For years now, Edie Irons and her mom Janet Cox have been teaming up to put together voter guides for friends and neighbors. We do our own research, look at other endorsements, and have some insider knowledge from years of local political involvement. Edie works on housing and homelessness for All Home, Janet works on climate advocacy as CEO of Climate Action California.

This guide is not quite complete, because Edie has a six-month-old baby and Janet’s got her hands full as her organization is has endorsed climate leaders around California. Check this page again, we may add detail as the election approaches.

Please share this far and wide. It’s fine to disagree, ask questions, or engage in constructive, respectful debate offline or in the comments.

Statewide Propositions

This year’s batch of propositions can be grouped into four categories:

Funding programs, initiatives, and causes de-funded by Trump
Proposition 1 – YES
Proposition 3 – YES
Proposition 37 – NO
Proposition 38 – NO

Good government measures
Proposition 2 – YES
Proposition 4 – YES
Proposition 5 – YES

Measures that would, if passed, make it harder for government to serve regular people and the environment
Proposition 39 – NO
Proposition 43 – NO
Proposition 44 – NO
Proposition 45 – NO

The battles over the tax on billionaires
Proposition 40 – YES
Proposition 41 – NO
Proposition 42 – NO

NOTE: Prop 37, Prop 45, and Props 41 and 42 are all supported and largely funded by “Building a Better California,” the cabal of Silicon Valley billionaires opposing the wealth tax (Prop 40) and supporting California Forever, the proposed new high-tech city carved out of Solano County farmland that many of us are working to oppose. Taken together, all of these measures support California Environmental Quality Act exemptions for “advanced manufacturing” facilities (see SB 954, vetoed by Governor Newsom); greatly relaxed government and citizen oversight of projects that harm the environment—specifically including data centers; and more power and profits for California’s own class of oligarchs.

Now, the specifics, in ballot order:

YES on Proposition 1: Bond issue for affordable housing ($10 billion) and mortgage assistance for veterans ($1.25 billion). Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
The breakdown:

• $7.2 billion for affordable multifamily housing, including supportive housing
• $1.1 billion for homeownership assistance programs
• $500 million for housing-related infrastructure projects
• $450 million for farmworker housing
• $350 million for student housing at the University of California and California State University systems
• $200 million for tribal housing programs
• $200 million for local housing pilot programs
• $1.25 billion for the CalVet Home Loan Program

It’s way too hard to afford housing in our beautiful, expensive state! This bond would make a real difference, and the affordability crisis will only get worse without it. California has supported housing with bonds in the past, in 2018 and 2024, and that money is mostly spent.

YES on Proposition 2: Reorganize the Rainy Day Fund. Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
By increasing limits on reserves and accelerating debt repayments when our stock market-tied revenues are high, the state gains flexibility and the potential to increase the capacity of the General Fund in the future.

YES on Proposition 3:  Make permanent a temporary tax on high earners, largely funding schools and healthcare. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
Since 2012, California has added a tax of up to 12% on the top 2 percent of earners in the state. It’s set to expire in 2031, and this measure makes it permanent. Annual revenues from this tax are estimated at between $5 billion and $15 billion—so without this tax many programs’ budgets would be severely reduced.

YES on Proposition 4: Public Campaign Financing. Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
Since 1988, public financing of election campaigns has been largely illegal. Passage of Prop 4 will give state and local governments the option of creating locally designed public financing programs. In jurisdictions that take this path, candidates who qualify can be much more diverse.

YES on Proposition 5: Reorganize statewide recalls. Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
This measure would separate the question of whether to recall a statewide officer from the vote to choose a replacement. Instead of being chosen on the recall ballot, vacancies would be filled by special election or temporary appointment, depending on the office. This makes sense because frequently recall voters are the most partisan,

NO on Proposition 37: California Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by Building a Better California and allies collecting signatures
This is a “revenue bond” that will be paid back by its beneficiaries. Thus the “middle-class homeownership loan,” intended to mostly finance a down payment by covering up to 17 percent of the purchase price, is essentially a second mortgage right from the start. It would be available only to buyers of newly constructed homes who have household incomes up to 200 percent of the area median Income. It would not give preference to first-time or first-generation buyers, and wouldn’t exclude current homeowners. It would perpetuate the equity gap and historic housing discrimination against lower income households and people of color. Plus, the focus on new construction would likely drive sprawl.

