(Scroll down for State Ballot Propositions and Local Ballot Measures)

 

Governor – Xavier Becerra – Our next governor will have his work cut out for him. Former HHS Secretary Becerra is by-and-large a mainstream liberal Democrat and his priorities and positions on issues will not neatly fall into one place on the ideological spectrum. He served briefly in the State Assembly, followed by 24 years as a Member of Congress. He was Chair of the House Democratic Caucus during his last few years in Congress. He was then appointed State Attorney General by Jerry Brown in January 2017 after Kamala Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate, and subsequently appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Biden. He will arrive to the Office of Governor with extensive government experience and a keen understanding that getting things done in government is often the art of compromise. Public interest and social and environmental justice groups and leaders need to create on-going relationships with him and his senior staff and cabinet members. All of us along the liberal-progressive portion of the spectrum will need to diligently engage in sustained advocacy to convince him to sign bold bills, and take serious action on a range of key issues, including climate change, pollution in our communities, and disaster resilience. He'll do a good job as governor--maybe an even better job with our help. 

 

Lt. Governor – FIONA MA – Outgoing State Treasurer running for Lt. Governor. She has done a good job as a County Supervisor, State Assemblymember, Board of Equalization Member, and State Treasurer, and would be a fine Lt. Governor. She is head-and-shoulders better than former State Senator Romero, who abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of Republicans. 

 

Secretary of State – SHIRLEY WEBER – Incumbent Sec. of State and all-around respected state-level elected leader. Shirley has done a good job running the multi-faceted offices of the CA Secretary of State, and deserves re-election. 

 

State Controller – MALIA COHEN – Malia has shown herself to be a determined, hard-working and honest public servant who has been effective in fulfilling the responsibilities of her office. Malia has said that she will continue to insist upon accountability and transparency around government programs and that reducing greenhouse gas pollution while we transition to a clean energy economy and protect California’s natural resources for future generations is important to her. She has shown that she cares about and engages in fiducial responsibility matters with keen attention to detail. She has earned re-election to be sure.

 

State Treasurer – ELENI KOUNALAKIS – Outgoing Lt. Governor now running for State Treasurer. Elena brings a commitment to equity, and a varied background that includes private sector development, diplomatic skills, and state-level executive leadership, which makes her uniquely qualified to manage the state’s finances and ensure a strong, inclusive economic future.

 

Attorney General – ROB BONTA – Rob is doing an excellent job as our A.G., and he will continue to do so when we vote to re-elect him. From reducing gun violence and fighting human trafficking to protecting reproductive rights and holding corporate polluters accountable, Rob is and will be the strong, strategic and progressive law enforcement official our state needs. He also has shown time and time again that he is not afraid to sue the Trump Administration. 

 

CA Insurance Commissioner – BEN ALLEN – State Senator Ben Allen is a proven leader on consumer protection, environmental policy, and good government. Widely respected as a thoughtful and effective policymaker, Ben has built a strong record of crafting complex policy solutions. He has worked directly to help wildfire survivors cut through frustrating insurance company and government bureaucracy, while championing stronger home-hardening and wildfire resilience standards that will reduce risk and help lower insurance costs over time.

   A dedicated public-interest advocate, Ben wants to deliver results for policyholders—not special interests. He does not accept contributions from insurance industry or fossil fuel corporations, PACs, or executives. As Insurance Commissioner, Ben will focus on strengthening California’s insurance market while putting consumers first; protecting policyholders and improving transparency and accountability at the Department of Insurance; ensuring insurers promptly serve customers and pay claims fairly; expanding access to affordable coverage options; and advancing wildfire resilience strategies that make communities safer and more insurable. 

   Ben Allen’s campaign is endorsed by Consumer Federation of California, California Professional Firefighters, Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, Sierra Club California, California Democratic Party and Democratic Renters Council, former Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, and numerous union locals and Democratic clubs across the state. I enthusiastically endorse BEN ALLEN for California Insurance Commissioner. Volunteer here for Ben. 

