Skip to content

California's legal and political landscape favors municipal election protection ordinances

Tier 1 — Strong Viability
3Target Cities
Charter CityHome Rule

California offers an unusually favorable environment for local election protection ordinances based on 18 U.S.C. § 592. The state's robust Home Rule doctrine, explicit constitutional protection for charter city control over police and elections, existing state law prohibiting armed presence at polls, and the precedent established by SB 54's successful defense against federal challenge create a strong legal foundation. Berkeley, San Francisco, and West Hollywood emerge as optimal targets, with a well-established coalition infrastructure ready to mobilize.

Article XI establishes expansive municipal power

California is definitively a Home Rule state—one of the earliest and strongest in the nation. Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides the foundational authority:

"It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws."

Critically, Article XI, Section 5(b) explicitly enumerates police and elections as municipal affairs: - (1) "the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force" - (3) "conduct of city elections"

This constitutional language directly addresses both elements of an election protection ordinance—police department operations and election administration. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that charter cities enjoy constitutional supremacy over municipal affairs, declaring them "supreme and beyond the reach of legislative enactment" on such matters (Ex Parte Braun, 1903).

Charter cities possess substantial advantages over general law cities

California's 121 charter cities derive power directly from the state constitution, not legislative grant. Their charters function as municipal constitutions, capable of superseding state general laws on municipal affairs. General law cities, by contrast, have only those powers explicitly granted by the Legislature and cannot invoke the municipal affairs doctrine.

The foundational case California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) establishes the four-part test for state-local conflicts: 1. Does the matter implicate a "municipal affair"? 2. Is there genuine conflict between municipal ordinance and state law? 3. Does a "statewide concern" exist (demonstrably transcending identifiable municipal interests)? 4. Is the statute both reasonably related to the statewide concern AND narrowly tailored?

For election protection ordinances directing local police conduct, charter cities hold strong ground: police force regulation is an expressly enumerated municipal affair under the constitution itself.

California's preemption landscape presents manageable obstacles

A local ordinance conflicts with state law when it duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area "fully occupied" by state law. However, charter cities enjoy constitutional protection from preemption on municipal affairs—the question becomes whether the subject truly qualifies as a municipal affair or statewide concern.

California's 2022 firearm preemption reform significantly strengthened local authority: local gun safety regulations may only be preempted by explicit statements in state law, not implied preemption, provided local regulation is at least as stringent as state law.

SB 54 provides a validated model for limiting federal cooperation

The California Values Act (SB 54, Government Code §§ 7284-7284.12), effective January 1, 2018, establishes clear precedent for restricting local law enforcement cooperation with federal authorities. Key provisions prohibit state and local law enforcement from:

  • Using resources to investigate, detain, or arrest persons for federal immigration enforcement
  • Providing personal information to federal immigration authorities
  • Transferring individuals to federal authorities without judicial warrant
  • Allowing federal agents to interview persons in custody without written consent

The Ninth Circuit upheld SB 54 against federal challenge in United States v. California (2019), invoking the anticommandeering doctrine: "California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule derived from the Tenth Amendment, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts." The Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving SB 54 firmly in place.

This precedent demonstrates that California jurisdictions can: - Limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal authorities - Withstand federal preemption challenges under the anticommandeering doctrine - Direct how state/local resources are used without violating federal law

Notably, SB 54 explicitly preserves local policies restricting cooperation—Government Code § 7284.6(b)(3)(C) states that participation in task forces by California law enforcement agencies "does not violate any local law or policy to which it is otherwise subject."

Supremacy Clause analysis: alignment rather than conflict

18 U.S.C. § 592 is a federal criminal statute prohibiting federal officers from deploying troops at polling places—it creates a prohibition on federal action rather than granting affirmative rights to local governments. The Supremacy Clause argument for local ordinances works best when local law aligns with (rather than conflicts with) federal policy.

A local ordinance directing municipal police to recognize and support the federal prohibition established by § 592 operates in harmony with federal law. If state law attempted to preempt such local action, the argument exists that federal election law creates a floor that states cannot undercut—though this argument remains largely untested.

