{"site":"https://www.californiapeople.org","election":"2026-11-03","description":"California Ballot Guide, Nov 3, 2026 general election. Sourced research on every proposition, statewide office and San Bernardino County local race (countywide, all 24 cities and towns, and the Congress, Legislature and Board of Equalization districts): who wrote and funds each measure, who benefits, track records, and what candidates have actually done. Independent research by CaliforniaPeople.org, not affiliated with any campaign. Each proposition carries a labeled \"Our read\" lean drawn from the evidence; every claim links to its source.","mcp":"https://www.californiapeople.org/api/mcp","entries":[{"id":"prop-1","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 1: $11.25 billion bond for affordable and veterans housing","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-1","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-1.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-1","label":"Prop 1","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 1: $11.25 billion bond for affordable and veterans housing\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-1\n\n- number: 1\n- title: $11.25 billion bond for affordable and veterans housing\n- type: Legislative bond act (SB 417, Limón)\n- sponsor: Legislature; campaign funded by affordable-housing developers and their allies\n\n**Our read: Lean yes, but demand accountability.** $11.25B for housing at about $630K a unit, run by an agency flagged in five state audits. Here’s how to watch the money.\n\n## Key findings\n- A subsidized apartment built with California tax credits cost about **$630,000 per unit** in 2023, up nearly 20% since 2019 after inflation. [^1]\n- The state's share in this bond works out to roughly **$180,000 per rental unit** ($7.2B for up to 40,000 units, our math). The rest has to come from tax credits and local money. [^2]\n- RAND estimates that at Colorado's cost levels, about $1.25B of recent spending by California's four biggest housing programs would have built **more than 4 times as many units**. [^3]\n- The State Auditor has flagged the agency that runs these bonds (HCD) in **five audits (2007–2018)**: weak monitoring, unexplained high per-unit costs, and a data system that never worked fully. [^4][^5][^6]\n- The campaign is funded mostly by the groups that would apply for the money: **$13.9M of $15.3M** came from a committee sponsored by affordable-housing organizations. [^7]\n\n## Track record\n| Bond | State $ | What it produced (as reported) | Notes |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Prop 46 (2002) | $2.1B | ~91,000 \"units assisted\" for $1.91B awarded | Count includes 10,000+ shelter and dorm spaces, so it isn't a count of new apartments. [^8] |\n| Prop 1C (2006) | $2.85B | ~114,000 \"units assisted\" for ~$2.3B | Includes ~3,000 shelter spaces. HCD's own report gives two different dollar totals. [^8] |\n| Prop 1 (2018) | $4B ($3B housing + $1B veteran loans) | LAO estimated subsidies for up to 30,000 multifamily and 7,500 farmworker households. We found no HCD count of completed units | Money ran out quickly amid heavy demand; HCD expected to use it all by end of 2024. [^9][^10][^11] |\n| Prop 1 (Mar 2024) | $6.38B ($2B housing) | Estimated up to 4,350 units | Behavioral-health bond. Passed with 50.2%. [^12][^7] |\n| **Prop 1 (2026)** | **$11.25B** | LAO: up to 40,000 rentals + ~40,000 homebuyer households | Nearly 3 times the size of the 2018 bond. [^13] |\n\n**Audit pattern:** In 2014 the State Auditor found that 7 of 10 sampled projects cost well above local averages with no documented justification. One project (East Leland Family Apartments) cost ~$412,000 per unit when comparable projects averaged ~$264,000. The auditor also found a $1.35M grant for an outdoor \"green living room\" that built no housing, $486M still waiting to be awarded, and HCD's cost benchmarks hadn't been updated since 2008. [^4]\n\n## What it does\n- $10B of the general-obligation bonds, repaid from the General Fund: $7.2B affordable rentals, $1.1B homeownership, $500M infrastructure, $450M farmworker housing, $350M UC/CSU student housing, $200M tribal housing, $200M local pilots. [^2]\n- $1.25B CalVet home loans, repaid by veterans' loan payments (the program \"has always operated at no direct cost to the