 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction – RICHARD BARRERA – An experienced public education leader, Richard works as a senior policy advisor to Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and is an elected member and Board President of the San Diego USD School Board. He cares about stable funding for public education, supporting and expanding early childhood education, encouraging college students to become teachers and support strong professional development, fighting discrimination and hate in schools, supporting mental health care services for students, supporting programs to achieve grade level literacy up and down the state, and working to build teacher housing that is affordable. His website can be found here. 

 

Bd. of Equalization (#2) – SALLY LIEBER – This incumbent and long-time progressive public servant deserves re-election for one last term. 

  BoE  (#4) – Tom Umberg 

 

CA State Senate:

   #2 – Damon Connelly   #4 – Jaron Brandon

   #6 – Sean Frame   #8 – Angelique Ashby       

  #10 – Scott Sakakihara   #14 – Esmeralda Soria               

  #18 – Steve Padilla   #20 – Caroline Menjivar     

  #22 – Susan Rubio   #24 – Brian Goldsmith(endorsed by CA EnviroVoters)

  #26 – Sara Hernandez(endorsed by Sierra Club)     

  #28 – Lola Smallwood-Cuevas     #30 – Bob Archuleta  

  #34 – Avelino Valencia        #36 – Chris Duncan  

  #38 – Catherine Blakespear    #40 – Mara Elliott

​

CA State Assembly:

   #2 – Chris Rogers             #4 – Cecelia Aguiar-Curry       #6 – Maggy Krell

   #7 – Amy Slavensky          #11 – Lori Wilson               #12 – Jackie Elward

  #13 – Rhodesia Ransom       #14 – Buffy Wicks         #15 – Anamarie Avila Farias 

  #16 – Rebecca Bauer-Kahan    #17 – Matt Haney         #18 – Mia Bonta      

  #19 – Catherine Stefani        #20 – Liz Ortega           #21 – Diane Papan

  #23 – Marc Berman            #24 – Alex Lee              #25 – Ash Kalra       

  #26 – Patrick Ahren           #28 – Gail Pellerin         #29 – Robert Rivas   

  #30 – Dawn Addis          #35 – Andrae Gonzales       #36 – Ida Obeso-Martinez 

  #37 – Gregg Hart            #38 – Steve Bennett          #39 – Juan Carrillo   

  #40 – Pilar Schiavo         #41 – John Harabedian       #42 – Deborah Klein Lopez

  #43 – Celeste Rodriguez       #44 – Nick Shultz          #46 – Jesse Gabriel

  #49 – Mike Fong         #50 – Robert Garcia          #51 – Rick Chavez Zbur  

  #52 – Jessica Caloza        #54 – Mark González       #55 – Isaac Bryan    

  #56 – Lisa Calderon         #57 – Sade Elhawary       #58 – Clarissa Cervantes  

  #60 – Corey Jackson        #61 – Tina McKinnor        #62 – José L. Solache jr.     

  #64 – Blanca Pachaco        #65 – Ayanna Davis         #66 – Paul Seo      

  #67 – Mark Pulido         #69 – Josh Lowenthal         #70 – Paula Swift     

  #71 – J.J. Galvez           #72 – Chris Kluwe           #73 – Cottie Petrie-Norris    

  #74 – Sergio Farias         #76 – Darshana Patel      #77 – Tasha Boerner Horvath

  #78 – Chris Ward        #79 – LaShae Sharp-Collins     #80 – David Alvarez 

 

U.S. House of Representatives (Stop Trump!! Vote for Democrats!): 

