Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Green Voter Guide for Prop. 50 (Congress. redistricting), from Green Party of Alameda County
Here is our Green Voter Guide for the November 4 statewide special election, about Proposition 50, regarding Congressional redistricting. Ballots will be mailed to all voters starting this past Monday, October 6. If you don't receive your ballot by mid-October, or have questions about your registration status, or similar matters, for Alameda county, please call the Registrar of Voters office at 510-272-6973. (Phone numbers for other counties are here: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/county-elections-offices )
Solidarity,
Green Party of Alameda County
Solidarity,
Green Party of Alameda County
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
November 4, 2025
Special Statewide Election
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Proposition 50 -- Congressional Redistricting
No Endorsement
(We need proportional representation!)
There are good reasons to vote "Yes" on Prop. 50, and there are also significant reasons to vote "No" on Prop. 50 -- therefore the Green Party of Alameda County is not making an endorsement on this measure. However, it's also important to understand what the main pro and con arguments are, so you can make a better personal decision on how you'll vote.
How we Got Here
To start, let's first review what Prop. 50 is about, and why this special election is being held. The impetus for Prop. 50 began this past Summer, when the Texas legislature, at President Trump's urging, started to consider a highly unusual bill to gerrymander the Texas congressional districts so as to give the Republicans five additional U.S. House seats. (Normally congressional districts are only redistricted once every 10 years, following U.S. census results).
California Democrats, led by Governor Newsom, then announced that they would counter Texas's gerrymandering with their own redistricting plan if the Texas bill became law. On August 3, about two weeks after the special session to consider the Texas bill began, most Texas Democrats left the state, in order to deny the Republicans a voting quorum.
Then, about a week later, Newsom sent a letter to President Trump, stating that California would halt its mid-decade redistricting plans if other states called off their efforts. But Trump did not respond, so Newsom announced that the redistricting plan for California would then move forward, and a few days after that, most Texas Democrats returned back to their state.
With a voting quorum once again in place, the Texas gerrymandering bill was then approved by the legislature on August 23 and signed into law on August 29. And meanwhile, the California gerrymandering plan was approved by California's legislature on August 21, and signed into law that same day. In addition, beyond Texas and California, at least ten other states are considering gerrymandering their Congressional districts: Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Utah for the Republicans, and Illinois and Maryland (plus New York for 2028) for the Democrats.
What Prop. 50 Will Do
Proposition 50, as an essentially mirror image of Texas's plan, is designed to give California Democrats five additional US House seats. Prop. 50's new Congressional districts would then be used for the next 3 California elections (in 2026, 2028, and 2030), in the same way that Texas would use their new Congressional districts through 2030. Then in 2030, after the 2030 census results become available, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission would again be used, to create fairly-drawn districts for the elections from 2032 through 2040. (The California Citizens Redistricting Commission would also create the districts following every census thereafter, in 2040, 2050, etc.). Finally, the proposition also calls upon the US Congress to require fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.
'Proportional Representation' Would Be a Much Better Solution
A fundamental reason why we're having these battles over Congressional districts is because the United States, unlike most of the world's democracies, uses a "winner-take-all, single-member district" voting system. Our voting system therefore guarantees that many voters will simply not receive representation. Specifically, within each district, the voters who are members of political parties other than the party of the winning candidate will not be represented by the single elected official from that district. But if we were to use proportional representation, then multiple candidates would instead be elected from a district, to represent the voters in proportion to the votes cast.
For example, here in Alameda county, there are 4 Congressional districts (numbers 10,12,14, and 17). The Democratic Party is the dominant party in each of the 4 districts, which means that Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and members of the Peace and Freedom and American Independent Parties are shut out from having elected members in those districts. And similarly, in areas where the Republican party dominates, then Democratic party voters (along with Greens, Libertarians, etc.) will be shut out of representation in those districts.
However, suppose we combined 10 of California's current Congressional districts into one large district, which would then elect 10 US House members. And suppose further that in that one large district, the Democrats received 50% of the vote, the Republicans 30%, the Greens 10%, Peace and Freedom 6%, and the other parties combined, 4%. Therefore, in proportion to the votes received, the Democrats would receive 5 of the Congressional seats, the Republicans 3, the Greens 1 (and Peace and Freedom would also receive 1). So in that scenario, all of the parties which polled over 5% of the vote would then receive representation -- as compared to the current system where a plurality of party votes (almost always requiring over 40% of the total) is needed to elect a candidate.