Consider this measure in combination with Prop 45, which will encourage sprawl in undeveloped parts of the state. We’re looking at large developments for financially stretched “middle class” people, far from urban centers in places where land is cheapest.

NO on Proposition 38: Immunology Research Bond. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
This is an $8.4 billion general obligation bond, to be repaid from the General Fund over about 20 years. It may sound like a good idea and it’s important to fund science, but we shouldn’t do it this way. Cherry-picking certain causes and diseases, excluding other worthy topics from getting any of this money, and borrowing a massive amount of money the state has to pay back with interest to do so is a bad idea.

As Tom Steyer tells us in an email to his supporters, “The Legislature this year passed a broader and more inclusive research bond to appear on a future ballot and this represents a more prudent way to invest public resources into the best California research to deliver the most public benefit.” That is SB 895 (Wiener), signed by Governor Newsom and ready for the 2028 primary ballot.

NO on Proposition 39: Voter ID requirement. A Constitutional amendment put on the ballot by collecting signatures
The last thing we need to do is make it harder to vote in California. There is no voter fraud problem to solve, that is a red herring. Putting up barriers to voting puts everything we vote for at risk!

YES on Proposition 40: One-time tax on 200 billionaires. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
For one thing, California’s 200 billionaires got even richer thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, and why is that ok? For another, we think it’s disgusting to see people with BILLIONS of dollars spending hundreds of millions to keep theirs while normal people can’t pay for groceries. And, the vast number of ads telling us to vote NO on 40 and YES on 41 and 42 are completely dishonest. Here’s an analysis debunking the scaremongering claim that Prop 40 opens the door for the legislature to extend crippling taxes to the rest of us.

On January 1, 2027, California will lose $30 billion in federal support for healthcare, and incur new administrative costs of $9.5 billion—all thanks to the One Big Horrible Bill that benefited the oligarchs who oppose Prop 40. If this measure passes (despite the hundreds of millions they are spending to defeat it), proceeds from the 5 percent one-time tax are earmarked 90 percent for health care programs and 10 percent for education and food assistance—all filling part of the giant hole in people’s wellbeing opened up by the One Big Horrible Bill’s cuts.

The oligarchs who oppose Prop 40 (“Building a Better California”) also put both Prop 41 and Prop 42 on the ballot—and if either of those passes with more votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 is a dead letter.

So, if you vote YES on 40, you MUST VOTE NO on 41 and 42!

NO on Proposition 41: Audit new tax spending. Constitutional amendment put on the ballot with signatures paid for by the oligarchs who oppose Prop 40 (Building a Better California)
This is a bad idea masquerading as a good idea…which is actually intended to kill Prop 40. It would strengthen the Gann Act, a 1979 law intended to make it harder for local governments to raise money (after Proposition 13 passed the year before). BUT the real point of this bill is to kill off Prop 40, as it specifically overrides any special tax passed on the November ballot.

NO on Proposition 42: Prohibit taxes on personal property or assets such as retirement savings. Constitutional amendment put on the ballot with signatures paid for by the same oligarchs (Building a Better California), with the same goal of undoing Prop 40.
Those billionaires are so clever! Think up a scary scenario that has never happened, write a Constitutional amendment that forbids it, and tuck in a provision that makes Prop 40 illegal if this one passes. They must really think we’re dumb. Well, we’re on to them.

NO on Proposition 43: Limit local voters’ ability to pass local special taxes. Constitutional amendment put on the ballot by collecting signatures
This might be the most dangerous measure on your ballot this year. It would make it much harder for voters to approve funding for services like wildfire prevention, affordable housing, health care, raising teacher pay or other school funding, public safety, safe affordable drinking water, parks and open space, the list goes on and on.

It would write minority rule on these issues into the state constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority to approve local special taxes put on the ballot by signature gathering. (Special taxes put on the ballot by the legislature or local government bodies are already subject to a two-thirds threshold, which gives us enough trouble funding public goods and services as it is.) Contrary to the ubiquitous advertising, this measure has NOTHING to do with “Saving Prop 13.”

