They say they will vote for me, but they cannot bring themselves to share a social post or forward an email to a friend. They take action in their heart, but not with their fingers, feet, or wallets. So many people in this city want change, but they have not yet decided to make the very choices that can and will bring about that change. It is almost enough to be maddening. Combined with the malfeasance of the ruling class of this city, it makes it almost impossible to run for any office, including Mayor.

So why do it? Because I still believe.  Every day shows me that for every ten people I talk to who aren’t willing to take the plunge, there is one who is willing to do it ten times over.  There are people so fed up with career public parasites, they are willing to go to the mat every day.  There are people so hurt by this city that, even though they can barely afford to make their rent, they donate $25 to my campaign because they believe in me and my message of change.  I still do it because I’ve met and spoken to thousands of people, and I know that those people can eventually bring the rest of the city along…and I choose to believe they will.

You see, being a candidate is different from being Mayor. I am ready to be Mayor. I am prepared. My plans will solve our problems. But being a candidate has nothing to do with that.  Running for office requires me to battle the most corrupt institutions and individuals of one of the most corrupt cities in America. Which I do every day. But it also requires me to believe that a noble corps of a few thousand can wake the sleeping giant public of this city and rouse them into action.  

It is a huge bet. I have staked my life on it, as the only candidate not taking a paycheck for another job while running for Mayor, which is a terrifying thought for a poor kid from the sticks. But it is a bet I have to place. The future of this city depends on it. It depends on me, and you, believing that the people of this city will rise from their slumber, make the hard decision to look past fancy slogans, and multi-million-dollar ad buys to choose the only outsider in the race, the only real plans, the only path forward out of our crises.  

That is what it takes to run for office in Los Angeles. It is grueling, grinding, and generally near impossible. However, my entire life has been making the impossible, possible. And it is the hope of the thousands of people I have met, and the thousands more I will meet, that keeps me going. I choose to believe, because believing is the only way that this city, and this country, survive. That is what I see when I think about running for office in America.

Continue Reading


WeHo ignores data on LASD in latest budget proposal

LASD misled city council on its contract & on crime rates, on June 27, the city will discuss rewarding them with a $1 million budget increase



Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies back down protesters at LA Pride (Sean Carmitchel).

By Nika Soon-Shiong | WEST HOLLYWOOD – West Hollywood’s Public Safety Commission passed a motion to reallocate $3.2 million from the annual sheriff’s contract to much needed social services.

In exchange for recovering two out of 249 stolen phones, the council will discuss a $1,030,000 contract increase to support training for undercover sting operations. Zero cell phones were recovered from dimly lit, noisy nightclubs in the sting operations so far. The $22.15 million LASD contract will soak up one fifth of the city’s budget.  

One out of every five calls to the WeHo sheriff’s department is to address homelessness. An unprecedented campaign to reallocate dollars from LASD to social services has been supported by the 17th president of the NAACP, founder of CalEITC4Me, former mayors, and more.

As one resident shared in the outpour of public comments to the June 6 City Council meeting, “We need less money for cops, and more money for things like mental health, social services, and unarmed security.”The commenter said they’d witnessed armed LASD officers sitting around in their cruiser, not attending to a deceased elderly neighbor’s body and instead waiting for the coroner’s office to handle the situation.

The commenter also said they personally experienced being met with armed LASD officers just to report that their identity had been stolen. “I had to ask two [officers] to come to my unit and stare at my modem,” the commenter said. “All of this is such a waste! There is no reason to send highly paid and trained soldiers to do the type of work that a low-level bureaucrat could do.”

Let’s put the sheriff and social services budgets into perspective with two examples: the cost for an 18 month-guaranteed income pilot for LGBTQ+ residents versus three days of law enforcement at the city’s Pride events. 

WeHo announced a guaranteed income pilot delivering $1,000 per month to elderly LGBTQ+ residents. After a legal debate over the program’s discrimination against straight people, applications will re-open late June. Over a year after the pilot was announced, only 25 people will be selected. 

There was little debate around spending even more than the total guaranteed income payments for the LASD to patrol Pride. As one ACLU SoCal lawyer shared to City Council:

“Pride was, and still is, a protest. Instead, WeHo made Pride into a parade for the sheriff… The department is openly bamboozling you, the city, and other contract cities. We can all see it.”