Because proportional representation (PR) is a fairer system which better-represents the voters' preferences, it is being adopted by increasing numbers of countries around the world, more than 130 already. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, all Eastern Europe countries except Belarus are using PR. In addition, New Zealand (1993), Scotland and Wales (1999), Chile (2015), and Armenia (2017) are now also using PR.
Here in California, the ProRep Coalition is working to enact PR, probably starting with our State Assembly. We strongly encourage you to support them -- please see: https://www.prorepcoalition.org/how-reform-happens for more info.
But of course, PR won't be on this year's ballot (and almost certainly, it won't be on next year's ballot either -- rather, the Pro Rep Coalition is working to have a ballot measure ready for the 2028 elections). So in the meantime, how should you vote on this year's Prop. 50?
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Here are some of the key points to consider for voting Yes or No on Prop. 50. A Yes vote would help make it more difficult for the highly problematic President Trump and his Republican allies to enact nationwide legislation, since passage of Prop. 50 increases the Democrats' chances of winning back a majority of US House seats. But a No vote would help prevent California from using unfair, gerrymandered Congressional districts for the next 3 US House elections. Another factor to consider are the groups and individuals which are funding each of the campaigns. The major campaign donors for "Yes on Prop. 50" include Democratic Party groups and candidates (over $13 million, with a $7.6 million donation from the House Majority PAC being the largest single contribution), labor unions (over $12 million with $3 million from the California Teachers Association and over $2.6 million from the California Nurses Association being the two largest contributions), and $10 million from the 501(c)4 group, the Fund for Policy Reform. The "No on Prop. 50" campaign has just two major donors, as we go to press: just over $30 million from former Republican Party official Charles Munger, Jr., and $5 million from the No on Prop. 50 Congressional Leadership Fund.
Until we can enact proportional representation, the apportionment of districts should be as fair as is possible, so that's a strong argument to vote No on Prop. 50. But if other states which are controlled by Republicans are gerrymandering their districts to unfairly elect more Republicans, should states whose elected officials are mostly Democrats just stand by and allow the Republicans to maintain that unfair advantage? (Which of course is a strong argument to vote Yes on Prop. 50.) Or -- to boil it all down into a single sentence: Which is more important to you, (A) Maintaining fairly-drawn California Congressional districts, especially for the next 6 years, or (B) Helping the Democrats to win back the US House (so they might help slow down Trump's plans)? As we said, there are good reasons to vote Yes, and understandable reasons to vote No on Prop. 50.
(And in the meantime, please do support proportional representation and the ProRep Coalition )
November 4, 2025
Special Statewide Election
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Proposition 50 -- Congressional Redistricting
No Endorsement
(We need proportional representation!)
There are good reasons to vote "Yes" on Prop. 50, and there are also significant reasons to vote "No" on Prop. 50 -- therefore the Green Party of Alameda County is not making an endorsement on this measure. However, it's also important to understand what the main pro and con arguments are, so you can make a better personal decision on how you'll vote.
How we Got Here
To start, let's first review what Prop. 50 is about, and why this special election is being held. The impetus for Prop. 50 began this past Summer, when the Texas legislature, at President Trump's urging, started to consider a highly unusual bill to gerrymander the Texas congressional districts so as to give the Republicans five additional U.S. House seats. (Normally congressional districts are only redistricted once every 10 years, following U.S. census results).
California Democrats, led by Governor Newsom, then announced that they would counter Texas's gerrymandering with their own redistricting plan if the Texas bill became law. On August 3, about two weeks after the special session to consider the Texas bill began, most Texas Democrats left the state, in order to deny the Republicans a voting quorum.
Then, about a week later, Newsom sent a letter to President Trump, stating that California would halt its mid-decade redistricting plans if other states called off their efforts. But Trump did not respond, so Newsom announced that the redistricting plan for California would then move forward, and a few days after that, most Texas Democrats returned back to their state.