Litigation risk assessment: low to moderate for charter cities

Factors reducing litigation risk: - Ordinance aligned with existing state law (SB 54, Election Code § 18544) - Focus on local police department operations (clear municipal affair) - Narrow tailoring to specific election protection purposes - Consistency with federal law (§ 592) - Explicit constitutional enumeration of police and election matters as municipal affairs

Primary risk vectors: - State may argue elections involve statewide concerns (courts have found housing to be statewide concern; elections analysis is more complex) - Federal preemption claims if ordinance attempts to directly restrict federal agents (mitigated by focusing on local police conduct) - Standing issues—Ninth Circuit precedent limits local government standing to challenge state laws in federal court

General law cities face substantially higher risk since they cannot invoke charter city protections for municipal affairs.

California already comprehensively prohibits firearms at polling places

California maintains one of the nation's strongest total prohibitions on firearms at polling places through multiple overlapping statutes. Only 16 states plus D.C. have comparable total prohibitions.

Section 2: California statutes provide robust statutory foundation

Elections Code § 18544 parallels federal law at state level

This is the centerpiece statute for any California election protection ordinance:

"Any person in possession of a firearm or any uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel or any person who is wearing a uniform of a peace officer, guard, or security personnel, who is stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without written authorization of the appropriate city or county elections official is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment... for 16 months or two or three years, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both."

Narrow exceptions exist for unarmed uniformed personnel voting, peace officers conducting official business or voting, and guards hired by elections officials or facility managers. Critically, armed presence requires elections official authorization.

Elections Code § 18545 explicitly covers federal law enforcement

This statute makes California's prohibition explicitly applicable to federal agents:

"Any person who hires or arranges for any other person in possession of a firearm or any uniformed law enforcement officer... to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place or a county elections office without written authorization of the appropriate elections official or written authorization by a federal court order is punishable..."

Section 18545© explicitly states this applies to: 1. A peace officer as defined in Section 830 of the Penal Code 2. "An officer or agent of a federal law enforcement agency or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency"

This provides a state-law mechanism addressing federal agents at polls without elections official authorization—directly parallel to 18 U.S.C. § 592.

Additional voter protection statutes

Elections Code § 18540 (Primary Voter Intimidation Statute): Criminalizes force, violence, or tactics of coercion to influence voting as a felony punishable by 16 months to three years imprisonment.

Elections Code § 18541 (100-Foot Zone Protections): Prohibits, within 100 feet of polling places, soliciting votes, speaking about voter qualifications (except as provided), photographing voters entering/exiting, or obstructing access.

Elections Code § 18581 (The PEACE Act, AB 2642): Creates a rebuttable presumption that openly carrying a firearm while interacting with or observing voters or election officials constitutes intimidation. Even for law enforcement acting within official duties, courts may consider firearm possession in determining violations.

Penal Code § 26230(a)(25): Prohibits concealed carry permit holders from carrying at "a polling place, voting center, precinct, or other area or location where votes are being cast or cast ballots are being returned or counted, or the streets or sidewalks immediately adjacent." Notably, subdivision (29) explicitly allows local laws to add additional prohibited areas.

Local control statutes empower city councils

Government Code § 37100 establishes city council's fundamental ordinance power: "The legislative body may pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the State or the United States."

Government Code § 36505 gives city councils authority over police leadership: "The city council shall appoint the chief of police."

Article XI, Section 7 grants constitutional police power to all cities: "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws."

Section 3: Berkeley leads the target city analysis

Berkeley: optimal first target

Charter Status: Long-established charter city with full municipal affairs authority over police force and elections.

Governing Body: Berkeley City Council—9 members (Mayor plus 8 district councilmembers). Mayor Adena Ishii's term extends through November 2028. The council maintains a consistently progressive composition.

Political History: Berkeley was the first sanctuary city in the United States, adopting its sanctuary resolution in 1971—before any other American city. The city has reaffirmed sanctuary status repeatedly (1986, 2007, 2015, 2016, and most recently January 2025), formally codifying its Sanctuary City Ordinance with unanimous passage in 2025.