Vote NO, and make it possible—while still plenty difficult—for local governments to do their job, which is helping people.

NO on Proposition 44: Make life harder for “safety net” health clinics. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
There are about 2000 public health clinics (“federally qualified health centers”) in California, providing primary care and wellness services to our poorest residents…and generally scrambling for funding from a combination of MediCal reimbursements, grants, and donations. They’re not making anybody rich.This measure would require these clinics to spend at least 90 percent of their budgets on patient care, not administration or other overhead costs (to be determined by the Attorney General). Clinics that exceed the 10 percent limit would be fined, and many would likely close.

This is another mean-spirited measure penalizing our most vulnerable people for the sake of solving a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s opposed by a who’s who of all the major medical groups in the state.

No on Prop 45: Gutting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by signatures paid for by the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests, including Building a Better California
CEQA is California’s bedrock environmental law, assuring local communities’ opportunities to participate in the approval process for important projects since 1970. It has been amended to exempt many types of construction and projects over the years, but Prop 45 goes farther to weaken the law than any effort in memory.

Proposition 45 amends the act in numerous ways, “streamlining” approval for projects that will harm the environment by shortening the local approval process, limiting judicial review, and curtailing public participation. Its proponents say it will accelerate housing development, but that will only be true for new ex-urban development (like Tejon Ranch at the top of the Grapevine, or California Forever west of Vacaville in Solano County). Most housing that won’t pave over open space is already exempt from CEQA. Prop 45 is actually intended to accelerate sprawl and fast-track polluting industrial facilities, including data centers. Janet feels more strongly about this than Edie, but we’re both voting no.

Federal and Statewide Candidates

Most of these don’t really need an explanation, since they are decent candidates in their own right and also running against Republicans. We vote a pretty straight Democratic ticket, so we’re just adding explanations for our picks when the race is Dem-on-Dem.

Insurance Commissioner – Ben Allen
Janet thinks this is the most important race on the California ballot this year. Ben Allen is terming out after 12 years as a very effective state Senator. Janet has known him well since 2017 when he successfully carried a climate bill she thought up. He has taken on a host of really difficult environmental, climate, and consumer protection issues, including California’s best-in-the-nation single-use plastics reduction bill (SB 54). He is running for Insurance Commissioner at least partly because Pacific Palisades is wholly in his district, and he has been closely involved with homeowners who lost everything in the January 2025 fires…and have been essentially shafted by both the insurance companies and the FAIR Plan (the state-mandated insurer of last resort). Read Senator Allen’s policy proposals for the Department of Insurance.

Allen is endorsed by former Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, internationally known for holding insurers to account for their anti-climate underwriting and investments. Ben Allen will re-boot that effort. Read Climate Action California’s press release endorsing Senator Allen.

Allen’s opponent is Jane Kim, a former San Francisco Supervisor with a lot of progressive endorsements because she’s in that club. Janet says that Kim either doesn’t know what the Insurance Commissioner does, or she is flimflamming people with big ideas for insurance reform that would never make it through the legislature. To learn more about Jane Kim, read the SF Chronicle’s endorsement of Ben Allen.

US Congressional races

Congressional District 10 – Mark Desaulnier
Congressional District 12 – Lateefah Simon
Congressional District 14 – Aisha Wahab

Wahab is a fairly strong progressive who should represent the district well. Melissa Hernandez, her Democratic opponent, was a relatively conservative member of the BART Board, has much less legislative experience than Wahab, and is being vigorously promoted by AIPAC.

Statewide offices

Governor – Xavier Becerra
Lieutenant Governor – Fiona Ma
Attorney General – Rob Bonta
Secretary of State – Shirley Weber
Insurance Commissioner – Ben Allen (see above)
Controller – Malia Cohen
Treasurer – Eleni Kounalakis
State Superintendent of Public Instruction – Richard Barrera
Board of Equalization District 2 – Sally Lieber

State Senate and Assembly

Senate District 10 – Scott Sakakihara
Assembly District 14 – Buffy Wicks
Assembly District 16 – Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Assembly District 18 – Mia Bonta
Assembly District 20 – Liz Ortega

State Supreme Court and State Appeals Court… Good lord, so many judges!? We may get around updating this section, but recommend just skipping this part of the ballot for now. Why do we vote for judges, anyway? Ugh. Sorry!