Other commenters matched this sentiment, reflecting that voters are ready for change:

“Rainbow-wrapped cars do nothing for the community,” said one commenter. “WeHo filled Pride with deputy gangs,” said another.”

LA City controller candidate Kenneth Mejia’s historic lead in the recent primary demonstrates the demand for common-sense budgets backed by clearly communicated and transparent data. So far, Mejia has won almost double the votes of an established, career politician of 35 years, and has nearly the same vote tallies as the leading mayoral candidates, using a platform of financial education.

Sheriff & Protective Services Budgeted for: $22,155,636. Social Services budgeted for $6,5557,492
From 2022-23 West Hollywood Budget Breakdown.

It’s been a year since the city asked the WeHo sheriff to audit the department’s own performance. This summer, the city will spend $500,000 for an external auditing firm to audit the sheriff’s audit. The plan to “audit the audit” starkly reveals the level of trust this department has earned. 

It’s true that WeHo residents are not feeling safe. A community study showed that, in 2013, only 43% of residents felt very safe. A robust sheriff presence was the primary solution offered. Five years later, in 2018, even fewer felt very safe: only 26%.

It’s also true that there is no correlation between the rising costs of the sheriff contract and crime reduction. Who gave us this data? The sheriff’s department itself.  

Let’s remember that reducing the LASD contract does not even imply there will be fewer officers in WeHo. According to the LA County CEO, the LASD hired or promoted 1,900 new employees during the “hiring freeze” and is not prevented from assigning deputies to contract cities.

A group of Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputies stand in a crosswalk in West Hollywood. One of them is holding a bottle of water.
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Deputies at LA Pride in West Hollywood (Sean Carmitchel).

In Denver, a Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) Program sent mental health clinicians, paramedics, or emergency medical technicians to respond to low-risk calls coming into the 911 system. Most of the 15.6 million calls to the STAR team did not involve a safety concern or weapon.

The program reduced crime by 34%. We can let an alternative emergency response team take similar calls in WeHo, where each single LASD deputy could pay for three social service or mental health workers. For the cost of one officer, we could buy new iPhone 13s for each resident who was pickpocketed, and still have 109 phones left over at City Hall.

The $3.2 million LASD contract reduction could quadruple the number of unarmed Block by Block Security Ambassadors to 110 people. There could be a Block by Block Security Ambassador on every corner of the two square mile city.

Investing taxpayer dollars into the gigantic LASD bureaucracy has never been an effective solution to address homelessness or crime. Direct cash programs reduce crime. Alternative emergency response teams reduce crime. 

Perhaps this doesn’t matter when perception trumps reality. We have a chance to change both and set an example for other contract cities by investing in more effective –– and fiscally responsible –– solutions to public safety. 

There’s an ongoing petition for the city to reallocate $3.2 million from LASD to social services. 

The public has from June 23rd onwards to submit written public comments before the city’s budget is finalized at the June 27th City Council meeting.


Nika Soon-Shiong is the Public Safety Commissioner for the City of West Hollywood.

Additionally she is the Founder @fund4gi, Director @ComptonPledge, Board Chair @onefairwage and a PhD Candidate @UniofOxford


The preceding article was previously published by Knock LA and is republished by permission.

Continue Reading


To Biden: No Pride in detention of Transgender, queer communities

Jennicet Gutiérrez declines to attend White House Pride event



LGBTQ+ immigrant rights activists participate in the Queens Pride parade in Jackson Heights, N.Y., on June 5, 2022. (Photo courtesy of Emilio Vicente)

Editor’s note: This is the letter that Jennicet Gutiérrez sent to the White House in response to the invitation she received to attend its Pride Month celebration.

June 13, 2022

Dear President Biden and Dr. Biden,

I received your invitation to the White House Pride Celebration on June 15, 2022, and with a clear conscience I am letting you know that I will not be attending this event. There should be no White House celebration when Trans and queer communities are suffering and being detained by your administration. There is no pride in detention. 

At the start of your administration you pledged to protect LGBTQ+ people worldwide, but it’s a commitment that you have failed to uphold at home. 