Berkeley created one of the nation's first Police Review Commissions in 1973, and voters approved replacing it with a stronger Police Accountability Board in 2020. The city passed an Election Rigging Response Act resolution in 2025 and maintains a strong history of federal resistance dating to anti-war and civil rights movements.

Recent Actions (2020-2025): - Sanctuary City Ordinance formally codified (2025) - $8 million Berkeley CareBridge Program (post-arrest diversion) - Sanctuary City Task Force created by Mayor Ishii - Police Accountability Board strengthened (2020)

Recommendation Score: 9.5/10 — Charter city status with explicit constitutional authority, longest-standing sanctuary jurisdiction nationally, demonstrated political will for bold civil liberties ordinances, smaller size allowing faster action and direct community engagement.

Charter Status: The only consolidated charter city-county in California, providing maximum municipal affairs authority with both city and county powers under a well-established 1932 charter.

Governing Body: Board of Supervisors—11 members elected by district. Mayor Daniel Lurie took office January 2025 as a moderate Democrat. Board President Rafael Mandelman serves as a swing vote between progressive and moderate factions, with Supervisor Jackie Fielder leading the progressive caucus.

Political History: San Francisco passed the first comprehensive sanctuary city ordinance in the U.S. in 1989 (City and County of Refuge Ordinance No. 12-H). The city was first to sue the Trump administration over sanctuary city defunding in 2017 and has a long history of progressive landmark legislation.

Potential Obstacles: The current political environment reflects a moderate shift—Mayor Lurie removed a progressive police commissioner in February 2025, and the board shows a "moderate majority" orientation focused more on budget austerity than new progressive initiatives.

Recommendation Score: 8.5/10 — Unique consolidated city-county status, national visibility, established legal infrastructure for challenging federal overreach, but current political composition less favorable than Berkeley.

West Hollywood: most progressive per capita but lacks charter authority

Charter Status: General law city (incorporated 1984)—a significant limitation meaning it is bound by state general law on municipal affairs.

Governing Body: City Council—5 members. Mayor Chelsea Lee Byers leads a unanimously progressive council—the first majority openly gay city council in the world (1984).

Political History: West Hollywood established the first domestic partnership registry in the nation (1985), was first in California to require gender-neutral restrooms (2014), and first to ban assault weapons (1994). The city designated itself an LGBTQ Sanctuary City in 2024 and has affirmed immigration sanctuary status.

Recent Actions: The city passed a comprehensive Gun Safety Ordinance in May 2025 requiring liability insurance and restricting firearms in city spaces. However, West Hollywood contracts with the LA County Sheriff's Department for policing—it has no independent police force.

Recommendation Score: 8.0/10 — Unparalleled progressive record and political will, but general law city status creates genuine legal limitations for ordinances asserting municipal control over election administration.

Alternative strong candidates

Oakland (Score: 7.0/10): Charter city with one of the nation's most powerful Police Commissions (power to fire police chief), sanctuary city since 1986. However, significant moderate political shift following Mayor Sheng Thao's recall creates uncertainty. Council recently approved a controversial Flock Safety surveillance contract despite sanctuary concerns.

Los Angeles (Score: 7.5/10): Largest charter city, highest potential impact. Passed Sanctuary City Ordinance unanimously (13-0) in November 2024. Mayor Karen Bass signed Executive Directive No. 12 in July 2025 reinforcing sanctuary status. However, currently being sued by DOJ over sanctuary policies, and federal government deployed National Guard and Marines to the city over immigration protests in June 2025—highest federal heat in the nation.