With a voting quorum once again in place, the Texas gerrymandering bill was then approved by the legislature on August 23 and signed into law on August 29. And meanwhile, the California gerrymandering plan was approved by California's legislature on August 21, and signed into law that same day. In addition, beyond Texas and California, at least ten other states are considering gerrymandering their Congressional districts: Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Utah for the Republicans, and Illinois and Maryland (plus New York for 2028) for the Democrats.
What Prop. 50 Will Do
Proposition 50, as an essentially mirror image of Texas's plan, is designed to give California Democrats five additional US House seats. Prop. 50's new Congressional districts would then be used for the next 3 California elections (in 2026, 2028, and 2030), in the same way that Texas would use their new Congressional districts through 2030. Then in 2030, after the 2030 census results become available, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission would again be used, to create fairly-drawn districts for the elections from 2032 through 2040. (The California Citizens Redistricting Commission would also create the districts following every census thereafter, in 2040, 2050, etc.). Finally, the proposition also calls upon the US Congress to require fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.
'Proportional Representation' Would Be a Much Better Solution
A fundamental reason why we're having these battles over Congressional districts is because the United States, unlike most of the world's democracies, uses a "winner-take-all, single-member district" voting system. Our voting system therefore guarantees that many voters will simply not receive representation. Specifically, within each district, the voters who are members of political parties other than the party of the winning candidate will not be represented by the single elected official from that district. But if we were to use proportional representation, then multiple candidates would instead be elected from a district, to represent the voters in proportion to the votes cast.
For example, here in Alameda county, there are 4 Congressional districts (numbers 10,12,14, and 17). The Democratic Party is the dominant party in each of the 4 districts, which means that Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and members of the Peace and Freedom and American Independent Parties are shut out from having elected members in those districts. And similarly, in areas where the Republican party dominates, then Democratic party voters (along with Greens, Libertarians, etc.) will be shut out of representation in those districts.
However, suppose we combined 10 of California's current Congressional districts into one large district, which would then elect 10 US House members. And suppose further that in that one large district, the Democrats received 50% of the vote, the Republicans 30%, the Greens 10%, Peace and Freedom 6%, and the other parties combined, 4%. Therefore, in proportion to the votes received, the Democrats would receive 5 of the Congressional seats, the Republicans 3, the Greens 1 (and Peace and Freedom would also receive 1). So in that scenario, all of the parties which polled over 5% of the vote would then receive representation -- as compared to the current system where a plurality of party votes (almost always requiring over 40% of the total) is needed to elect a candidate.
Because proportional representation (PR) is a fairer system which better-represents the voters' preferences, it is being adopted by increasing numbers of countries around the world, more than 130 already. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, all Eastern Europe countries except Belarus are using PR. In addition, New Zealand (1993), Scotland and Wales (1999), Chile (2015), and Armenia (2017) are now also using PR.
Here in California, the ProRep Coalition is working to enact PR, probably starting with our State Assembly. We strongly encourage you to support them -- please see: https://www.prorepcoalition.org/how-reform-happens for more info.
But of course, PR won't be on this year's ballot (and almost certainly, it won't be on next year's ballot either -- rather, the Pro Rep Coalition is working to have a ballot measure ready for the 2028 elections). So in the meantime, how should you vote on this year's Prop. 50?
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Here are some of the key points to consider for voting Yes or No on Prop. 50. A Yes vote would help make it more difficult for the highly problematic President Trump and his Republican allies to enact nationwide legislation, since passage of Prop. 50 increases the Democrats' chances of winning back a majority of US House seats. But a No vote would help prevent California from using unfair, gerrymandered Congressional districts for the next 3 US House elections. Another factor to consider are the groups and individuals which are funding each of the campaigns. The major campaign donors for "Yes on Prop. 50" include Democratic Party groups and candidates (over $13 million, with a $7.6 million donation from the House Majority PAC being the largest single contribution), labor unions (over $12 million with $3 million from the California Teachers Association and over $2.6 million from the California Nurses Association being the two largest contributions), and $10 million from the 501(c)4 group, the Fund for Policy Reform. The "No on Prop. 50" campaign has just two major donors, as we go to press: just over $30 million from former Republican Party official Charles Munger, Jr., and $5 million from the No on Prop. 50 Congressional Leadership Fund.