Local measures

YES on Regional Transit Measure (RTM)
This measure was put on the ballot by petition in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties in order to pull local transit agencies (including BART) back from the edge of the fiscal cliff—where they have been teetering since the pandemic. It increases the sales tax in San Francisco by 1%, and the other counties by 0.5% for 14 years.

We have to do this. Not only would letting public transit go broke send a terrible message to the world, it would make our region even more unlivable, expensive, and polluted. If you think traffic is bad now, it will be much worse if this measure fails.

City of Oakland Measures

YES on Measure FF: Real Property Tax
Under Oakland’s current law, property foreclosures are exempt from tax. This measure would close that loophole for most foreclosure-related transfers, and only continue to exempt those that create transitional or interim housing, transfers involving small owners (fewer than 20 properties nationally) and transfers to community banks under $10 billion in assets. It’s expected to raise $4-13 million per year for the city off the backs of big banks, seems like a no-brainer. Councilmember Charlene Wang brought this to council, who all voted for it to go on the ballot. It needs a simple majority to pass.

YES On Measure EE: Charter Reform – Strong Mayor Form of Government
Championed by Mayor Barbara Lee, this measure moves Oakland to a “strong-mayor system.” The mayor becomes chief executive with authority over city departments and a veto over council ordinances (overridable by six votes). Council gains confirmation power over department heads, hearing and subpoena authority, and members must serve full time with no conflicting employment.

We’re glad that Mayor Lee wants to take charge—we hope it helps her do so in her first full term. And, we believe this will raise the bar in the future for both mayors and councilmembers.

This measure is supported by the whole gamut of interest and community groups in Oakland, which gives us confidence. From Oakland Rising, ACCE, and APEN Action on the progressive end of the spectrum to the Oakland Chamber and Empower Oakland on the other end (we often disagree with them), and in between are lots of Democratic clubs, the Democratic party, and unions.

County and other local offices

Peralta Community College Trustee

Cindi Reiss, Area 5 – The Peralta Colleges are going through a big transition, with an upcoming merger of Laney and Merritt Colleges. Reiss has the endorsement of the Peralta Citizen, the district’s student-run newspaper, and seems most ready to help steer the district through the change.

AC Transit District Directors

Ward 4, Sarah Syed – She’s been a strong independent voice for reliable service and transparency on the board in her first term, and deserves another.

Ward 4, Adriana Valencia seems qualified for the job, and has endorsements from people we trust who are knowledgeable about transit. Young has been on the board for almost 20 years and has made valuable contributions, but he’s also repeatedly been found to act inappropriately with women. Valencia provides a good opportunity to make a change.

BART Board Directors:

District 4, Robert Raburn – He’s been great on the board for years and is now one of the more tenured directors, which we’ll need for the tough and complex budget challenges ahead.

EBMUD Board Directors:

Ward 3: Marguerite Young – a friend and exactly the kind of smart, dedicated person we need in these kinds of offices.

Ward 7: Gary Wolff is eminently qualified, seems to be the only credible or reasonable candidate in the race, and is endorsed by everyone.

East Bay Regional Parks Directors:

Ward 3: William Yragui has endorsements from more folks that we trust, and more would-be colleagues on the EBRPD board.

Ward 5: Bruce Henry or Olivia Sanwong? Olivia Sanwong is the incumbent with most of the endorsements and a strong ballot statement about her accomplishments. Bruce Henry seems like a very earnest and competent challenger, longtime park user, with some firefighter union endorsements because of his promises to prioritize wildfire prevention and fully staff the EBRPD fire department. Maybe lean toward Sanwong? Though we like that Henry says he’s not a politician and this is the only office he wants, purely for his love of the parks.

Oakland Candidates:

Oakland Mayor: Barbara Lee

She seems to be bringing a lot of energy and effort to the job, she’s having success and delivered on a lot of her campaign promises, and none of her challengers seem viable.

Oakland City Council
The incumbents running for reelection are all doing a decent job, nothing we’re aware of warrants kicking them out.