City Charter Status Score Key Advantage Key Risk
Berkeley Charter 9.5 First sanctuary city, strong political will Smaller visibility
San Francisco Charter (consolidated) 8.5 Unique legal status, highest visibility Moderate political shift
West Hollywood General Law 8.0 Most progressive per capita Not a charter city
Los Angeles Charter 7.5 Largest impact Active DOJ lawsuit
Oakland Charter 7.0 Strong police commission Political instability

Section 4: Established coalition infrastructure ready to mobilize

Core partners bring litigation and advocacy capacity

ACLU of Northern California maintains active voting rights campaigns including Know Your Rights materials, successful defense of California's mail ballot counting rules, and intervention in DOJ lawsuits seeking California voter data. The organization combines voting rights expertise with dedicated police accountability work and has coalition experience with League of Women Voters California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice organizations, and California Black Power Network.

ACLU of Southern California operates the "Unlock the Vote" campaign focusing on justice-involved individuals' voting rights in LA and Orange County jails, supported noncitizen voting measures, and maintains the Jails Project for police accountability. Main office: 1313 W. 8th Street, Los Angeles.

League of Women Voters of California serves as primary plaintiff in litigation against Representative Issa's mail ballot lawsuit, intervened in DOJ voter data lawsuits, and operates 61 local leagues across California. The organization reaches 2.8 million voters annually through its multilingual Easy Voter Guide. Contact: (916) 442-7215; lwvc@lwvc.org; 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 - #5001, Sacramento, CA 95814.

California Common Cause co-leads the national Election Protection Coalition in California (with Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) for over 10 years, deploys 70+ trained poll monitors in Riverside, San Diego, and Los Angeles Counties, and staffs the 866-OUR-VOTE hotline. Executive Director Jonathan Mehta Stein leads the organization.

Latino and immigrant rights organizations offer grassroots power

CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights), California's largest immigrant rights organization, operates the Immigrant Political Power Project reaching 240,000 voters in 43 California counties with an 80% voter turnout rate among engaged supporters. The organization sits on steering committees for Voter Choice Act implementation in LA and Orange Counties. Contact: (213) 353-1333; 2533 W. Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057.

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), the nation's leading Latino legal civil rights organization, brings extensive voting rights litigation experience including the landmark Kern County VRA lawsuit victory (2018)—the first federal VRA lawsuit in California in over a decade. President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz leads the organization. Contact: (213) 629-2512; info@MALDEF.org.

Mi Familia Vota operates the largest field infrastructure in Latino communities with presence in Modesto, Fresno, Inland Empire, LA, Madera, Merced, and San Joaquin. Phone banking reached 151,000+ California voters for the 2025 election.

Asian American organizations provide language access expertise

Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Southern California enforces Section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act through its Voting Rights Project and operates multilingual voter hotlines in eight languages including English (888-349-9695), Chinese (800-520-2356), Korean (800-867-3640), Vietnamese (714-477-2958), and others.

Asian Law Caucus (Asian Americans Advancing Justice - ALC), the nation's first AAPI legal and civil rights organization, co-sponsored the California Voting for All Act and leads statewide redistricting advocacy.

Chinese for Affirmative Action anchors the Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality network and led the Immigrant Parent Voting Collaborative that won San Francisco school board noncitizen voting implementation. Contact: (415) 274-6750; 17 Walter U Lum Place, San Francisco, CA 94108.

Existing coalition infrastructure provides foundation

The National Election Protection Coalition (California chapter), led by California Common Cause and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has operated for over 10 years with 400+ poll monitors deployed across seven or more counties.

The ACLU-LWVC Legal Partnership has jointly litigated mail ballot protection and voter data protection cases, representing the League in federal court proceedings.

California Calls, a statewide alliance of community organizations, reaches 100,000+ voters in coordinated campaigns using integrated voter engagement to build power in low-income communities and communities of color. Member organizations include Community Coalition, Inner City Struggle, SCOPE, and ACCE.

Successful municipal ordinance campaign precedents

  • Los Angeles Independent Redistricting (2022): California Common Cause led; passed with 74%+ approval
  • Santa Ana Measure DD (2024): ACLU SoCal supported noncitizen voting in municipal elections
  • San Francisco Immigrant Parent Voting: CAA and immigrant rights coalition won implementation
  • California Values Act (SB 54): ICE Out of California Coalition including California Calls

Section 5: Election Security Infrastructure

California's election security infrastructure is among the most layered and well-resourced in the nation, built on comprehensive state-level cybersecurity systems, the nation's strongest firearms prohibitions at polling places, and active litigation defending election integrity against federal overreach. The near-elimination of CISA election security services and 96% decline in HAVA funding make this state-level infrastructure the primary line of defense heading into the 2026 midterms, though the 58-county system means smaller rural counties that relied on federal services face outsized impacts.

Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. (D) administers California's elections, overseeing 58 county registrars of voters. California's Elections Code is among the most comprehensive in the nation, anchored by the California Voting Rights Act (Elections Code sections 14025-14032), enacted in 2002, which is stronger than the federal VRA -- requiring no showing of geographically concentrated minority districts and imposing no intent requirement.

California is a universal vote-by-mail state with all active registered voters receiving mail ballots. In-person voting remains available at vote centers. All systems require paper ballot audit trails (Elections Code section 19250), with optical scan tabulation (Dominion ImageCast, ES&S, Hart InterCivic Verity) across counties. Los Angeles County uses its custom VSAP system. Risk-limiting audits are supported statewide.

Key 2024-2025 legislation: The PEACE Act (AB 2642, signed September 24, 2024) is the first-in-nation law creating a private right of action for voter intimidation (Elections Code sections 18580-18582) and establishing a legal presumption that open carry of firearms while observing voting constitutes intimidation. The Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act (AB 2655) requires platforms to restrict AI-generated deceptive election content near elections. SB 280 (2025) added Section 8162 to the Elections Code.

Cybersecurity Infrastructure & Capabilities

California operates one of the most layered cybersecurity ecosystems of any state. The California Cybersecurity Integration Center (Cal-CSIC), codified in Government Code section 8586.5 and housed within Cal OES, serves as the central coordination hub. The Office of Information Security within the Department of Technology operates SOCaaS -- a cloud-native, 24/7 Security Operations Center serving 112+ public-sector organizations with estimated savings exceeding $54 million. The Election Security Task Force (joint SOS/Cal OES initiative) coordinates county-level cybersecurity with the Election Security Subcommittee of the California Cybersecurity Task Force.

California's National Guard maintains robust cyber capabilities: Cyber Protection Team 171 (Army), the 195th Wing (Air National Guard, dedicated cyber), the 261st Cyberspace Operations Squadron, and Joint Task Force Cyber, which hosts the multi-state Cyber Dawn exercise. The Guard's Cyber Network Defense Team conducts penetration tests of state agencies on a rotational basis.

HAVA funding totals approximately $491 million -- by far the largest allocation among Pacific and Western states, reflecting California's 12% share of national voting-age population. This includes $73.5 million in Election Security Grants (2018-2020) and $36.5 million in CARES Act funds.

The loss of CISA/EI-ISAC services is significant but manageable for California given its self-funded SOCaaS, Cal-CSIC, and large IT workforce. However, the state's 58-county system means that smaller, rural counties that relied heavily on federal scanning and intelligence services face outsized impacts.

Physical Security & Polling Place Protections

California maintains a 100-foot electioneering-free buffer zone (Elections Code sections 18370, 18541, 18546) measured from the entrance to polling places and from the room where voters sign the roster.

Firearms protections are among the strongest in the nation. Elections Code section 18544(a) prohibits any person possessing a firearm from being stationed at or near a polling place. Penal Code section 26230(a)(25) prohibits concealed carry licensees from carrying at voting locations. The PEACE Act (Elections Code section 18581) creates a presumption of intimidation for open carry while observing voting. Critically, Elections Code section 18544 also prohibits uniformed peace officers, private guards, or security personnel from being stationed at polls without written authorization from the elections official -- making unauthorized law enforcement presence a felony.

Poll watchers need no credentials or party affiliation -- anyone may observe (Elections Code section 2300(a)(9)(A)). However, watchers cannot communicate with voters within 100 feet, question voter qualifications, or photograph voters (Elections Code section 18541).

