Becerra is far from my favorite candidate from the primary. His positions on consequential topics like housing are murky and he dodged the hard tradeoffs on labor costs for new housing projects; blaming Trump for the cost of construction isn't enough as governor. The alternative — Trump-backed Hilton — is just not serious enough even if it's easy to too quickly dismiss him as a Republican.

This is a largely ceremonial role, but I'm excited Ma wants to use her limited powers to do what she can, e.g. build housing on state and college land. She's had some issues — e.g. a $350k settlement for harassment that is a bad omen — but her opponent doesn't seem great.

Bonta has been one of the strongest voices on housing, upholding the laws our legislature has passed to force cities to do their part to produce housing. There's been noise about how he used to be friendly with those connected to the corruption scandal affecting indicted former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, but with no confirmed issues and more distance, he continues to be someone I'm excited to back. His opponent is someone who's actively trying to block housing laws — the exact wrong person for the role.

Weber has largely led elections well even in the face of the Trump admin's assault.

Cohen has fixed some of the boring basics in the role, even if there is room to keep going. Her opponent seems far less serious.

Kounalakis is our current Lt. Governor who has the chops for the role. Her opponent has never held office and doesn't seem ready to manage our state's money.

The insurance market has been a mess, and Allen actually has a plan to address this. Kim is proposing big ideas that seem quite speculative and understudied during a crisis; we need someone ready from day 1. If Jane Kim's time on the Board of Supervisors in SF is any indication, many of her proposals seemed to lack deep analysis (e.g. her half-baked commuter shuttle plans), but strong analysis of complex systems is the very trait we need in this role.

Barrera has experience overseeing an education system as it rose in quality to become a top urban district with reasonable views on curriculum.

He is open to reforming or folding this outdated institution, and is best positioned to represent voters on it while it does exist.

Simon has had a thin record to-date in Congress, though is just completing her freshman term. She's had a decent track record before Congress, and her opponent is far less experienced or likely to become a successful legislator for the district.

There are real questions — she's accepted money from the same people behind the Sheng Thao corruption scandal — but she's done reasonable work and is far better qualified than the alternative.

She's likely the strongest voice on housing in the CA legislature (tied with Scott Wiener). She's made meaningful progress on actually building housing, even when it's politically tough. I'm excited for votes to send her back to Sacramento.

Generally, limited public information on justices. Default should be to retain with no sources indicated any red flags on each of the judges.

Generally, limited public information on justices. Default should be to retain with no sources indicated any red flags on each of the judges.

Reiss has far more experience with what it takes to keep the district's finances and operations on track without being beholden to special interests who are trying to influence contract policy.

Has been a reasonable voice on the board and delivered housing at BART stops. He can go further, but his experience will be helpful as BART is forced to navigate the next few turbulent years.

Valencia is running on the basics of making the system work. While new to the board, she's backed by some of the strongest voices for housing and transit and her opponent has made some questionable good-governance decisions.

Syed has been a reasonable voice on budget and operations.

Limited reporting on this down-ballot race. She has reasonable policy experience and taken action to keep our infrastructure strong during her tenure.

Lee is expected to win given no mature opposition, so leaving this blank is the rare case where it's useful to show dissent and avoid handing her a mandate without having someone unqualified enter office.

​

This is far from an endorsement as Lee has continued to engage in inside dealings with the special interests that have gotten her elected (e.g. the unions got her elected and thus got sweetheart deals in their contract negotiation with her). She refuses to answer to her connections to the same folks who are tied to former mayor Sheng Thao and charges for which she's on trial today. Her performance has been ok, but has involved a lot of kicking the can down the road on important budget matters. However, the other candidates just aren't ready to manage a city the size of Oakland, so we're left with what we have, unfortunately.

Uncontested

Wang has been a reasonable, technocratic voice on the Council.

Uncontested

Yes: An $11.25B bond measure, which goes to affordable and veteran-focused programs. We need more housing, which takes money, and bond measures are typical ways to get this done.

Yes: Doubles the cap on CA’s rainy day fund from 10% to 20%. Our tax revenue is volatile, often swinging the state from deficit to surplus based on the performance of the stock market and a handful of companies. Aims to reduce this variability for more budget stability.

No: This proposition extends existing taxes on high income earners and allocates them to specific uses (education, health care). That extension is reasonable, but there's no reason this should be a proposition. The legislature has full power and authority to pass this, and if our budgetary needs change — e.g. the government needs funds for other poverty alleviation programs, other education programs e.g. universities — then their hands are tied as only a new proposition can amend these restrictions. As context, revenue from the top 2% of income earners covers about 50% of CA's income tax intake, so the implications of that lock-in are big.

Yes: Today most cities are prohibited from running public campaign finance programs. This proposition removes those restrictions. It could've been better designed — e.g. better oversight, which has been central to avoiding abuses — but ultimately leaves the actual funding and implementation to the cities. We've seen mixed results from public financing measures to-date, but I think this is a worthy risk for enabling less money to influence politics.

Yes: This proposition treats recalled officials as if they were any other official who left office (e.g. resigned, died) and follows the typical succession rules. Today, when a state official is recalled, there is a single question to ask who should replace them that allows lots of funny games to take place (see Newsom recall). It means candidates who should've been recalled aren't for fear of who might win that second race (usually, it'll be a long-shot Republican who'd never actually win the election otherwise given the mechanics of how this works), and importantly it reduces the incentive to just recall candidates out of sour grapes for losing a prior election.