Until we can enact proportional representation, the apportionment of districts should be as fair as is possible, so that's a strong argument to vote No on Prop. 50. But if other states which are controlled by Republicans are gerrymandering their districts to unfairly elect more Republicans, should states whose elected officials are mostly Democrats just stand by and allow the Republicans to maintain that unfair advantage? (Which of course is a strong argument to vote Yes on Prop. 50.) Or -- to boil it all down into a single sentence: Which is more important to you, (A) Maintaining fairly-drawn California Congressional districts, especially for the next 6 years, or (B) Helping the Democrats to win back the US House (so they might help slow down Trump's plans)? As we said, there are good reasons to vote Yes, and understandable reasons to vote No on Prop. 50.
(And in the meantime, please do support proportional representation and the ProRep Coalition )
For more information:
https://acgreens.wordpress.com/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
It is so refreshing to get an unbiased analysis...
I wish everyone did it. Thank you!
I wish everyone did it. Thank you!
The two-party system is deeply rigged, and the Democrats don't deserve any special rewards, not after their complicity in the genocidal destruction of Gaza, plus assisting in the occupation of the rest of stolen Palestine.
The billionaire class is the top of the pyramid, and whether the current political flavor is red or blue, they hold the cards and pull all the strings.
It's long past time to remove any hope or trust in these well-entrenched political entities- they all serve the same Wall Street slavers.
I say vote no, and focus the energy on toppling the stranglehold the (real estate developer YIMBY mafia) Democrats have on California politics.
The billionaire class is the top of the pyramid, and whether the current political flavor is red or blue, they hold the cards and pull all the strings.
It's long past time to remove any hope or trust in these well-entrenched political entities- they all serve the same Wall Street slavers.
I say vote no, and focus the energy on toppling the stranglehold the (real estate developer YIMBY mafia) Democrats have on California politics.
Platforming Bannon and Charlie Kirk, Labor, Fighting Fascism & Proposition 50
By UFCLP.org
Platforming Bannon and Charlie Kirk, Labor, Fighting Fascism & Proposition 50
The racist and anti-labor redistricting by the Republicans in Texas is an effort to rig the Congress if there are mid-term elections.
The fascist Trump government is aware that the masses of working people and the oppressed are now angry at the government and thus a democratic election would likely mean that they would lose control of the Congress.
This is the reason why they are preparing for martial law and using the expansion of ICE and the take over of cities by the military as a training ground to implement martial law nationally.
Trump and his fascist supporters in the military are also moving toward war with Venezuela and other countries in order to use it as a pretext to declare martial law.
The rise of fascism is an existential threat to the working class and the people of the United States, but the AFL-CIO leadership and all the national unions have refused to recognize their responsibility to mobilize its workers or even to organize educationals so that we can be prepared for this real possibility; it has refused to call for a national united front that would include supporting and organizing a general strike against a possible government shutdown and the continuing attacks against Federal workers and all unions and workers in the United States.
Gavin Newson, the Democratic governor of California bureaucracy has created a diversion, refusing to fight against the ICE raids that are continuing in his state supporting 715 which targets supporters of Palestine in the schools he saying he is fighting fascism, by his own redistricting plan that would counter the redistricting plan of Republican Governor Abblot which was designed to give Texas more congressional seats. In California, the Democrats, with the support of the AFL-CIO, plan to raise $300 million in campaign funds to support this initiative instead of spending money on much needed social services including healthcare.
They have already spent over $10 million to support proposition 50 yet have refused to spend any money fighting the fascist ICE raids and the attacks on public services and the use of the miliitary against mostly Black and Brown communities.