Almost a year ago, while you were holding a Pride reception, Trans and queer immigrant leaders from across the nation marched to the White House, demanding the release of trans people, people living with HIV, and any medical condition, from detention centers across the country. We are still seeking justice for Victoria Arellano, Roxsana Hernández, and Johana Medina, trans women who died because of the negligence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

Our members across the country are marching and protesting this Pride Month with the same demand of ending the violence and killings of Trans people. There have been over two million deportations since you took office, setting you up to be the next deporter-in-chief. Your administration has used Title 42 as an excuse to deport immigrants seeking a better future, most of them Black and brown people and including Trans and queer immigrants, even as your administration is relaxing requirements for people traveling to the United States. More than 32 states have drafted bills that would criminalize trans youth and their families for providing life affirming healthcare. Transgender people and children are under attack by the same white supremacist forces that are plaguing our nation and we haven’t seen your administration’s response be enough in the face of these attacks.

The reality is that as this celebration is taking place, Trans people currently in ICE custody will be in unsafe conditions. You could easily stop their suffering by instructing the Department of Homeland Security to implement a policy of liberating Trans people, people living with HIV and other medical conditions, as well as other vulnerable people.

Ending Trans detention and using your executive powers to protect LGBTQ people would have a greater impact on our community and would save many lives rather than hosting an event to deliver a well-crafted speech with broken promises.


Jennicet Eva Gutiérrez

13 de julio del 2022

Estimados presidente Biden y Dr. Biden, 

Recibí su invitación a la Celebración del Orgullo de la Casa Blanca el 15 de junio de 2022 y con la conciencia clara les hago saber que no asistiré a este evento. No debería haber celebración de Orgullo en la Casa Blanca cuando las comunidades trans y queer están sufriendo y siendo detenidas por su misma administración. No hay orgullo en la detención. 

Al comienzo de su administración, se comprometió a proteger a las personas LGBTQ + en todo el mundo, pero es un compromiso que no ha podido mantener en casa. 

Hace casi un año, mientras celebraban una recepción de Orgullo, líderes inmigrantes trans y queer de todo el país marcharon a la Casa Blanca, exigiendo la liberación de las personas trans, las personas que viven con el VIH y cualquier condición médica, de los centros de detención de todo el país. Todavía estamos buscando justicia para Victoria Arellano, Roxsana Hernández y Johana Medina, mujeres trans que murieron debido a la negligencia del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE).

Nuestros miembros en todo el país están marchando y protestando este mes del orgullo con la misma demanda de poner fin a la violencia y los asesinatos de personas trans. Ha habido más de dos millones de deportaciones desde que asumió el cargo, lo que lo prepara para ser el próximo jefe-de-deportaciones. Su administración ha utilizado el Título 42 como una excusa para deportar a los inmigrantes que buscan un futuro mejor, la mayoría de ellxs personas Negras y personas de color, e incluyendo a inmigrantes trans y queer, mientras su administración está relajando los requisitos para las personas que viajan a los Estados Unidos. Además, más de treinta y dos estados han redactado proyectos de ley que criminalizan a los jóvenes trans y sus familias por proporcionarles atención médica que afirma su género y salvan sus vidas. Las personas transgénero y los niños están siendo atacados por las mismas fuerzas supremacistas blancas que están plagando nuestra nación y no hemos visto que la respuesta de su administración es suficiente frente a estos ataques.

La realidad es que a medida que se lleva a cabo esta celebración, personas trans actualmente bajo custodia de ICE estarán en condiciones inseguras y peligrosas. Usted podría parar fácilmente su sufrimiento instruyendo al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional para que implemente una política de liberación de personas trans, personas que viven con VIH y otras condiciones médicas, así como otras personas vulnerables. 

Poner fin a la detención trans y usar sus poderes ejecutivos para proteger a las personas LGBTQ tendría un mayor impacto en nuestra comunidad y salvaría muchas vidas en lugar de organizar una celebración de Orgullo para pronunciar un discurso bien elaborado con promesas incumplidas.


Jennicet Eva Gutiérrez

Continue Reading


Think twice about attacking Trans individuals this election cycle

Elected officials targeting trans people are harming their constituents. Morality, civility, & well-being of children demands they stop



Los Angeles Blade file photo

By Lisa Turner | WASHINGTON – On May 25, 2022 Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law which requires students at public schools to use restrooms and locker rooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificates.