Yes: Allows the state to issue bonds that would help middle-income buyers purchase homes. Importantly, it's structured such that its costs are fully covered by beneficiaries and it aims to create new housing vs just drumming up demand for the existing supply, driving up costs for those it aims to help. Overall, it seems reasonable. I'd prefer this have gone through the legislature, and the impact of this is small, but affordability caused by insufficient housing is the crisis of our time, so every bit helps.

No: Allows the state to issue bonds that in practice about half would go directly to a single institute tied to Michael Milken. This is a sweetheart giveaway to an institute with no track record, that we'd otherwise likely not fund if this was done through a normal process.

No: The measure requires those voting to present ID or indicate some ID number (e.g. when voting by mail). The problem: there's no widespread voting fraud in CA to solve for, it creates endless reasons to challenge votes for reasons that have to do with bureaucratic reasons instead of on the real merits. The result: more disenfranchised voters and less trust in democracy. This measure is unfortunately a wolf in sheep's clothing — looking at the Trump-affiliated folks backing it, it's clear the intent is far from saving democracy versus undermining it.

No: This is the billionaire's tax you've likely read plenty about. Here's what it really is: a 5% tax on billionaires who were living in the state as of Jan 1, 2026. Importantly, that money would be 90% allocated to healthcare — and only healthcare! — and is calculated in ways that are pretty atypical (e.g. taxing paper wealth when the taxpayer doesn't have any money to actually provide).

​

To state upfront: I'm not that sympathetic to billionaires complaining that the state and country that enabled them to create such wealth suddenly needs to be funded. I think a national wealth tax that's actually well constructed is a great idea (part of why I'm a fan of things like property tax reform to actually tax the wealthy). And, I agree there is a gap in healthcare funding given Trump's cuts. However, this is very much not the right solution.

​

This proposal, particularly around restricting the funding largely to healthcare, has split union support with some opposing, supporting, or just staying silent.

No: This was designed as a poison pill for the billionaire's tax (Prop 40), thus it's not meant to be a serious policy proposal. While dressed up as good governance, it restricts spending flexibility for the state for no sensible reason.

No: Also a poison pill for the billionaire's tax (Prop 40), and equally not well thought through. It restricts future taxes tied to owning personal property (i.e. non-real estate), which feels unnecessarily broad, legislating at the ballot box "just in case" to restrict future potential ballot measures that may or may not one day emerge.

Yes: This restores a requirement that 2/3rds of voters support certain taxes placed on the ballot from citizen petitions. It will make taxes hard to pass, but we survived plenty fine before the 2017 CA Supreme Court "Upland" ruling changed the rules and it will just require governments to finally do the work of looking at their budgets seriously with the plenty of revenue they already have. You can argue this means proposals with a majority support will fail, but I think many of the recent regressive taxes should require more support.

No: This applies various restrictions to certain healthcare clinics' budgets. Remember all those dialysis clinic propositions from the last few years? This is from the same team behind that. It's a classic labor dispute between a set of non-profits and a union, with the union boss wanting to get negotiating leverage so he's going to voters. If you fail, just keep trying? Yah.... maybe don't here. Two private entities should resolve the fight themselves instead of trying to get voters to get involved.

Yes: This proposition reforms the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a landmark legislation that's in the decades since actually been used to block very pro-environment projects like urban infill. This law has its issues, e.g. it will make some urban sprawl easier. But, the cost CEQA has had on the environment and to block housing is far higher. Taking what we can get is better (even if this ideally would have been done by the state legislature who has not been willing to go far enough to make the deep, necessary reform happen to-date).

No: This measure implements a sales tax (1% in SF, 0.5% in other affected counties) to raise $1B/yr for transit agencies.

​

This is a proposition I feel incredibly conflicted about. Like many Bay Area residents, I am a daily user of transit. I think transit is critical for you even if you don't use it — it's essential to create our thriving Bay and its rich communities, and even if you drive, it helps reduce the demand for driving.

​

I don't buy the doomsday picture being painted if this measure fails.

​

I expect there will be some pain, but as we've seen when taxes fail, money is suddenly found through deeper accountability, using resources more efficiently — and most importantly — further government support. Take BART. Pre-pandemic, it was one of the least subsidized transit agencies in the US. Thus, when ridership dropped, a greater percentage of the budget fell with it. CA needs to do what many other states have done: directly subsidize the agencies. We've done it before, and I think it will be completely politically untenable to not do so if this fails. Sales taxes are still a useful and common tool, and I think this means we'll instead get a pared down 2028 tax measure that includes better accountability. I think the “worst-case” pictures painted in the media for the coming year are probably the extreme, not median, case.

​

Governments and agencies in the Bay keep passing taxes rather than contend with issues like blossoming pension obligations. Fiscal responsibility and oversight — along with the state stepping in to pay its fair share — have not yet been exhausted and should be the next step, not a regressive sales tax that's likely to hit the poorest Bay Area residents the most and further erode affordability.

​

If you vote in favor of this, I think that would be reasonable too. I'm making a bet that we can solve this better with the help of Sacramento and future measures, but you may not have the same optimism I do for the political will to address this properly in the coming year.

Yes: You might not realize it, but the mayor actually doesn't have the typical powers of a mayor of a city Oakland's size like appointing a leadership team, having full veto power on bills, etc. Oakland sits between a "strong mayor" and "strong council" system, and this measure gives the mayor the power — and thus accountability — to deliver on the mandate they're elected to lead. I have issues with the current mayor but I think this is the right structural answer for how we structure the city government.

Yes: It doesn't affect individuals, just major investors buying foreclosed property who today are using various loopholes to avoid transfer taxes. It's useful purely from a tax fairness perspective, but let's not kid ourselves that this is a real plan to get the city's budget on track (it would raise $4-13M for a budget of ~$2B).