The rise of fascism will not be stopped in this way. In order to support his eventual run for president, Newsom has even platformed racists and fascists Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast, an incredibly cynical and opportunistic move. Not unsurprisingly Newsom and the Democrats have refused to counter the massive tax cuts for the billionaires by Trump and the Republicans but instead levied heavy tax increases on working people. In California where the Democrats have a ⅔ super majority in the legislature, they could pass a billionaires tax, an oil depletion tax to fund free education and stop the cutbacks, but they are doing the opposite. They are allowing more drilling in Kern County and are demanding cutbacks in medical care for immigrants. They also have allowed the destruction of Cal-OSHA and instead are demanding austerity in the schools.
San Francisco Democratic party Senator and Zionist Scott Weiner, who is pushing fascist bill 715 that would witchhunt critics of Israel in California schools, has partnered with UAW 4811 leadership for a State Bond to pay for research in public education.
This regressive legislation would again place the burden on working people of California to make up for the destruction of NIH rather than making the billionaires pay. This was accomplished with the help and connivance of the trade union bureaucrats.
This is because the AFL-CIO bureaucracy does not want to educate workers about fascism and how to fight it. In fact they have refused to call any national labor protest against the frontal attacks on the right of Federal workers to even have a union.
The major focus of working people, immigrants and the oppressed right now in the United States should be to prepare for martial law and a frontal attack by the government, with the preparation of workers assemblies, mass mobilizations of millions of workers and a national general strike. The preparation for a military attack on Venezuela and the expansion of imperialism war is imminent. The trade union bureaucracy is opposed to mass actions by working people which would threaten their political and organizational control of the unions and their relationship to the pro-capitalist imperialist Democrats.
Rather, we must combine the fight for a mass democratic labor party with a program to defend the working class in order that the working class eventually obtain power ending this absolute race to war and self destruction.
United Front Committee For A Labor Party
http://www.ufclp.org
info [at] ufclp.org
By UFCLP.org
Platforming Bannon and Charlie Kirk, Labor, Fighting Fascism & Proposition 50
The racist and anti-labor redistricting by the Republicans in Texas is an effort to rig the Congress if there are mid-term elections.
The fascist Trump government is aware that the masses of working people and the oppressed are now angry at the government and thus a democratic election would likely mean that they would lose control of the Congress.
This is the reason why they are preparing for martial law and using the expansion of ICE and the take over of cities by the military as a training ground to implement martial law nationally.
Trump and his fascist supporters in the military are also moving toward war with Venezuela and other countries in order to use it as a pretext to declare martial law.
The rise of fascism is an existential threat to the working class and the people of the United States, but the AFL-CIO leadership and all the national unions have refused to recognize their responsibility to mobilize its workers or even to organize educationals so that we can be prepared for this real possibility; it has refused to call for a national united front that would include supporting and organizing a general strike against a possible government shutdown and the continuing attacks against Federal workers and all unions and workers in the United States.
Gavin Newson, the Democratic governor of California bureaucracy has created a diversion, refusing to fight against the ICE raids that are continuing in his state supporting 715 which targets supporters of Palestine in the schools he saying he is fighting fascism, by his own redistricting plan that would counter the redistricting plan of Republican Governor Abblot which was designed to give Texas more congressional seats. In California, the Democrats, with the support of the AFL-CIO, plan to raise $300 million in campaign funds to support this initiative instead of spending money on much needed social services including healthcare.
They have already spent over $10 million to support proposition 50 yet have refused to spend any money fighting the fascist ICE raids and the attacks on public services and the use of the miliitary against mostly Black and Brown communities.
The rise of fascism will not be stopped in this way. In order to support his eventual run for president, Newsom has even platformed racists and fascists Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast, an incredibly cynical and opportunistic move. Not unsurprisingly Newsom and the Democrats have refused to counter the massive tax cuts for the billionaires by Trump and the Republicans but instead levied heavy tax increases on working people. In California where the Democrats have a ⅔ super majority in the legislature, they could pass a billionaires tax, an oil depletion tax to fund free education and stop the cutbacks, but they are doing the opposite. They are allowing more drilling in Kern County and are demanding cutbacks in medical care for immigrants. They also have allowed the destruction of Cal-OSHA and instead are demanding austerity in the schools.
San Francisco Democratic party Senator and Zionist Scott Weiner, who is pushing fascist bill 715 that would witchhunt critics of Israel in California schools, has partnered with UAW 4811 leadership for a State Bond to pay for research in public education.