  #1 – Mike McGuire          #2 – Jared Huffman       #3 – Ami Bera

  #4 – Mike Thompson        #5 – Michael Masuda        #6 – Richard Pan

  #7 – Doris Matsui           #8 – John Garamendi          #9 – Josh Harder

 #10 – Mark DeSaulnier       #11 – Scott Wiener          #12 – Lateefah Simon

 #14 – Melissa Hernandez*    #15 – Kevin Mullin         #16 – Sam Liccardo

 #17 – Ro Khanna          #18 – Zoe Lofgren           #19 – Jimmy Panetta  

 #22 – Randy Villegas       #24 – Salud Carbajal          #25 – Raul Ruiz  

 #26 – Jacqui Irwin        #27 – George Whitesides   #28 – Judy Chu               

 #29 – Luz M. Rivas         #30 – Laura Friedman       #31 – Gil Cisneros   

 #32 – Brad Sherman       #33 – Pete Aguilar           #34 – Jimmy Gomez   

 #35 – Norma Torres         #36 – Ted Lieu           #37 – Sydney Kamlager-Dove

 #38 – Hilda Solis          #39 – Mark Takano         #41 – Linda Sánchez

 #42 – Robert Garcia       #43 – Maxine Waters        #44 – Nanette Barragan

 #45 – Derek Tran           #47 – Dave Min           #48 – Marni von Wilpert**

 #49 – Mike Levin          #50 – Scott Peters         #51 – Sara Jacobs   

 #52 – Juan Vargas             

   *While I endorsed Melissa H. very early on before the Primary; at this point, all signs point to the now incumbent Member of Congress Aisha Wahab winning again in November. 

  **Please volunteer on Marni’s campaign. She is strong on anti-gun violence, consumer protection, climate action, public education, LGBTQ rights, and more. This is a winnable swing district and Marni needs our remote volunteer assistance. 

 

AC Transit Board (#3) – Adriana Valencia      (#4) – Sarah Syed 

 

BART Board of Directors (#4) – Robert Raburn

 

East Bay Municipal Utility District 

 Marguerite Young (#3)                  Gary Wolff (#7)

 

East Bay Regional Park District 

  William Yragui (#3) – two good candidates (William Y. & Rebecca L.) running for this ward

  Olivia Sanwong (#5)                       Colin Coffey (#7)

 

Peralta Community Colleges Board of Trustees (#5) – CINDI REISS – Excellent incumbent focused on student success and financial stability. She absolutely deserves re-election. Among her supporters, she is endorsed by The Citizen, Peralta’s student-run newspaper.

 

Mayor of Oakland – BARBARA LEE – Barbara has done a good job in bringing people together and focusing her energy on core municipal matters. 

 

Oakland City Auditor – MICHAEL HOUSTON

 

Oakland City Council:

      #2 – CHARLENE WONG

      #6 – KEVIN JENKINS

 

Oakland (OUSD) School Board

         #2 – Arielle Fleischer

         #4 – Mike Hutchinson (rank #1); Kathryn Camp (rank #2)

         #6 – LeAna Powell and possibly Alexandra Williams (rank your choices)

    There’s been some back-and-forth accusational campaigning by outside interests and supporters of one candidate or another in recent weeks. My thoughts are that all of the candidates running this year are decent people who want to make OUSD schools better for all students and teachers. Some candidates (not necessary those listed above), a bit more than others, may be more focused on fully supporting the teachers’ union’s demands each year. Beyond that, no matter who is elected, this important work involves facilitating students to reach and stay at grade-level literacy, maintaining fiscal stability for the short and long-term, combating chronic absenteeism, reducing class size in elementary schools, enabling more students to attend college if they so desire, ensuring that hate and bigotry are never welcome at OUSD schools, supporting OUSD programs for English-language learners, enhancing professional development for teachers, pushing back against the growth of charters, supporting fair enrollment procedures, etc. The candidates I've highlighted above are on board with these goals. 

I urge folks to consider my recommendations above, rank your choices as you see fit, and focus on touting the positives of your preferred candidate(s). 

 

Mayor of Alameda – TRACY JENSEN – Tracy, a current city councilmember, would make an excellent mayor in Alameda. Please review her bio and accomplishments on her campaign website. 

 

Berkeley City Auditor – Jenny Wong

 

Berkeley City Council:

      #1 – More than one good candidate here. Use rank choice voting for R.Bernet (rank 1 or 2), L.Babitt (rank 2 or 1), and D.Wrubel (rank 3), or as you see fit. 

