Hello, friends and enemies! I hope you’re ready for another election. This time around, we’re picking our next governor along with a lot of other statewide positions. We have 14 tricky statewide propositions to decide on, and a whole bunch of judges for our consideration. If you’re in Elk Grove or the Sacramento area, make sure to read to the end to get my thoughts on our local races.
¿Buscas la versión en español? Estará aquí pronto.
Reminders and Resources for California Voters
- Everyone registered to vote in California will get a ballot in the mail this election! You do not have to go to a polling place if you don’t want to.
- Register to vote on or before Monday, October 19. You can still register after October 19, but you will need to use the same-day voter registration form.
- Official Voter Information Guide is online here: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf
- Check your voter status online: https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/
- See where you can vote or drop off your paper ballot: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/polling-place
- Remember to sign your ballot envelope!
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 how I’m planning to vote in this election. I explain my choices below!
| Position/Proposition | My vote |
| Proposition 1 | Yes |
| Proposition 2 | Yes |
| Proposition 3 | Yes |
| Proposition 4 | Yes |
| Proposition 5 | Yes |
| Proposition 37 | Yes |
| Proposition 38 | No |
| Proposition 39 | No |
| Proposition 40 | Yes |
| Proposition 41 | No |
| Proposition 42 | No |
| Proposition 43 | No |
| Proposition 44 | No |
| Proposition 45 | No |
| Governor | Xavier Becerra |
| Lieutenant Governor | Fiona Ma |
| Secretary of State | Shirley Weber |
| Controller | Malia Cohen |
| Treasurer | Eleni Kounalakis |
| Attorney General | Rob Bonta |
| Insurance Commissioner | Jane Kim |
| Board of Equalization District 1 | Nelson Esparza |
| Superintendent of Public Instruction | Richard Barrera |
| Representative (Congressional District 7) | Mai Vang |
| Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Joshua Groban | Yes |
| Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Kelli M. Evans | Yes |
| Administrative Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Laurie Earl | Yes |
| Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Lauri Darmell | Yes |
| Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: David B. Saap | Yes |
| Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Stacy Boulware Eurie | Yes |
| Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Jonathan Renner | Yes |
| Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Aimee A. Feinberg | Yes |
| Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Shama Mesiwala | Yes |
| Senate District 8 | Angelique Ashby |
| Assembly District 10 | Stephanie Nguyen |
| Measure H | Yes |
| Elk Grove Unified School District Governing Board Member, Trustee Area 4 | Delia Baulwin |
| Florin Resource Conservation District Director (pick up to three) | Kimberly Martin, John Moua, and Paul Lindsay |
Propositions
Proposition 1
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: YES
Proposition 1 would authorize the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing, including multifamily houses, places for college students to live, and home loan assistance for veterans. California would repay the bond over 25 years, and according to the analysis by the legislative analyst, “The estimated annual cost would be about one-quarter of 1 percent (0.25 percent) of the state’s total General Fund budget,” which is not too much even though the idea of $11 billion sounds crazy to us peasants. While it does trouble me that AirBNB is spending money to support this proposition because I don’t really trust their motives, they are just one of many official supporters. The Official Voter Information Guide doesn’t even have an argument against this proposition because we all know the housing situation is dire and we need to build more!
Proposition 2
INCREASES STATE’S RAINY DAY FUND. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
My vote: YES
The gist of Proposition 2 is that it would allow the state to keep more money in its “Rainy Day Fund,” which functions something like a savings account, instead of being forced to spend any excess money at the end of the fiscal year. Currently, the state is required to save 10 percent of General Fund taxes in its rainy day fund. If we pass Proposition 2, the state would be required “to make deposits into the rainy day fund until it reaches 20 percent of General Fund taxes,” and it would make larger deposits when things are going well economically. The main idea here is that having more savings would better protect our budget against the whims of a volatile economy. Considering how volatile the economy has been lately, this strikes me as a wise idea.
The people arguing against Proposition 2 are saying that the state should use any excess money to pay off debts instead of saving funds for later. However, the state constitution already requires California to make extra debt payments equal to the amount that the state deposits in the rainy day fund each year, but this requirement ends in 2030.
Something amusing is that no one is spending money to support or oppose Proposition 2. I usually look at who’s throwing cash at these things to get a sense of who stands to benefit from any given proposition, but apparently no one feels that strongly about Prop 2. However, I will note that one of the main organizations against this proposition is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is some kind of conservative or maybe libertarian group that pops up in every election to do everything they can to decrease taxes (for rich people). When they want something, it’s generally safe for me to assume I want the opposite.
