Voter Guide: November 8, 2022 California Midterm Elections

Hello, it’s another voter guide! Our next general election is on November 8, 2022, but This is a mid-term election, which means voter turnout will probably be lower than in a presidential election year. It’s extra important to vote in a midterm election. Voting on local issues has a much bigger direct impact on our lives than voting in presidential elections.

¿Buscas la versión en español? Está aquí.

Reminders and Resources for California Voters

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on politics or government. I’m just a person who’s good at reading and looking things up. If you trust my judgment, you can vote how I vote. You can also use my guide as a starting point for your own research.

Quick Reference

This table summarizes my votes for the statewide items on the ballot. Keep reading to see my explanations and to see my votes for local elections in Sacramento County and Elk Grove.

Candidate or PropositionMy Vote
All voter-nominated officesDemocratic candidates
U.S. Senator (full and partial terms)Alex Padilla
U.S. Congressional Representative District 7Doris Matsui
State Senate District 8Dave Jones
State Assembly District 10Eric Guerra
Supreme Court JudgesYes
Appellate Court JudgesYes
Superintendent of Public InstructionTony Thurmund
Proposition 1Yes
Proposition 26Yes
Proposition 27No
Proposition 28Yes
Proposition 29Yes
Proposition 30Yes
Proposition 31Yes

Voter-nominated offices

For all of these positions, we have the option between a Democrat and a Republican because that’s how California’s system works. I refuse to vote for any Republicans. Their platform contains very little I agree with. Additionally, their current platform is just their recycled platform from 2016. In 2020, their released a resolution stating they’re not making a new platform and Trump is the leader of the party. I’ll keep this section short because I’m voting all Democrats.

  • Governor: Gavin Newsom
  • Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis
  • Secretary of State: Shirley Weber
  • Controller: Malia Cohen
  • Treasurer: Fiona Ma
  • Attorney General: Rob Bonta
  • Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara
  • Board of Equalization Member – District 1: Jose S. Altamirano

United States Senator and Representative

This is a little confusing because there are two votes for senator here, but they are actually for the same seat, just at different times (our other senator is Dianne Feinsten, who will not be up for reelection until 2024). The partial-term vote is for a senator to finish Kamala Harris’s term, which ends in January 2023. The full term is the regular, six-year senate term that begins after Harris’s would have ended.

Although I am not voting for Republicans, I did look at the Republican candidate’s, Mark Meuser, website. He wants the federal government to cut spending and “increase domestic oil and gas production.” He complains about “woke progressive policies.” These are all red flags for me.

As for Representative Doris Matsui’s challenger, Republican Max Semenenko, his website lists one of his top issues as “defend the second amendment.” I don’t think the second amendment needs any more help. I like Doris Matsui and think she’s doing a good job.

  • United States Senator Full Term: Alex Padilla
  • United States Senator Partial Term: Alex Padilla
  • Representative – District 7: Doris Matsui

State Senator – District 8

My vote: Dave Jones

This is the first race on my ballot that has two Democratic candidates. Looking at their respective websites, both Jones and Ashby present something more like a resume, showcasing past work, rather than listing plans for what they would do as senators. They look like very similar candidates who are both saying the right things. The deciding factor for me is who is giving these candidates money. Among Ashby’s top donors are the California Association of Highway Patrolmen Political Action Committee (PAC), the Los Angeles Police Protective PAC, and the California Real Estate PAC. In contrast, Jones’s top donors are PACs for teachers, nurses, school employees, and other labor groups. I would rather vote for someone who teachers and nurses support than who the police support.

Member of the State Assembly – District 10

My vote: Eric Guerra

I don’t feel great about either of these candidates, to be honest. Eric Guerra received a bunch of money from a charter school PAC, which I find troubling (charter schools are, generally speaking, working to ruin public education). However, his policies sound good. Stephanie Nguyen seems like a big fan of the police (they are among her top donors). She also says “she knows that crime is on the rise.” How does she know that? Crime rates have been falling for decades. What does she know that the FBI doesn’t? I prefer someone taking money from charter schools to someone who’s exuberantly pro-cop.

Nonpartisan Offices

California Supreme Court

Although the public doesn’t get to select who serves on the California Supreme Court, we do get to ratify the judges. These are considered “nonpartisan” offices because the judges don’t run as part of a political party. However, they still, as individuals, have political stances and histories that we can look up to decide if we want these people on our court. I referred to the guide on the justices and I didn’t see anything that made me worry about these judges.

  • Patricia Guerrero for Chief Justice of California: Yes
  • Goodwin Liu for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Yes
  • Martin J. Jenkins for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Yes
  • Joshua P. Groban for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Yes

Third District Court of Appeal

The Third District Court of Appeal is one of California’s six appellate courts, which is a level below the state Supreme Court. The appellate court hears challenges to cases that lower courts decided.

  • Stacy Boulware Eurie for Associate Justice Court of Appeal Third District: Yes
  • Laurie M. Earl for Associate Justice Court of Appeal Third District: Yes
  • Harry Hull Associate Justice Court of Appeal Third District: Yes
  • Peter Krause for Associate Justice Court of Appeal Third District: Yes


Superintendent of Public Instruction

My vote: Tony Thurmund

Thurmund seems like he really gets it. His plans are focused on helping students recover from the trauma of the pandemic. He wants to give more opportunities for learning another language, free universal preschool, and meals for all students. In contrast, Christensen wants parents more involved in determining the state’s curriculum. I’ve been a teacher and I know that parents meddling in curriculum is not what anyone needs. I’m sure this is just a gateway to let in extreme Christianity, racism, and other garbage we don’t need in public schools.

County, City, and Municipal

Member, Board of Supervisors, District 5

My vote: Jacyln Moreno

I like Moreno’s stance on issues. She seems to have a clear sense of how the county can actually help homeless people (instead of criminalizing them and shuffling them around). She wants more non-uniformed mental health professionals who can respond to 911 calls, and she supports affordable housing. All good things in my opinion.

Mayor of Elk Grove

My vote: Bobbie Singh-Allen

Singh-Allen is our current mayor. I don’t love all of her positions (do we really need more police? are camping bans actually helping homeless people?), but I think she’s generally doing a good job. I am troubled by the apparent inclusion of 5G conspiracy talk on candidate Brian Pastor’s website. He seems to think 5G is unhealthy for us. It’s not.

Consumnes Community Services District Director, Division 2

My vote: Ali Moua

Ali Moua seems like he really cares about our parks and services here in Elk Grove. His opponent, Peter Spyros Sakrais, couldn’t even be bothered to create a campaign website, so we don’t know what he thinks or cares about.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Director, Ward 4

My vote: Rosanna Herber

Both Herber’s and Cressman’s websites are pretty sparse. For me, Cressman’s vibes are off.

Measures Submitted to the Voters


1 Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom

Amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This amendment does not narrow or limit the existing rights to privacy and equal protection under the California Constitution. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.

My vote: Yes

We already have fairly strong reproductive rights here in California, but Proposition 1 would strengthen these rights and broaden our right to privacy. This proposition is a direct response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade earlier this year.

26 Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands

Also allows: sports wagering at certain horseracing tracks; private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws. Directs revenues to General Fund, problem-gambling programs, enforcement. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually.

My vote: Yes

This and Prop 27 go together. Some tribes formed a PAC called the Yes on 26, No on 27 – Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming. A whole bunch of California’s native tribes support this initiative, which makes sense because they stand to profit from it. Also in support are the Peace and Freedom Party and the NAACP, which I take as a good sign. The big opposition to this proposition is coming from gaming and casino corporations, which suggests to me that they’re just mad that someone else would make money off gambling. I’m not sure I much care one way or the other about gambling but I see no reason that native tribes shouldn’t benefit from it. I’d rather they profit than random corporations.

This proposition will also contribute to state revenues. There will be a 10% tax on all the gambling, which will be distributed to the California Department of Health, the Bureau of Gambling Control, and the state’s General Fund.

27 Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands

Allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online/mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, nonparticipating tribes. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but not likely to exceed $500 million annually. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually.

My vote: No

What’s telling to me is that the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, and the Peace and Freedom party ALL oppose this proposition. This has united literally everyone. The main argument for Proposition 27 seems to be that it’s going to help homeless people. The state’s voter guide says Proposition 27 would impose a 10% tax on gambling, which would pay for regulatory costs. Of whatever money is left after the regulatory costs, 85% would go to unspecified “homelessness programs.” The analysis of the bill says we don’t really know how much revenue this would generate, but we do know that it would create work to regulate online sports betting. I don’t think this is the big boost to homeless people that its proponents are pretending it is.

28 Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools

Provides additional funding from state General Fund for arts and music education in all K–12 public schools (including charter schools). Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $1 billion annually, beginning next year, for arts education in public schools.

My vote: Yes

I’m obviously going to support funding education, especially for something so chronically underfunded like the arts. Art is what makes life worth living. Kids should get an opportunity to participate in it. The spending to support this would come from the state’s general fund (about one-half of a percent of its budget) and mostly go to pay for new arts staff at schools.

29 Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements

Requires physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on site during treatment. Requires clinics to: disclose physicians’ ownership interests; report infection data. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

My vote: Yes

This is not the first time we have voted on this issue. In 2020, Californians rejected proposition 23, which would have required dialysis clinics to have an on-site physician. It seems like the Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection PAC has adjusted its goals this season to require a nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or a physician on site at a dialysis clinic, perhaps in hopes of getting more people to go along with it. It does sound to me like a good idea to have a medical professional on hand for kidney dialysis. I’m not sure why it’s controversial actually.

Once again, I think the finances tell the story here. DaVita, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care—two big companies that offer kidney dialysis—have donated $52.7 million and $27.3 million, respectively, into opposing this proposition. In contrast, the only committee supporting Proposition 29, Californians for Kidney Dialysis and Patient Protection, has contributed just under $8 million. If these companies can spend that much on politics, they can afford to staff a few doctors and nurses.

30 Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income over $2 Million

Allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities.

My vote: Yes

I’m always going to support taxing the rich. Proposition 30 would require “taxpayers with incomes above $2 million each year (annually) to pay an additional tax of 1.75 percent on the share of their income above $2 million.” The money would go to wildfire response and prevention (20%) and to charging stations/some kind of funding to help people buy electric vehicles. I’m not sure if I agree that focusing on electric cars is the best way to prevent wildfires—it’s a stretch—but okay. It can’t hurt.

31 Referendum on 2020 Law that Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a 2020 law prohibiting retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually.

My vote: Yes

In 2020, California banned the sale of flavored tobacco products, which is to say the state is trying to keep kids from buying candy-flavored vapes. The only groups supporting the “no” campaign are literal tobacco companies and the Republican party. Smoking and tobacco companies don’t need to profit off of kids smoking e-cigarettes.


Measure A

To fix potholes and repair damaged streets; provide safe routes to school, expand affordable senior and disabled transit services; eliminate bottlenecks and improve emergency response times; reduce traffic congestion; and improve air quality. Shall the measure approving the Sacramento County Transportation, Maintenance, Safety and Congestion Relief Act of 2022 – Retail Transactions and Use Tax Initiative, including a 40-year 0.5% sales tax raising an estimated $212,512,500 annually for transportation and transit projects, be adopted?

My vote: No

Before I started reading up on this, my initial thoughts were that we live in a society and part of that is paying our share for roads, transit, and emergency services. This would fund light rail lines between the airport and Elk Grove, which is of personal interest to me. However, the Sierra Club, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, the Sacramento County Republican Party, various Sacramento County Democratic clubs (Young Democrats, Environmental Democrats, etc.), and the Sunrise movement all oppose this measure. I read a Sacramento Bee article (which I cannot really link to because I read it through the library website) from October 12, 2022 called Move forward or backward? Measure A would raise $8.5 billion to reshape regional transportation. The article provides more context and reminds that citizens in Sacramento County are already funding transit projects. This would ask us to pay even more. The Sacramento Bee also issued an editorial on October 10 called Sacramento County voters must reject Measure A, arguing that Measure A is just an opportunity for developers to profit off of us. The editorial points out that adding another 0.5% of sales tax would put us at our legal limit, meaning the county couldn’t levy sales tax for anything else (unless it gets rid of another sales tax).

Measure B

Shall the measure to find enhanced County homeless services, including those benefiting the American River Parkway, by establishing a special tax on the gross receipts from cannabis and hemp business in unincorporated Sacramento County, not exceeding 6% for retail, 4% for manufacturing, 3% for distribution, 2% for resting, and 3% for cultivation or $10 per canopy square foot inflation adjustable, generating an estimated $5,100,000 to $7,700,000 annually, and levied until repealed by the voters, be adopted?

My vote: Yes

It was difficult to find information on this measure. The county voter guide only contains an argument in favor of the tax, suggesting that no organization opposed it enough to submit a counter argument. This measure started out in the Sacramento City Council, but the Council decided to send the issue to the voters instead. It’s kind of a weird measure because it would only affect the county’s unincorporated areas. I also don’t really see the connection between homeless services and cannabis sales, but I guess there’s no reason not to use the tax to benefit homeless people.

Measure D

Shall the unincorporated County of Sacramento and incorporated cities within, including Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Galt, Rancho Cordova, and Isleton be authorized to annually develop, acquire, or construct housing for low-income persons and families, including elderly or disabled persons, equivalent with 1% of the existing housing units in the county? Any unconstructed housing units in each year will be carried over annually.

My vote: Yes

Immediate yes! We need way more affordable housing. Prices are unreasonable and more and more people are not able to find a place to live. This measure won’t even raise taxes, it would use money from the state’s General Fund.


Measure E: Elk Grove Safety/Quality of Life Measure

To support essential services such as crime reduction, rapid 9-1-1, fire, police, medical emergency/disaster response; keeping public areas safe/clean; addressing homelessness; pothole repair/street/park maintenance; youth crime/gang prevention programs; and other general community purposes; shall the measure establishing a 1-cent sales tax providing approximately $21,300,000 annually until ended by the voters; requiring audits, citizen oversight, public spending disclosures, and all funds locally controlled, be adopted?

My vote: Yes

This measure was submitted by the Elk Grove City Council as a way to get more funds for Elk Grove specifically. And this is where I will say for real, we live in a society and part of that is paying our share for roads, transit, and emergency services.

Share This Post!

If you made it all the way to the end, wow, you’re a trouper! I invite you to share this post if you found it useful. Please leave a comment if you think I missed something important. Thanks for voting!