Why CA-27 Needs New Representation
California’s 27th District is made up of working families, veterans, parents, and seniors who depend on steady, responsible leadership. Representation should reflect the values and needs of this community, not political gamesmanship or selective accountability.
Congressman George Whitesides’s voting record shows a pattern of decisions that do not align with the priorities of CA-27.
On Children & Families
Protecting children should never be controversial. Yet Congressman Whitesides voted against the Protect Children’s Innocence Act on December 17, 2025
At a time when families are asking for stronger safeguards, this vote raises serious questions about priorities, especially in a district with thousands of parents working hard to give their kids a stable future.
A Different Kind of Leadership
Roberto Ramos is running to bring service-driven, accountable leadership to Congress. Grounded in military service, respect for the Constitution, and a commitment to working people.
This election is not about party labels.
It’s about whether CA-27 is represented by principle or convenience.
A Pattern CA-27 Can’t Ignore
Across issues affecting children, healthcare, and constitutional accountability, Congressman Whitesides’ record reflects hesitation, opposition, and absence at key moments.
CA-27 deserves representation that:
Protects children without hesitation
Defends healthcare access for working families and seniors
Stands clearly for accountability, no matter who is involved
On Accountability & Donald Trump
CA-27 voters expect courage and clarity when it comes to accountability.
On June 24, Congressman Whitesides voted to table impeachment proceedings against Donald J. Trump. Then, on December 11, 2025, when the House voted on impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, Congressman Whitesides voted “Present.”
A “Present” vote means a member is physically present but chooses not to vote Yes or No, allowing the measure to proceed or fail without their support or opposition being recorded. When accountability is on the line, not choosing a side is choosing a side.
Leadership means taking a clear position when it matters most, not stepping aside when the public deserves an answer.
On Healthcare & Seniors
Healthcare costs are one of the biggest pressures facing working families and seniors in CA-27.
Congressman Whitesides:
Voted against the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act (12/17/2025)
This vote cut against protecting access and affordability for families who rely on public healthcare programs and for seniors living on fixed incomes.
Why CA-27 Needs New Representation
The following explainer provides factual background on California Senate Bill 145 and why some families have raised concerns about its impact on child protection and accountability. George Whitesides voted against the Protect Children’s Innocence Act on December 17, 2025, opposing legislation intended to strengthen safeguards for children. He has also financially supported organizations that backed SB 145, a law that reduced automatic sex-offender registration requirements by giving judges discretion in certain cases involving minors. Taken together, these decisions have raised serious concerns among families about whether child protection is being treated as a priority.
George Whitesides has financially supported organizations that backed SB 145, a law that reduced automatic sex-offender registration requirements by giving judges discretion in certain cases involving minors. Raising serious concerns for families about child protection and accountability.
Governor Gavin Newsom
1. SB 145 (2019-2020 Session) - Sex Offender Registration (Commonly discussed in this context)
Status: Signed by Governor Newsom on September 11, 2020, and became operative on January 1, 2021.
Purpose: This bill amended sex offender registration laws to eliminate automatic, mandatory registration for certain consensual sexual acts (oral/anal sex) between a minor (14-17) and an adult, provided the adult is within 10 years of age of the minor.
Key Detail: It grants judges discretion to determine if registration is required, aligning the treatment of non-vaginal, consensual sex with the existing discretion already in place for vaginal sex. It was intended to reduce anti-LGBTQ+ bias in the law.
Under SB 145, California law allows judicial discretion over sex-offender registration in certain cases involving minors aged 14–17 and adults within ten years of age. As a result, it is legally possible for a 25-year-old to engage in a sexual act with a 15-year-old and not be automatically required to register as a sex offender, depending on a judge’s determination.