Voter intimidation is a felony under Elections Code section 18540 (16 months to 3 years imprisonment). The PEACE Act provides prevailing plaintiffs with attorney's fees, expert fees, and litigation expenses, and grants the AG enforcement authority. The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civil Code section 51.7) provides an additional civil cause of action for political activity-based threats.

Anti-paramilitary protections include Penal Code section 11460 (assembling as a paramilitary organization) and constitutional subordination of militia to civil authority.

California is a co-lead plaintiff in State of California v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10810-DJC (D. Mass.), the 19-state challenge to EO 14248. AG Rob Bonta co-led the filing on April 3, 2025. Judge Denise Casper granted a preliminary injunction on June 13, 2025, blocking the documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement (section 2(a)), provisions targeting mail ballot receipt deadlines (section 7(a)), and funding conditions (section 7(b)). The injunction was modified July 18 to apply only to plaintiff states. The DOJ appealed to the First Circuit on July 31, 2025 (Case No. 25-1726), with full briefing completed by late January 2026.

AG Bonta has filed 50+ lawsuits against the Trump administration as of 2025. His office issues pre-election law enforcement bulletins (DLE bulletins) and deploys on-call DOJ attorney teams statewide on Election Day. The AG has direct enforcement authority under the PEACE Act (Elections Code section 18582©).

Private right of action: The PEACE Act provides a robust private right of action for voter intimidation, with fee-shifting for prevailing plaintiffs. The CVRA similarly provides private enforcement with attorney's fees (Elections Code section 14029).

Key contacts:

Role Contact
Secretary of State (916) 653-6814; (800) 345-VOTE; elections@sos.ca.gov
AG Election Protection (916) 210-6300 (Division of Law Enforcement)
Cal-CSIC (833) REPORT-1; calcsic@caloes.ca.gov
Cal OES (916) 845-8510
## Conclusion: strategic pathway for California implementation

California's legal architecture provides exceptional foundation for municipal election protection ordinances. Charter cities possess explicit constitutional authority over both police force regulation and conduct of elections—the two core elements of any ordinance based on 18 U.S.C. § 592. Existing state law through Elections Code § 18544-18545 already prohibits armed presence at polls (including federal agents) without elections official authorization, meaning local ordinances can build on rather than conflict with state policy.

Berkeley emerges as the optimal launch city given its charter status, status as America's first sanctuary city, consistently progressive council, and demonstrated recent political will through the 2025 Sanctuary City Ordinance and Election Rigging Response Act resolution. The city offers faster action potential than larger jurisdictions while providing sufficient visibility.

The coalition infrastructure is already in place. Organizations with litigation capacity (ACLU chapters, MALDEF), grassroots voter mobilization (CHIRLA, Mi Familia Vota, California Calls), established election protection operations (Common Cause, LWVC), and language access expertise (Asian Americans Advancing Justice chapters) have existing partnerships and track records of successful collaboration.

Three strategic recommendations emerge from this research:

  1. Target charter cities exclusively for initial ordinance passage to maximize legal defensibility under the municipal affairs doctrine—Berkeley first, then San Francisco

  2. Frame ordinances as implementing existing state policy (Election Code § 18544-18545) and aligning with federal law (§ 592) rather than creating new restrictions, reducing preemption vulnerability

  3. Leverage SB 54 precedent both legally (anticommandeering doctrine) and rhetorically (California's established position on limiting local-federal law enforcement cooperation)

The legal risk profile is low to moderate for charter cities, with the strongest protection available for ordinances that focus on directing local police conduct—an expressly enumerated municipal affair under the California Constitution—rather than attempting to directly bind federal agents.

Printable Flyer

Download the California Election Protection Flyer

A printable 5.5" × 8.5" flyer with California-specific legal analysis, target cities, and coalition partners.

View & Download Flyer

Open the flyer in your browser, then use File → Print or Ctrl+P to print or save as PDF. The flyer is optimized for half-letter (5.5" × 8.5") printing.

City-Specific Flyers

Printable flyers for individual cities with local council details, meeting schedules, and action steps.

Berkeley — ~124,000 San Francisco — ~874,000 West Hollywood — ~35,000