      #4 – IGOR TREGUB – Hard-working councilmember and strong environmentalist. Igor absolutely deserves re-election. 

      #7 – no recommendation

      #8 – Mark Humbert (rank #1); 

 

City of Richmond Mayor: AHMAD ANDERSON – Ahmad will be the thoughtful, civic-minded mayor that Richmond needs. 

 

Orinda City Council 

      Latika Malkini, Juana Rudati

 

Mayor of Dublin – Michael McCorriston

 

Emeryville City Council – David Mourra

 

Mayor of Hayward – Mark Salinas

 Hayward City Council – Julie Roche (#6)

 

Livermore City Council – Evan Branning (#1)

 

Piedmont City Council – Adam Hundt, Nancy Beninati, Tom Ramsey

 

San Leandro City Council

      #2 – James Aguilar

      #3 – Lee Thomas (rank 1); 

 

Antioch City Council (#4) – Monica Wilson

 

Benicia City Council – Terry Scott

 

Concord City Council (#5) – Laura Nakamura

 

El Cerrito City Council – Carolyn Wysinger; Gabe Quinto

 

Moraga Town Council – Kerry Hillis

 

San Pablo City Council – Rita Xavier

 

San Ramon City Council (#4) – Marisol Rubio

 

Contra Costa Community Colleges Board

         #1 – Raquel Donoso                         #3 – Rebecca Barrett

 

Contra Costa County Board of Education (#2) – Sarah Butler

 

Castro Valley School Board (#3) – Eryka Mathews-Cain

 

Hayward Area Recreation & Park District (#2) – Sara Lamnin

 

Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District

                  #3 – John Donnelly        

 

Los Angeles Mayor – KAREN BASS

 

Los Angeles City Council: 

         District #3 – Barri Worth Girvan                   

 

L.A. Community Colleges District Trustee

         #4 – Nancy Pearlman                                #6 – Randall Winston

 

Culver City School Board – Triston Ezidore

 

Water Replenishment District of Southern Calif. – Division #3 – Al Austin

 

Helix Water District – Division #2 – Andrea Beth Damsky

 

San Diego County Supervisor (#5) – KYLE KRAHEL

 

Sacramento County Supervisor (#1) – ERIC GUERRA

 

Mayor of Tracy – Dan Arriola

 

Sonoma County Supervisor (#4) – MELANIE BAGBY

 

Corte Madera City Council – Eli Beckman

 

Mill Valley City Council – Max Perrey

 

Petaluma City Council (#1) – Janice Cader Thompson

Petaluma City Council (#2) – Brent Newell

 

Mayor of Belmont – Julia Mates

 

Half Moon Bay City Council – (#4) Debbie Ruddock

 

Palo Alto City Council – Vicki Veenker

 

San Bruno City Council – (#4) Auros Harman

 

Mid-Peninsula Open Space District (#2) – Yoriko Kishimoto

 

​

CA Supreme Court Justices – Retention Election - YES

         Kelli M. Evans; Joshua Groban

 

~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~

~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~

 

STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

​

Prop.  1 – YES – Housing Affordability General Obligation Bonds for new affordable apartment units, preservation of existing below market rate units, supportive housing to help homeless residents, mortgage assistance for in-state veterans, down-payment assistance for lower and moderate-income couples, farmworker, tribal and student housing. More info here about this much-needed infusion of funds for affordable housing up and down our state. 

​

Prop.  2 – YES – Increases the State’s Rainy Day fund to avoid significant cuts to vital services during serious economic downturns and provide funding for essential services, such as public education and health care, during same serious economic downturns. Rainy Day funds are smart fiscal policy. More info here. 

​

Prop.  3 – YES – Makes permanent an already-existing income tax assessment on the highest 2% of earners in our state. The funds effectively go mostly to public education (K-12 and community colleges and some to fund Medi-Cal and certain other state services/programs. More info here. 