Proposition 3
PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND HEALTH CARE BY EXTENDING EXISTING TAX ON HIGH INCOMES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
My vote: YES
Surely you all know by now that I am always going to vote to fund schools and healthcare and this is an easy one. The funding for Proposition 3 will come from a tax on people earning over $371,000 (“adjusted annually for inflation,” nice). In fact, this tax is already in effect thanks to Proposition 30, which we approved in 2012 and would otherwise expire in 2031. This year’s Proposition 3 would make that tax permanent, so it’s not even a new tax. The Legislative Analyst estimates that this would bring in $5 to $15 billion annually. You know who’s against this one? The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, of course.
This is as good a place as any to relate my philosophy on taxes. Taxes are the membership dues of society. A lot of rich people complain about high taxes in California and threaten to leave if taxes go up. However, they rarely actually leave because California is nice to live in. You know why it’s so nice? People paying taxes. I want the people I share society with to get an education and have access to healthcare and live as well as they can. Not just because I think we all deserve that at a bare minimum for existing when no one asked to be alive, but because I don’t want to be a miserable king of the trash heap surrounded by suffering. Anyway, these people can absolutely afford to keep paying a tax that they’re already paying.
Proposition 4
REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: YES
This might sound crazy in our post-Citizens United era, but it’s actually possible to use public funds for elections instead of making candidates beg every rich person and corporate entity for cash. Currently, the California Political Reform Act “bans the use of public funds for political candidates’ campaigns,” with some exceptions (cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco do provide public funds for some campaigns). Proposition 4 would eliminate this rule and allow “state and local governments to create public campaign financing programs in the future if they wish.” Voting in favor of Proposition 4 would simply make it a theoretical possibility for public funding for election campaigns; it wouldn’t be a requirement.
No one has spent any money on this proposition, but the California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association oppose it.
I think it would be great if we had publicly funded elections. This concept in election reform, sometimes known as “clean elections,” is one proposal for fair elections because anyone could afford to run even if they don’t have a lot of money to finance their own campaign. It could also potentially reduce lobbying and corruption, since candidates wouldn’t feel beholden to big donors and corporations who finance their campaigns and expect something in return.
Proposition 5
CHANGES RECALL ELECTION PROCESS FOR STATEWIDE OFFICERS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
My vote: YES
Do you remember the gubernatorial recall election in 2021 when conservatives wanted to recall Gavin Newsom for eating at the French Laundry during the height of the pandemic? It was a bizarre election with 46 candidates on the ballot to replace Newsom, and none of them were well-known Democrats. That’s because the current rules for recall elections require Californians to vote on the recall and choose a replacement at the same time, and the Democratic party didn’t want to incentivize us to recall Newsom. Voting yes on Proposition 5 would avoid all that the next time we have a recall election. In the case of a recall, we would have one vote about whether to go through with the recall then another election later to pick a replacement. If we voted to recall the governor, we would have the lieutenant governor serve as governor until we vote in a new one, unless the governor is recalled later in the term, in which case the lieutenant governor finishes out the term. For other positions, the role would be vacant until we vote for a replacement. I do think this will help stop frivolous recall campaigns, and if not, it will at least be easier for us to pick a replacement and not worry about accidentally electing a total nutjob.
As usual, opponents include the California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, as well as the “California Republican Party and Election Integrity Project, which advocates for voter ID requirements and restrictions on mail-in voting,” No one has spent money supporting or opposing Prop 5.
Proposition 37
CREATES LOAN PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE-INCOME BUYERS OF QUALIFIED NEW HOMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: YES
The California Housing Finance Agency would be allowed to sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to “to create a down payment assistance program called the “middle-class homeownership loan” that “would cover up to 17 percent of the home price.” The program would be for households making “no more than the typical income level in their area.” This seems fine. Again, houses are expensive and it’s very hard to buy one, so anything that can help people is probably good. No one submitted an argument against Prop 37 to the Official Voter Information Guide, so I think this is fairly uncontroversial.
Proposition 38
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: NO
If we approve Proposition 38, California would be authorized to sell $8.4 in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. The University of California would get half of the research funding and the rest would be distributed through research grants. This legislation is a little odd because it’s so narrow in terms of what type of research this can fund and which institutions will receive the funding. Some are theorizing that this specificity is to ensure that just one institution gets all the grant money. CalMatters writes that “analysis shows that the ballot language criteria were tailored in a way that very likely excludes all but one institute in the entire state: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose prominent donor and co-founder is the chief backer of the proposition.” The article notes that Gary Michelson, billionaire and co-founder of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy is of of two backers of Proposition 38.
Funding medical research is important and the idea of funding immunology and immunotherapy research does sound appealing, but California already funds lots of research. I don’t think we need to approve this very narrow bond that seems to specifically benefit one already rich institution. Could we fund this through a permanent billionaire tax instead (too soon?)?I do wonder if people spending literal millions of dollars on this proposition might be better served by simply funding the research themselves. After all, Gary Michelson has a net worth of $1.8 billion. But what do I know.
Proposition 39
PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
My vote: NO
This is a horrible proposition that is trying to reduce Californians’ voting power and keep us from using mail-in voting. I have previously provided a hearty argument against the SAVE Act, which is simply a voter ID law at the federal level. Please allow me to remind you that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. It’s not happening at scale. There is no voter fraud conspiracy. Immigrants are not working the system to find some kind of illegal voting loophole. One report found that “most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices.” That’s it. It’s just people at work making mistakes sometimes.
We simply do not need this because registering to vote already requires verifying a person’s identity. Per the San Francisco Chronicle:
To register to vote, Californians must submit their Social Security and driver’s license information as well as their place and date of birth and current address to the Secretary of State’s Office, where their eligibility is verified. They also must declare under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen and have not been deemed ineligible to vote because they are a felon or have been found mentally incompetent to vote by a court. Voters can be required to bring documents in person to verify their eligibility, according to the Secretary of State’s Office, but generally the state’s application process allows voter registrations to be completed online.
For any fiscal conservatives out there, please note that the legislative analyst’s estimate suggests that passing this proposition would result in “state and local government costs of
between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.” We would be spending a bunch of money to solve a problem that doesn’t exist as a means of keeping more people from voting. This is antithetical to democracy.
Propositions 40, 41, and 42
This is annoying but we have to consider these three propositions as a group. Proposition 40 is the “billionaire tax” and we want that to pass. If Propositions 41 or 42 receive more “yes” votes than Proposition 40, that could cancel out a “yes” on Prop 40. Both Propositions 41 and 42 are funded by the same group that is opposing Proposition 40. Here’s the short version:
- Proposition 40: YES
- Proposition 41: NO
- Proposition 42: NO
Proposition 40
IMPOSES ONE-TIME TAX ON CERTAIN TAXPAYERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
My vote: YES
If you’ve heard anything in the news or seen political ads about a “billionaire tax,” this is it. Proposition 40 would impose a 5 percent tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion. It’s important to note that this is a one-time tax and 90 percent of the tax revenue would go to health care. The hope is that this tax would get California some of the funds it needs for healthcare after federal cuts.
California is home to about 250 billionaires with a combined net worth of $2,463.3 billion. This law concerns very few people and an immense quantity of money. Given these numbers, this one-time tax would bring in about $108 billion for the state. They will still be unimaginably rich after paying a 5 percent tax bill. If you’re wondering how much billionaires pay in taxes right now, the tax rate for any income over $731,312 is 12.3 percent. However, most billionaires are getting money from assets like stocks, real estate, etc. Frankly, I am not a tax accountant and can’t tell you how all that shakes out but I am completely confident that all billionaires can afford to pay more taxes.
These billionaires have cash to spare and we know this because they have spent a ridiculous amount of money opposing Proposition 40. The group that has spent the most to oppose Prop 40 is Building A Better California, a political action committee (PAC) with $88.5 million. Building a Better California (“better for whom?” I ask) is led by Google cofounder Sergey Brin who has donated $102 million to the PAC as of September 23. Brin has a net worth of $267.7 billion, which means his tax bill if Prop 40 passes would be $13.38 billion dollars, or put another way: $13,380,000,000. California is short around $30 billion in federal funding for Medi-Cal, so actually we only have to tax a few of these guys to make up the difference. I think all billionaires should take some time to reflect on historical consequences for amassing too much money at the expense of the population.
One argument I see about taxing the wealthy is that they will leave, taking their sweet, sweet potential tax revenues with them. I don’t buy it. People live in California because it’s nice. California has more billionaires than any other state. Money is no object for these people so we know they live here because this is where they want to be. They don’t want to move to Texas, Nevada, or whatever stateside tax haven people think they will go to. If they wanted that, they would already live there. Let’s call their fucking bluff and make them pay into a system that they benefit from. I have also seen the argument that Prop 40 isn’t doing enough or won’t distribute the funds correctly. To this I say: I do not care. Billionaires have enough money that we could do this again next year and they would still be filthy rich.
Proposition 41
PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
My vote: NO
Per the CalMatters voter guide, “This proposition would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. The auditor would assess whether the program that would receive funding could cut spending by at least 10% annually.” This is another one that sounds kind of good, like, yeah, we should have a review of proposed taxes. However, any propositions that we vote on (for example, Proposition 40 which would create a one-time tax on billionaires) are already subject to a review process. The Attorney General works with the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance to conduct a fiscal review, and the legislature is required to hold at least one public hearing about the proposed legislation.
The main purpose of Proposition 41 is to cancel out Proposition 40. It’s primary sponsor is Sergey Brin, yes, the same guy funding the Build a Better California PAC that has spent millions of dollars opposing the one-time billionaire tax. A bunch of other rich guys, like Stewart Resnick (the President of The Wonderful Company [that’s the people who make the pomegranate juice]) and Tony Xu (the DoorDash CEO) support this. We don’t need this. Let’s not fall for this trap.
Proposition 42
PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
My vote: NO
Proposition 42 is another trap designed to negate Proposition 40. It’s primary supporter is the PAC Building a Better California, which has contributed $97 million to this cause. Why does a group of billionaires want us to pass this so badly? Maybe because they stand to benefit. According to CalMatters, “Proposition 42 would make it much harder to create a wealth tax in California by prohibiting new taxes on the mere ownership of assets such as investment accounts, business interests and personal property.” Because Proposition 40 is a tax on wealth, not income, Proposition 42 could cancel it out by prohibiting taxes on wealth and assets.
Proposition 43
LIMITS VOTERS’ ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
My vote: NO
This is another proposition designed to make it harder for us to tax anyone. Currently, ballot measures like these need a simple majority of over 50 percent to pass. If Proposition 43 passed, our state constitution would be amended so that ballot measures to approve local government taxes would require a two-thirds approval. Prop 43’s supporters include the California Republican Party, various rich people, and our old friends the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. I have a feeling that this would not be in our best interests.
Proposition 44
REQUIRES COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS SPEND 90% OF REVENUE ON PROGRAM SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE
My vote: NO
This is one of those propositions that sounds good at first, but falls apart the more you read. Stay with me.
This proposition concerns Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which are a type of community clinic that often provides care to low-income or uninsured populations. Voting yes would require that private, nonprofit versions of these clinics spend 90 percent of their revenue on “program services.” (Note that most FQHCs are nonprofits.) According to the legislative analysis, these clinics “currently report spending an average of about 80 percent of their revenue on providing health care services.”
The text of the proposed law notes that some clinics “sometimes” spend 30 to 40 percent on management and administrative expenses, and some clinics can be “highly profitable, sometimes reporting annual surpluses of as much as 20 percent of total revenue.” Prop 44 also proposes a whole oversight and penalty scheme involving the attorney general and clinics paying fines based on whatever percentage under 90 they spent on anything other than “program services.”
It took me a while to figure out the issue with this proposition. I was curious because its only real supporter (and the group that got it on the ballot in the first place) is the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, while the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Democratic Party, and others (including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association!) are against it. The main issue seems to be that “the proposition’s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted in the 90% of revenues.” I looked at the text of the proposed law to figure out what it defines as “program services”—a term that seems intuitive but could end up meaning almost anything—and it does not define this at all. This suggests to me that this is not a good piece of legislation. The crux of the whole bill is “program services,” but that isn’t defined. I’ve seen some comments suggest that mental health care might not be a part of “program services,” which would be a problem.
Finally, there is an ongoing lawsuit about this proposition. Per Ballotpedia, “California Primary Care Association and Open Door Community Health Centers filed a lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) and the initiative sponsors, arguing the measure violated federal laws and regulations regarding strict spending requirements on nonprofit health clinics that serve low-income patients.” This is too much drama for one law. Let’s not vote for it.
Proposition 45
MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: NO
This proposition would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), originally signed into law in 1970, by creating “new procedures for certain types of projects that it defines as ‘essential’.”
One aspect of this that sounds good but that will probably be bad is that the new review process would require consulting “California native tribes that have been formally recognized by the federal government,” but the legislative analysis notes that “Current law requires the agency—not the applicant—to develop and consider multiple project alternatives that could reduce environmental impacts.” This would actually reduce the involvement of California Natives by limiting the review process to only those that are federally recognized.
I can’t claim to understand all the intricacies of how Proposition 45 would change the CEQA and whether that would be good or bad (almost as if this should be a question for experts and not the voters, but here we are). So, let’s check in with who wants to see this proposition become a law. The biggest supporter of Proposition 45 is the political action committee Building A Better California, whose main reason for being is opposing the billionaire tax (Proposition 40), but they are dabbling in other legislation. They have contributed $10 million in support of Proposition 45 (chump change for a group of billionaires). Other big proponents of Prop 45 are building industry and real estate groups, while opposition is coming from groups like the Sierra Club and the California League of Women Voters. In general, I don’t assume a group of billionaires has my best interests at heart. It sounds like rich people and real estate groups think they will benefit from this, so it’s a no from me. Let’s keep our environmental review process as it is.
Statewide Offices
In some ways, deciding who to vote for in the general election is easier than in the primary. There are way fewer people running, and we don’t have to concern ourselves with the game theory of the “open” primary. I have a long-standing policy not to vote for any Republicans. There is no reason to support a party that is standing by while their leader is running a pointless war, still thinks the 2020 election was “stolen,” encouraged supporters to violently overturn the election, and is a serial rapist. So, if the option is between a Democrat and a Republican, I am voting Democrat. I do wish we had more exciting candidates for some of these positions, but we are working with what we have!
Governor
My vote: Xavier Becerra
I think Becerra is a perfectly fine candidate and I dearly hope he will piss me off less than Governor Newsom has (this isn’t about Newsom but, while we’re here: he proclaimed a “Ronald Reagan Day,” is personally out there tearing up homeless encampments, signed the stupid age-verification law that will require you to give your “operating system provider” your ID, is an asshole about trans people in sports, and has insisted that California employees be in the office four days a week for no good reason). In any case, Becerra says he supports health care for all (he was the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Biden!), although he does clarify that he wants to “build toward universal coverage,” which is a little wishy-washy for me but still better than nothing. He also supports using renewable energy and affordable housing. Great!
Anyway, I am certainly not going to vote for Steve Hilton, who is just some rich guy and who received Trump’s endorsement.
Lieutenant Governor
My vote: Fiona Ma
While Fiona Ma was not my first, second, or third choice for Lieutenant Governor in the primary, she is now my first choice because the alternative is Republican Gloria Romero. Ma is currently our treasurer, so at least she’s not new to government. Her website is light on actual policy but she says she wants to “make college more affordable and ensure seniors can age with dignity,” so those are at least things that sound good, if not particularly tangible.
In contrast, the Republican candidate Gloria Romero says she supports “school choice” (this usually means defunding public education and funneling more students to charter schools), “defend[ing] Title IX for our daughters in sports” (read: she plans to limit the rights of transgender people), and “fight[ing] antisemitism on our campuses” (read: she loves Israel and hates student protestors).
Secretary of State
My vote: Shirley N. Weber
Shirley Weber is our current Secretary of State and I have no complaints. The main job of the Secretary of State is to run our elections, which is why I will absolutely not vote for a Republican. They’ve spent years falsely claiming that elections are being “stolen.” If you think the whole enterprise of elections is corrupt, why submit yourself to it? Meanwhile, Weber wants to encourage more people to vote and opposes voter ID laws, so she has my vote.
Controller
My vote: Malia Cohen
Malia Cohen is our current state Controller. Her platform includes things like increasing affordable housing (noting she recently approved a bond for affordable student housing) and expanding access to health care.
Meanwhile, Republican challenger Herb Morgan seems to be proposing a California equivalent of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (and his site definitely uses AI-generated images. Gross.) Let us take a moment to recall that DOGE’s cuts to foreign aid resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Morgan’s platform also mentions audits a lot as if we don’t already have an Office of State Audits and Evaluations. If he can’t figure out how California spends its money, that sounds like a skill issue.
Treasurer
My vote: Eleni Kounalakis
I am voting for Kounalakis as the Democratic candidate, but I still don’t really like her. As I wrote in my primary election voter guide in June, “I think she’s more focused on her real estate portfolio than supporting regular Californians. Last year, when Kounalakis was planning to run for governor instead of treasurer, CalMatters reported that she ‘earns millions of dollars annually from extensive property investments around the Sacramento region and beyond,’ which would be a notable conflict of interest.” Still, she can’t be worse than the Republican candidate Jennifer Hawks who seems to be running the same platform as controller candidate Herb Morgan. Again … if you can’t figure out where the state money is going, you probably don’t know what you’re doing. Learn how to submit a FOIA. Also Hawks’ biggest campaign donor is herself, which I always find a little tragic.
Attorney General
My vote: Rob Bonta
Rob Bonta is currently our attorney general and he has already weighed in on an issue that is important to me: automated license plate reader (ALPR) data. In 2023, he issued bulletins reminding law enforcement agencies that California law prohibits sharing ALPR data outside of California or using it for immigration enforcement. I think that overall he is doing useful things and his platform is solid. Republican challenger Michael Gate’s platform talks about “defending title IX and parents’ rights” (read: he plans to limit the rights of transgender people), “ensuring election integrity” (which means he probably thinks the 2020 election was “stolen”), and “defending the second amendment” (I don’t personally think our right to bear arms needs any more support). Don’t vote for that guy.
Insurance Commissioner
My vote: Jane Kim
This is one of the only races where our “top two” primary system has paid off with two Democratic candidates. Jane Kim was my choice in the primary and I’m going to stick with her. She has a coherent, specific plan for what she wants to do as insurance commissioner and the things she wants to do would actually help regular people. She wants to establish a single-payer version of universal disaster insurance to help address the effects of climate change. She’s proposing public-option car insurance and ending pricing discrimination. Now that she mentions it, why do insurance companies get to use price discrimination?
The other candidate, Ben Allen, would probably also be a perfectly good insurance commissioner. His platform also seems solid, so I think we are going to be fine whoever wins this race.
Board of Equalization District 1
My vote: Nelson Esparza
Esparza was also who I voted for in the primary, largely because he was the Democrat with a coherent platform and he said he wants make sure that “the wealthy are paying their fair share.” Great goal! The Republican candidate, Shannon Grove, says she is fighting to make sure we’re not being “overtaxed.” I’m a lot more worried about undertaxing the rich. Shannon, we’re simply not on the same page here.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
My vote: Richard Barrera
I’m voting for Barrera because he genuinely has a lot of experience working in schools and communities, which is important for this kind of job. You have to know what it’s like to be in a school so you can set policies that make sense. The fact that his platform includes “making housing affordable for educators” is huge. Teachers get paid shit and can’t even afford to live near where they teach half the time. He seems like someone who gets it.
Sonja Shaw’s website claims that “radical ideologies distract from learning,” but does not clarify which “radical” ideologies these are. I can only assume this is some kind of dog whistle about not wanting to teach critical race theory (which, by the way, is not something anyone is teaching in elementary school; this is grad school stuff). She also states that “Mask and vaccine mandates ignored families’ well-being, silencing parents’ voices.” I do not understand how a vaccine that protects people from the most severe effects of a virus is “ignoring families well-being,” but I guess she’s entitled to her opinion. However, I would like those opinions not to be the prevailing view of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
I don’t necessarily think using an AI-generated image is inherently disqualifying but if someone running for office is going to include this stuff in their official materials, they either aren’t paying enough attention or just don’t care. Look at the arm of the girl on the left. Come on.

Judicial
All these judicial positions are non-partisan, so they don’t fall under any particular party. There is a whole vetting process for them, but the public gets to confirm whether or not we want the judges. Since they’re not running for office in the same way someone like Xavier Becerra is, they don’t have campaign websites, but we can still look them up for a vibe check. I’m mostly looking for whether they have experience that broadly aligns with my values and trying to make sure I don’t vote for a secret Nazi.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Joshua Groban
My vote: YES
This is a rare California judge with his own Wikipedia page! Groban is currently an incumbent and has been on the California Supreme Court since 2018, when he was appointed by Governor Brown. We last reaffirmed him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in the 2022 election. According to a 2020 analysis by Ballotpedia, Groban’s “past partisan behavior” suggests that he is a strong Democrat. Seems like a safe choice!
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Kelli M. Evans
My vote: YES
Justice Evans is currently an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. She used to be the Associate Director of the ACLU of Northern California and was a Senior Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. You may also be interested to learn that she’s a lesbian (for the record, I did not get online and ask the internet if these judges are gay. I was searching for news about them and found this article about “out CA justices” in this election). She sounds good to me.
Administrative Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Laurie Earl
My vote: YES
Laurie Earl has been a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court and, more recently, served on the Third District Court of Appeal after being appointed by Governor Newsom in 2021. I found an article about how she helped the Third District Court work their way out of a case backlog, which is great news, and it mentioned a few rulings that make it sound like she’s on the side of the people more than of corporations. If you’re wondering, Earl is also a lesbian.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Lauri Darmell
My vote: YES
Governor Newsom appointed Lauri Darmell to the Third District Court of Appeal this year, so she will be new to this court. She has previously been a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court and an attorney in private practice. Based on her public profile, she has some feminist bona fides: Governor Brown appointed her to serve on the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls where she co-founded the California Pay Equity Task Force.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: David B. Saap
My vote: YES
As with Lauri Darmell, David Saap was appointed to the Third District Court of Appeal this year. Saap currently works in the Governor’s Office as Newsom’s Legal Affairs Secretary, according to the Sac Bee. He has served as legal counsel at the California State Board of Education and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, so that is promising.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Stacy Boulware Eurie
My vote: YES
Stacy Boulware Eurie has served as an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third District since 2022. I couldn’t find a lot of information about her beyond the official profile. There is a profile of her from 2017 and another article about her from this year on the Daily Journal, but they are paywalled and none of my normal tricks to get at the article are working. In the 2017 profile, she does say that Orson Scott Card is her favorite author and I do judge her for that but it’s not serious enough for me not to vote for her.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Jonathan Renner
My vote: YES
Jonathan Renner has been a judge on the Court of Appeal, Third District since 2014 when he was appointed by Governor Brown, so we must have voted to approve this man as a judge multiple times by this point. There isn’t much of interest about him online, but he did co-author the ruling that Governor Newsom was within his rights to move all of California to mail-in voting in 2020 during the height of the pandemic. I love voting by mail, so I know we at least agree on this. I’ll vote for him.
Administrative Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Aimee A. Feinberg
My vote: YES
Aimee Feinberg has been on the Court of Appeal since 2024 and, before that, served as a Deputy Solicitor General in the California Department of Justice. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bryer who, per Wikipedia, “was generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court.” That seems like a good sign.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third District: Shama Mesiwala
My vote: YES
Shama Mesiwala has been a judge on the California Court of Appeal since 2023. If her profile is anything to go on, Justice Mesiwala stays extremely busy. Before joining the Appellate Court, she was a judge with the Sacramento County Superior Court where she “created Northern California’s first Indian Child Welfare Act courtroom” and “served as the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) judge for the Hall of Justice.” She co-founded the South Asian Bar Association of Sacramento and was “the first South Asian American female and Muslim American female on any appellate court in California.” She has my vote.
Local
Measure H
My vote: YES
Measure H is was put on the ballot by the Los Rios Community College District to authorize funding “to maintain affordable college and career-training facilities, prepare students, workers, and veterans for jobs, provide safe drinking, water and repair leaky roofs.” The funds will come from the community college district issuing bonds, which according to the Sac Bee, will be “repaid by local property owners through a hike in property taxes over several years. It is estimated that Measure H will annually add $16.55 per $100,000 of a property’s assessed — not market — value to local homeowners’ tax bill.” If you can afford a house, you can probably afford another $16 a year in taxes. This bond would come right as the previously authorized Los Rios bonds are ending, which means taxes would not go up. You know I’m always going to vote in favor of education, so this is a yes for me.
United States Representative, Congressional District 7
My vote: Mai Vang
I’m voting for Vang because she actually has some progressive vision and has been out meeting with the people. Per SF Gate, “Vang wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, supports both the federal wealth tax proposal from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna and the state wealth tax ballot initiative, and supports the single-payer health care reform proposal called Medicare for all.” Her platform overall is progressive and full of things we really need like universal child care and ending funding for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. It would be great to have her as our congressperson after decades of Matsui signing off on military funding and various modern horrors.
State Senator District 8
My vote: Angelique Ashby
Angelique Ashby is our current state senator and she is running against Republican Susan Mason. I like Ashby’s stance on the issues and I am certainly not going to vote for a Republican, so Ashby gets my vote again. The Sac Bee reports that “Mason has been endorsed by the Sacramento County Republican Party, but does not have a campaign website and did not have a campaign committee as of the end of 2025.” It looks like Mason doesn’t have a campaign website here in October 2026 either. Bold strategy.
State Assembly District 10
My vote: Stephanie Nguyen
Stephanie Nguyen is our current state assemblymember. Nguyen is a little too pro-cop for my liking, but she’s better than the alternative. Her opponent Republican Vinya Singh wants to “make California great again,” so I’m not voting for that shit.
Elk Grove Unified School District Governing Board Member, Trustee Area 4
My vote: Delia Baulwin
Delia Baulwin has been a trustee since her appointment in 2025. She has worked as a teacher and has been a board member of EG SPEAKS, which advocates for neurodivergent students. The priorities on her website all sound like good things.
While Baulwin has a statement in the county voter guide, her opponent Craig Townsend does not. I know candidates have to pay by the word to appear in the guide, but it still seems like they don’t care much about their campaign if they don’t have anything in there. Townsend appears to have a Facebook page for his campaign, which features a photo that must be at least 20 years old given that his occupation is listed as “retired.” The Facebook page says he was a real estate broker for 32 years. I do not think this qualifies him to serve on the school board. His Instagram page is full of AI-generated flyers about “parents rights” [sic]. This is not a serious candidate.
Florin Resource Conservation District Director
My votes: Kimberly Martin, John Moua, Paul Lindsay
The Florin Resource Conservation District (FRCD) is now known as the Elk Grove Water District, although it seems like the old name persists in the election materials. The Board of Directors governs the FRCD. Essentially, these are the people setting the policies on water use for Elk Grove. The ballot directs us to “vote for no more than three” of the four candidates, so you really only have to pick one to leave out.
- Paul Lindsay is the current FRCD chair and has been in this position since December 2022. He seems to be involved in just about every civic activity available to him.
- Bret Bartholomew (and John Moua) received an endorsement from Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen. I am personally very sick of our mayor just at the moment, so this doesn’t count for much for me. I also don’t appreciate people putting most of their campaign information on Facebook. Reminder to all: Facebook is not public. If someone does not have a Facebook account, they cannot see the information you’re posting.
- John Moua is the only person with any media coverage. The Hmong Daily News has covered his bid to join the FRCD board, noting that he currently “serves as an acting branch chief with the California Air Resources Board, managing a team of software engineers and developers,” so at least he has some experience with environmental issues. He has also served on a number of committees in Elk Grove, including the Consumnes Community Services Park Advisory Committee. Moua has a real website for his campaign that lists his stance on the issues of cost, safety, and service. It’s simple but effective.
- Kimberly Martin does not have much of an online presence, but I did find that she is a member of the FRCD Community Advisory Committee, which probably makes her one of the more qualified candidates. She also seems to be associated with the Green Party which, at the local level, I think is a good thing.
Elk Grove City Council, District 4
I live in District 1 of Elk Grove, so this is neither my circus nor my monkeys, but Peggy Parks, a challenger for the Elk Grove City Council District 4 seat has been endorsed by the Republican Party. She has an extremely vague platform that could mean just about anything. If this is your district, I recommend proceeding with caution.
A Note on the Elk Grove Mayoral Race that Wasn’t
The Elk Grove mayor should be on the ballot right now, but that position, and the District 2 City Council seat are not up for a vote. Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen and Councilmember Rod Brewer were set to run unopposed this year. Rather than go through the democratic process, the City of Elk Grove “unanimously appointed [them] to new terms then canceled the November election for their seats.” I do think we deserve the chance to vote (or abstain from voting, or write in a candidate) for mayor even if there is no opposition. I’m disappointed in the city for doing it like this.
Share This Post!
You made it to the end! 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!












































































































