This regressive legislation would again place the burden on working people of California to make up for the destruction of NIH rather than making the billionaires pay. This was accomplished with the help and connivance of the trade union bureaucrats.
This is because the AFL-CIO bureaucracy does not want to educate workers about fascism and how to fight it. In fact they have refused to call any national labor protest against the frontal attacks on the right of Federal workers to even have a union.
The major focus of working people, immigrants and the oppressed right now in the United States should be to prepare for martial law and a frontal attack by the government, with the preparation of workers assemblies, mass mobilizations of millions of workers and a national general strike. The preparation for a military attack on Venezuela and the expansion of imperialism war is imminent. The trade union bureaucracy is opposed to mass actions by working people which would threaten their political and organizational control of the unions and their relationship to the pro-capitalist imperialist Democrats.
Rather, we must combine the fight for a mass democratic labor party with a program to defend the working class in order that the working class eventually obtain power ending this absolute race to war and self destruction.
United Front Committee For A Labor Party
http://www.ufclp.org
info [at] ufclp.org
For more information:
http://www.ufclp.org
You say:
"Therefore, in proportion to the votes received, the Democrats would receive 5 of the Congressional seats, the Republicans 3, the Greens 1 (and Peace and Freedom would also receive 1)."
But California has 52 members of the house. So, the number is actually:
Dems: 26
Reps: 16
Greens: 5
P & F: 5
"Therefore, in proportion to the votes received, the Democrats would receive 5 of the Congressional seats, the Republicans 3, the Greens 1 (and Peace and Freedom would also receive 1)."
But California has 52 members of the house. So, the number is actually:
Dems: 26
Reps: 16
Greens: 5
P & F: 5
The example in the article was for a district which would elect ten US House members. (In other words, California would be divided into 5 such districts, except that one or two of the districts would elect slightly more than ten members).
But yes, another alternative would be for the entire state to be considered as the "only district", and proportionally elect all 52 House members. So I agree that in that scenario the Democrats would be allocated 26 members, the Republicans would get 16, and the Greens would get 5. But in the example in the article, Peace and Freedom received 6% of the vote, and "other partes" received 4%. (Let us say for the sake of argument that the Libertarians received 2% and that American Independent also received 2%). So in that situation, Peace and Freedom would be allocated 3 House members and the Libertarians and American Independent would each receive one member.
However, my understanding is that experts on proportional representation generally believe that parties ought to get more than 2% of the vote in order to get seats in legislatures, as otherwise too many parties will then have seats, making it too difficult for the body to reach a majority decision in order to pass legislation. So if that rule were in place, then neither the Libertarians nor American Independent would receive seats, and the proportional part of those 2 remaining seats would be added to each of the 4 other parties' share to figure out which parties would be allocated those 2 other seats.
But of course, those are all "technical details" -- the key is for the general concept of "proportional representation" to start getting widespread support (which is why the article encourages people to contact the California ProRep Coaltion (at: https://www.prorepcoalition.org/ ).
But yes, another alternative would be for the entire state to be considered as the "only district", and proportionally elect all 52 House members. So I agree that in that scenario the Democrats would be allocated 26 members, the Republicans would get 16, and the Greens would get 5. But in the example in the article, Peace and Freedom received 6% of the vote, and "other partes" received 4%. (Let us say for the sake of argument that the Libertarians received 2% and that American Independent also received 2%). So in that situation, Peace and Freedom would be allocated 3 House members and the Libertarians and American Independent would each receive one member.
However, my understanding is that experts on proportional representation generally believe that parties ought to get more than 2% of the vote in order to get seats in legislatures, as otherwise too many parties will then have seats, making it too difficult for the body to reach a majority decision in order to pass legislation. So if that rule were in place, then neither the Libertarians nor American Independent would receive seats, and the proportional part of those 2 remaining seats would be added to each of the 4 other parties' share to figure out which parties would be allocated those 2 other seats.
But of course, those are all "technical details" -- the key is for the general concept of "proportional representation" to start getting widespread support (which is why the article encourages people to contact the California ProRep Coaltion (at: https://www.prorepcoalition.org/ ).
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$95.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network