​

Prop.  4 – YES! – Removes a nearly 40-year-old statewide prohibition on public financing for election campaigns. Under today’s law, only charter cities are permitted to implement public campaign financing programs. General law cities, counties, and the State Legislature are prohibited. Prop. 4 would merely lift that prohibition and allow, but not require, these jurisdictions to create a public financing program within certain parameters. Jurisdictions would have to create spending limits as a condition of candidates receiving public financing and would have to create minimum eligibility standards. Funds cannot be used for legal defense or to pay fines. Public campaign finance reform is an important tool to limit the influence and impact of private, special interest dollars in our elections. I give Prop. 4 a strong YES recommendation. More info here. 

​

Prop.  5 – YES – Changes the State Recall process for state-level offices so we would no longer elect the replacement at the same time as the elected official is being recalled. The process or selecting the replacement would be the same as in law today, except that if a Governor is recalled, the Lt. Governor would become Governor until the next regularly scheduled general election. More info here. 

​

Prop. 37 – YES – This is a revenue bond financed low-interest loan program for couples that make no more than 200% of the Area Median Income (AMI) to help pay for their down payment of a newly constructed home. The home buyer would have to pay at least 3% of the purchase price on their own and live in the home as their primary residence. This loan program cannot include mansions or other super-expensive homes. Home-buyers are required to pay back the loans of course, which in turn pays off the bonds.  

The one concern I have here is that nearly all of these funds are likely to go to home-buyers who are at or near the 200% AMI level, with very little going to the moderate income (81%-120% of AMI) families who likely need this the most. So, the one question I have is, can the implementing agency (CHFA) adopt a regulation requiring that a minimum percentage (let’s say no less than 20%) of the bond funds go to moderate-income families? I hope so. Regardless, because this is financed through revenue bonds, not general obligation bonds, I have decided to vote Yes. More info here. 

​

Prop. 38 – lean Yes – I have mixed feelings about this initiative. This is a $8.4M general obligation bond to fund immunotherapy and immunology medical research, with at least half earmarked for research to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and heart disease. Half of the bond funds must be allocated to a specific nonprofit medical research institute housed at UCLA and founded by several very wealthy people, and the other half allocated for grants for medical research within CA to be awarded by a new state council created for this purpose. Requires that the institute must seek to maximize revenue from any treatments derived from the funded research, and that 10% of this revenue must be remitted to the state to help pay off the bonds. It also requires that CA residents get a 20% discount on treatments derived from this funded research, although it’s unclear how that would mesh with private insurance and Medicare coverage. Most of the bond monies will need to be repaid from the state’s general fund, which means less money for other state programs. This is an unusual area to spend G.O. bond monies since bonds are generally for capital expenditures; but of course, medical research to treat serious diseases is important, and potentially saving lives may be worth this expensive effort.  Yes on 38 info can be found here; and NO on 38 info can be found here. 

​

Prop. 39 – NO – This is the MAGA-inspired voter identification constitutional amendment that requires official identification when voting in person and the writing of a portion of one’s official identification number on any mail-in ballot. Failure to do this or doing so incorrectly would invalidate an otherwise valid ballot thereby disenfranchising potentially thousands of legitimate voters. Requires counties to verify that every registered voter is a citizen. This would not only inconvenience most voters, but would cost the state and county governments tens of millions of dollars to implement. The true goal of this GOP-supported initiative is to make voting more inconvenient, not less. This is a blatant partisan effort to reduce turnout under the guise of combatting fraud. The reality is that voting fraud is extremely rare in California. Prop. 39 is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist. More info here. 

​

Prop. 40 – YES – This is the one-time tax on the wealth of billionaires to fund mostly health care services in our state because of significant cuts imposed by the Trump Administration. The tax on billionaires only is based on residency from January of 2026. The ‘No’ side has been spreading specious and exaggerating arguments to scare you. Don’t let them! Read more here. 

​

Prop. 41 – NO – This is an unnecessary and cynical initiative funded by billionaires whose primary goal is to stop the Prop. 40, the billionaires wealth tax from being enacted. This initiative includes pre-election audit mandates before a tax-related initiative even qualifies for the ballot making unnecessary work for our already over-burdened State Auditor. Prop. 41 also tries to mess with the State’s Appropriates limit as a way to overturn Prop. 40. People on both sides of Prop. 40 oppose Prop. 41. Vote No.

Prop. 42 – NO – This is another cynical initiative funded by billionaires to quash the Prop. 40 billionaires wealth tax. This constitutional amendment would permanently prohibit any taxes—including Prop. 40—on the existing wealth of super-rich residents. Regardless of your views on Prop. 40, we should not hamstring future discussions of wealth taxes on the super-rich. Vote No. 

​

Prop. 43 – NO – This is a constitutional amendment that likely would hamstring local governments as well as citizen groups engaged in local issues in communities up and down the state. Current law requires a two-thirds vote of the voting public for local jurisdictions to adopt special taxes that are put onto the ballot by the elected bodies of the jurisdictions. However, local tax measures that are placed on the ballot by citizen initiative only require a simple majority vote. This allows popular measures with broad support to be adopted by the voting public without giving a minority of voters effective veto ability. This is important for local jurisdictions so they can fund vital services. More info here. 

​

Prop. 44 – lean No – This initiative, sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, would require that community health clinics spend at least 90% of their revenue each year on providing health care services to patients. According to federal government data, these clinics average spending about 80% of their revenue on providing health care services. If a clinic does not comply, they would be fined, although they can get their fines returned if they fully comply with the requirements within five years. The State Attorney General would create guidelines to define what counts as health care services spending. While it’s unclear if some clinics would find it difficult to function within the 90% requirement, most probably can meet this requirement and still provide the same or more services then they provide today. The health care workers union wants more transparency on clinic expenditures—including CEO compensation, which can be quite generous. We have been inundated with ads and social media posts from the NO on 44 side. While I believe that the scare tactics rhetoric in these ads is exaggerated, I also believe that this type of law does not belong at the ballot box. Better to deal with this through negotiated legislation and regulations, as well as union bargaining. Yes on 44 info can be found here. No on 44 info can be found here. 

​ 

Prop. 45 – NO! – At best, this is a “throwing the baby out with the bath-water” initiative. While the proponents claim they are proposing some sort of generic streamlining of projects, the reality is much more insidious than that. 

Prop. 45 would give project developers more opportunities to sue cities and counties, leading to huge increases in costs for local governments/taxpayers and a chilling effect on the imposition of mitigation to curb pollution from new projects. Prop. 45 will not facilitate new housing where it is needed. Existing law already streamlines in-fill and 100% affordable housing. Prop. 45 would facilitate sprawl housing (including in high fire risk areas), which is away from job centers thereby increasing commute distances and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Prop. 45 would fast-track many large projects (freeway expansions; landfill gas facilities; broadband data centers; forest clean-cutting, and more) that will lead to unmitigated pollution in our communities. This is a big NO vote on 45. More information can be found here and here.  

 

Local Ballot Measures:

 

Regional Transit Measure (RTM) – YES – Necessary sales tax measure to fund public transit and avoid significant service cuts in five counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, S.F., San Mateo, Santa Clara). This is particularly important for lower income people and students who don’t have viable alternatives to public transit. 

 

Oakland Measure EE – no recommendation – This proposed set of Charter Amendments seeks to create a “strong mayor” form of local government. This includes the following provisions: (a) Providing the Mayor with veto authority over nearly all new Council Resolutions and Ordinances requiring a 3/4 vote (6 of 8 CMs) of the Council to override the veto; (b) officially making the office of City Councilmember a full-time job, with an increase in salary and certain prohibitions on outside employment; (c) reaffirming and strengthening Council and Councilmember authority to ask questions and ask for information from City staff, including providing the Council with subpoena authority, and requires the City staff to respond within a reasonable timeframe; (d) gives the Mayor instead of the City Administrator the direct authority to hire, fire and reassign nearly all department heads; (e) allows the Mayor to supervise the purchasing of supplies and materials and allows the Mayor to make recommendations to the Council on the awarding of public contracts; (f) authorizes the creation of an independent budget and legislative analyst office for the Council; (g) reaffirms the City Administrator’s role in supervising and managing all financial and human resources functions within the City, and allows the Mayor to delegate additional departmental supervisorial authority to the City Administrator; (h) gives the City Council responsibility to confirm or reject several specified department head appointments; and (i) gives the Mayor broad line-item veto authority over the City’s budget. 

      I have mixed feelings about this Charter measure. On one hand, I agree that the Mayor of Oakland should have somewhat more say in the final adopted budget than they do under current law, but the proposed law gives the Mayor tremendous authority to undue virtually every section of the Council’s version of the budget. What we have here is essentially requiring the Council to either negotiate in public a super-majority consensus among its members, or to negotiate with the Mayor throughout the process in order to avoid a veto and arrive at a budget that both the Mayor and nearly all Councilmembers agree upon. These amendments don’t appear to address the problem of when the Council adopts a Resolution directing the City Administrator to do something, and the Administrator ends up putting that something on hold indefinitely, the Council has no recourse to compel the City to follow it’s adopted direction. Also, these amendments oddly allow the Mayor to interject him/herself into the city’s contracting decision-making process when it gets to the Council approval stage. 

The opponents of Charter measure EE are worried that future mayors will have too much authority vis-à-vis the Council and therefore be able to run the City pretty much any way they want. There is also legitimate concern that when a Mayor is searching for a new City Administrator, many top potential applicants will decide not to apply because the job does not carry with it the real authority that most city managers have in other cities. The supporters assert that the Mayor is the most high-profile public official and people criticize them now even if they don’t have the authority to act, so this Measure comports new authority commensurate with the title of Mayor and the public’s expectations. Some reformers want to move back to the typical Council-Manager structure where the Mayor attend and essentially chairs the City Council meetings with perhaps a little more authority than the Councilmembers. Other reformers want to see a true strong mayor form of government, which is what EE creates. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. Read up and vote your preference. The Yes on EE campaign can be found here. The NO on EE campaign can be found here.

 

Oakland Measure FF – YES – Removes bank foreclosure exemption in city’s progressive real estate transfer tax system—likely raising on the average of several million dollars a year to help fund vital city services that are funded through Oakland’s general purpose fund. 

 

Berkeley Measure  U – YES – Infrastructure Bond

Berkeley Measure  X – YES – Rent Ordinance amendment

Berkeley Measure  Y – YES – Special parcel tax for the Arts

Berkeley Measure  Z – YES – Public Bank parcel tax investment

Berkeley Measure AA – YES – Berkeley Soda Tax Increase

 

Alameda Measure L – YES – Infrastructure Bond

 

Emeryville Measure BB – YES – Local Business Tax modernization 

 

Piedmont Measure GG – YES – Real Estate Transfer Tax increase to fund vital services

 

San Pablo Measure S – YES – Stability for San Pablo renters

 

West Contra Costa USD Measure V – YES – Existing parcel tax extension for local schools

 

Sonoma County Colleges District Measure AB – YES – Bond measure to repair and upgrade college educational facilities. 

 

San Francisco Measure G – NO – Save Coastal Sunset Dunes Park and Promenade

 

San Diego County Measure A – YES – Ethics, Oversight, Transparency and Term Limits reform

 

Los Angeles County Measure E – YES – County Ethics Commission Charter Amendment

 

City of Los Angeles Measure EE – YES – Govt. Ethics and Oversight Reform

City of Los Angeles Measure PRK – YES – Parks & Recreation Budget increase

City of Los Angeles Measure SC – YES – Campaign finance rules for Board of Education elections

 

~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~

~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~

​

 Help flip the Iowa Senate seat and take back the U.S. Senate for the Democrats. Please sign up to volunteer remotely on the Josh Turek for U.S. Senate campaign. 

 

# # #

 

​