District 6: Kevin Jenkins (Nancy Sidebotham is a perennial also-ran, not someone we’d trust in citywide office.)
District 4: Janani Ramachandran (running unopposed)
District 2: Charlene Wang (Nate Adams seems like a competent young DSA member, but without much governing experience and a somewhat fantastical platform.)

Oakland City Auditor: Michael Houston – we’ve heard no complaints, and he’s running unopposed.

Oakland School Board Director

These are the toughest decisions in candidate races this year. Edie lives in District 6 and has talked to neighbors and canvassers supporting each of the three candidates there, including parents and current and retired teachers. I’ve also read all of the Oaklandside’s excellent coverage about all three school board races. This is tough because everyone running seems competent, and OUSD continues to navigate major challenges, so the stakes are high. There’s a progressive majority on the board that is friendly to Oakland Education Association (OEA), the teachers’ union, and gave teachers a big (11%) pay increase to bring them to parity with teacher pay in Berkeley and San Leandro. But principals have complained that valuable programs were cut to pay for salaries, and the board (or someone) even used Measure H and N tax dollars for salaries, over the objections of the citizen oversight commission for those monies. On the plus side, the district is out of state receivership and managed to balance its budget while giving teachers a raise, teacher vacancies are very low, use of expensive contractors and staffing agencies is down (a money-saver), and there have been no school closures under this board majority.

Another dynamic in these races is the outsized influence of Empower Oakland and its wealthy tech bro donors. As a D6 resident, ALL the mail that Edie has received against the incumbent and for her challengers has been funded by Empower. We often disagree with their endorsements, though they sometimes also endorse reasonable/good candidates, so their support is not an automatic disqualifier—and it does seem like the challengers in D6 and D4 likely got into the race independently. OUSD has big decisions to make about its facilities and footprint, with about a dozen buildings empty or underused right now. Empower critics surmise that they want the district to sell those buildings and put market-rate housing on them… could be, though that would be a long, slow process.

We share all this background because we are not experts on OUSD, and you may want to make your own decisions. If you’re ride-or-die for unions and want them to have a rubber-stamp on the board, vote for Bachelor, Brouhard, and Sylvia Williams. If you want to see a major change on the board, maybe try Alexandra Williams, Fleisher, and Camp. Here’s how we’re voting and why:

District 6: #1 Valarie Bachelor, #2 Alexandra Williams, #3 LeAna Powell

Most of the retired teachers and current OUSD parents Edie spoke to are sticking with Valarie Bachelor, and I decided to do the same after giving the other candidates a serious look. She’s only had one term, and I do believe in letting incumbents get their feet under them and avoiding constant changes in leadership, barring an egregious error that I haven’t seen in this case. I’ve heard good things about Powell and Williams, but after reading the Oaklandside’s forum transcript, I was more impressed with Williams’ strategy and budget sense than LeAna’s approach, which sounds more like gut instinct. Not sure that either of the challengers is a creature of Empower—it seems more like Empower is more out to get the incumbent, which is another reason to support her.

District 4: #1 Kathryn Camp, #2 Sylvia Williams

In this case I’ve heard multiple people say that Mike Hutchinson is a difficult personality on the board, grandstands and takes up too much space, not collaborative. Camp is a parent (there’s only one other on the board), and seems from this forum to have a practical, nuanced approach. Williams is a former teacher and teachers union rep, which is great, but perhaps OEA has enough influence on the board as it is.

District #2: Jennifer Brouhard

I haven’t heard anything negative about the incumbent, Brouhard. I was acquainted with Arielle Fleisher when she worked at SPUR and I worked at TransForm, and I’m sure she is well-intentioned and would do a competent job. She gets demonized for being a “Waymo executive” now, though her title is Policy and Research Manager—a reasonable job for a transportation planner to have! I am more skeptical of her role as Policy Lead for Empower Oakland. In any case, Jennifer seems worth keeping on the board.Other guides we trust

Other guides we trust

If you live in Berkeley, check out Edie’s longtime colleague and friend Jeff Hobson’s voter guide.

If you live in parts of the East Bay not covered by this guide (like Contra Costa County), check out Dan Kalb’s voter guide. Dan is a former Oakland City Councilmember, environmentalist, and policy wonk we agree with on many things.