This is the second anti-transgender law passed in Oklahoma just this year, and is one of the latest examples of an avalanche of state-level legislation targeting the rights of LGBTQ and transgender Americans. More than 320 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures across the country since 2021. 

The situation has turned dark in Ohio, where a bill was passed in the State House that would not only ban transgender girls and women from participating in high school or college athletics, but also includes a “verification” provision which would allow authorities to examine the genitals of student athletes suspected of being transgender. 

This comes on the heels of anti-transgender legislation becoming the law of the land in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, South Dakota, and Utah, among others. In South Dakota, Gov. Kristi Noem even went so far as to run a national television ad touting her “leadership” on the issue. 

These attacks on transgender rights have also taken the form of executive action. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has instructed state agencies to investigate the parents of transgender youth for child abuse. His directive also requires teachers, doctors, and nurses to report the parents of transgender kids or risk losing their professional licenses. While this executive order in Texas has been temporarily stayed by a Federal court, governors in other states have already indicated they plan to take similar actions. 

The average person who sees news about laws or policies about transgender participation in sports or youth healthcare may think they seem reasonable, but these bills and policies are not reasonable, and are dangerously extreme. 

Conservative elected officials are using the rights of transgender youth as a wedge issue to divide voters and rile up their base. It is not surprising that the most recent and vocal governors signing anti-transgender legislation have Presidential aspirations. So, will it work? 

LPAC Action Network recently took the unprecedent approach of studying the attitudes of registered voters, both nationwide and in swing Congressional districts, when it comes to transgender rights and legislation. This study, conducted in partnership with Lake Research Partners and consisting of focus groups and polling, shows that the public disagrees with this wedge. 

Among the key findings:

● A majority of voters are concerned about discrimination and bias towards transgender people. 

● A plurality of voters say they are more likely to support a candidate who stands up for transgender rights and inclusivity. 

● Voters strongly identify with pro-equality values like freedom, respect, trust, opportunity, and belonging. 

● After seeing messaging rooted in those values, even more voters, a majority of 56%, say they are more likely to support a candidate who stands up for transgender rights and inclusivity. Even a plurality of 38% of Republicans say they are more likely to support pro-transgender candidates. 

Beyond public opinion, these actions targeting transgender youth are morally bankrupt. On the whole, transgender girls do not have an advantage in athletics. Transgender girls have been legally allowed to compete in women’s sports in California for almost ten years, to almost no controversy. And transgender children who in consultation with their parents and medical professionals receive gender-affirming care are simply receiving healthcare, they are not being abused. It is true, however, that transgender youth are uniquely vulnerable. They are more than twice as likely as their peers to report being bullied, and more than four times more likely to have attempted suicide. Bills and policies like these only further isolate and distress transgender youth. 

If restrictions on transgender children’s ability to compete in sports or access healthcare is not addressing actual societal issues, we must ask ourselves, what purpose do they serve? Who thinks they benefit? The answer seems clear: conservative politicians. 

There is a lot of pain in our country right now, especially among those of us who value human rights and freedom, due to the choice conservative politicians have made to target transgender people. It doesn’t have to be this way and it shouldn’t be this way. Our research shows advocates of equality can push back on this divisive, harmful, and dangerous strategy. And history, whether it be the example of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or marriage amendments, shows that in the long-term attacks on equality are ultimately counterproductive.

Elected officials who target transgender people are doing untold harm to their own constituents. Morality, civility, and the well-being of children demands they stop. But if that isn’t enough, hopefully political reality will make a difference.


Lisa Turner is the Executive Director of LPAC, the national committee supporting LGBTQ+ women candidates running for political office.

Turner served in the Obama Administration as a political appointee at USDA and HHS. She has worked on the national political scene for many years as a campaign consultant to numerous federal, state, and local candidates, campaign committees, and progressive donors.  Turner is a graduate of Old Dominion University and the UVA Sorensen Institute of Political Leadership. She currently serves as Chair of the Virginia LGBTQ+ Advisory Board.

Continue Reading

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts