Skip to content
Literally everything on the ballot: San Francisco & Oakland voting guide, March 2024
Oakland
Everything on Oakland ballots: local to state to national
👨💼👩⚖️ Candidates
President
US President (Democratic Primary)
Biden is effectively unopposed
Biden’s the nominee whatever you put down so 🤷♂️. Blank communicates a lack of enthusiasm.
I’m disappointed with his recent foreign policy choices, though he’s been one of the most quietly liberal presidents, using his “moderate” vibe to pass very progressive policy. Putting blank to pressure him to improve his foreign policy positions is a reasonable choice, but backing him in November is a moral imperative.
Party offices
Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (14th Assembly District)
Click to see full list.
Vote for up to 7; strategic reasons to vote for fewer.
The slate of candidates most likely to positively impact housing, homelessness, and public safety while professionalizing what’s been a chaotic party committee recently. These committees are important as they decide what “The Democratic Party” endorses and funds in future elections.
Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (18th Assembly District)
Vote for up to 10.
Same reason as above.
US Congress
US Senate (Full-term, thru Jan 2031)
Katie Porter (D)
Likely the best to actually get Washington to help California create more housing and ensure public safety while building seniority in the Senate. She’s a policy wonk and hard worker, not a show boat, and right on the issues, i.e. what we need today.
US Senate (Remainder-of-term, thru Jan 2025)
Katie Porter (D)
(Same as above)
US House (District 12)
Lateefah Simon (D)
Simon has worked through her career to make the criminal justice system work to actually reduce criminal behavior by reducing recidivism and still ensure public safety, even today as a BART board member. She’s been a strong advocate for public transit and has a strong vision for what she can do as a freshman congressperson.
Tony Daysog, Alameda vice-mayor, has a compelling and well-informed view on national security. His views seem less reflective of the needs of the district today, and a vote for him seems unlikely to matter given his campaign’s viability.
California Legislature
CA Senate (District 7)
Jesse Arreguín (D)
Has been a strong voice on issues like housing, homelessness, and public safety as mayor of Berkeley. Is likely to continue that track record into the CA Senate.
CA Assembly (District 14)
Buffy Wicks (D)
Wicks (the incumbent) appears to be the strongest voice amongst the three for housing policies that have shown to work, amongst other issues.
CA Assembly (District 18)
Mia Bonta (D)
Bonta has been on the right side of most major issues (and is also the only Democrat in the race)
County Judicial
Alameda County Superior Court (Office #5)
Terry Wiley
(Unopposed)
Alameda County Superior Court (Office #12)
Mark Fickes
Fickes is the appointed incumbent, and now seeking reelection. There’s been , but my sense is overall the supposed ethics issues have been overblown, especially based on the support Fickes has from within the judiciary. Both candidates have support from various elected officials. It’s unclear what actual difference the two will bring to the role given their backgrounds, though Fickes is closer to criminal law.
Education
Board Of Education, Alameda County (2nd Trustee Area)
John Lewis
Lewis seems to be far more focused on student achievement across the board and fiscal health while being less tied to special interests who have historically opposed school reform and balancing district budgets. His opponent (the incumbent) hasn’t emphasized her impact in these areas during her time on the Board.
Board Of Education, Alameda County (3rd Trustee Area)
Ken Berrick
(Unopposed)
County offices
Alameda County Supervisor (4th District)
Nate Miley
Miley seems to offer a more sensible way out of our housing crisis by acknowledging the economic barriers to building housing and solving them. He seems to strike a better balance between tenant and landlords’ needs. He also has more experience, though arguably he should’ve done more on homelessness in that time.
I’m not happy with how he used seemingly underhanded techniques to get opponent Jennifer Esteen unseated on an unrelated board. But on the whole, I think his perspectives on an otherwise inexperienced board are helpful.
Alameda County Supervisor (5th District)
John Bauters
Bauters and Emeryville have been strong voices for housing and Bauters seems poised to do the same work as a City Councilor as a Supervisor, improving homelessness and public safety as well.
City offices
Oakland City Auditor (Short-Term)
Michael Houston
(Unopposed)
📰 Propositions
California-wide
1: Bonds for mental health, substance use, and homelessness housing facilities
Yes: Bonds are regular means to fund important projects, typically paid for out of the proceeds of those projects. This measure funds a number of important initiatives mentioned in the title, which California desperately needs. To solve homelessness and our crime issues, we need more housing and treatment options. This gets us closer.
Alameda County
A: Alameda County Charter Amendment - Civil Service Measure
Yes: This measure shortens the time a job posting is posted before the county can decide on candidates from 25 to 10 days. The risk is it allows insiders a leg-up. In practice, I think removing barriers for governments to hire and move faster seems useful.
B: Alameda County Charter Amendment Recall Measure
No: The measure aims to make it harder to recall elected officials and give voters fewer powers to choose replacements. This reads like a blatant attempt by supporters of Pamela Price to prevent her recall. Yes, recalls are costly and disruptive, but so is an elected official who’s already been showing an unwillingness to aid her constituents and worse, engaging in potentially improper behavior.
City of Oakland
D: City of Oakland Ordinance Measure
Yes: This measure allows the city to spend revenue it has collected from taxes but exceed some spending threshold in the law. If it fails, the city will have to return the revenue to taxpayers over the last two years (unclear to me how).
The city is expected to hit a budget crisis in the next year, leading to layoffs and lower services. I think the city isn’t the most responsible spender of money, in particular with our current leadership. Given the opportunity cost of this measure, it’s fair to call it an option for a tax refund, though how this works isn’t clear. My take: in practice, I think it’s best to keep the revenue with the city to solve this crisis — and vote out the leadership when we have the chance.
Note: There’s very little media coverage of this measure, so this is based on my understanding of the broader context and the city’s own analysis.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.