state\"). [^2]\n- Cost: $500–600M a year for about 25 years. [^2]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $15.3M, No $0** in committees (through Oct 22). [^7] Reform California has spent about $7,500 against. [^11] Top Yes donors include Airbnb, two carpenters' union councils, and Building a Better California (funded by Sergey Brin and John Doerr), at $1M each. [^13]\n- Recipients are mostly nonprofit and for-profit affordable-housing developers, who apply to HCD and CalHFA. For example, MidPen Housing alone has 1,198 units waiting on state money. [^14]\n- Supporters cite **461 \"shovel-ready\" projects (39,880 units)** stalled for lack of gap funding. That count comes from Enterprise Community Partners, an affordable-housing finance group. [^14]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- It adds units, but it doesn't touch the cost per unit, which is the main reason each dollar builds so little. Every extra funding source a project needs adds about 4 months and ~$20,460 per unit. [^1][^14]\n- The state needs about 1 million lower-income units by 2030 under its own targets. This bond covers roughly 4% of that. [^14][^2]\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** Most of the $10B goes out as competitive awards from one department (HCD) with no cost-per-unit limit in the law. The bill only requires an annual report (§ 54088), and it lets agencies write the program rules without the usual public rulemaking (§ 54077). [^15] Watching how the money is spent is up to voters, reporters and the Legislature.\n\n### Who spends it, and who answers for it\n| Money | Run by | Who's accountable |\n|---|---|---|\n| $7.2B rentals, $600M CalHome, $500M infill infrastructure, $450M farmworker, $200M tribal, $200M local pilots | HCD | HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez (since 2020) [^16]; Secretary Tomiquia Moss of the new California Housing and Homelessness Agency (since June 2026) [^17]; the Governor, who appoints both |\n| $500M down-payment help | CalHFA | Executive Director Tony Sertich [^18] |\n| $350M student housing | UC and CSU | UC Regents and CSU Trustees |\n| $1.25B veterans' home loans | CalVet | An independent accountant must review the loan program every year while the bonds are outstanding. [^15] |\n| The tax credits most rentals also need | Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) | Chaired by the State Treasurer. Other voting members: the Controller, the Finance Director, and the heads of HCD and CalHFA. [^18] **The Treasurer and Controller races are both on this ballot.** |\n\n### Who gets the money\n- Applicants are nonprofit and for-profit developers, cities, counties and tribes. From 2019 to 2025, HCD funded **66,511 rental units**. Of those, **only 26,904 (40%) are listed as completed**, and 14,660 hadn't started construction. [^19]\n- No single public database lists each HCD award with its developer, cost per unit and status. HCD's summary gives counts only. The best project-level records are CTCAC's staff reports, which list each tax-credit project's developer, units and total cost. [^20]\n\n### Red flags already on record\n- **Fraud charges:** Shangri-La Industries won about $115M in state Homekey contracts for about 500 homes. Its $27M Thousand Oaks project sits abandoned. Its former CFO was federally charged with mail fraud in Oct 2025 and has pleaded not guilty. [^21][^22] The state, through Attorney General Bonta, sued the company in Jan 2024, alleging breach of contract and fraud. [^23]\n- **Close to home:** San Bernardino's All Star Lodge, a Homekey motel conversion, was foreclosed after two years. No affordability restriction had been recorded, so the new owner could threaten big rent increases. [^22][^24]\n- **Homekey's record:** $3.8B awarded since 2020. About 1 in 5 promised homes were unfinished at the end of 2024, and at least 10 awards (about 500 units) were canceled or clawed back. No state agency has publicly analyzed the program in detail. [^22] This matters here because Prop 1's $1.15B supportive-housing share can fund the same kind of interim-to-permanent conversions. [^15]\n- **Audit advice ignored:** In 2018 the State Auditor told the Legislature to require HCD to report every year on how it monitors bond programs, and to have its parent agency track HCD's progress. As of Jan 2026, the status of both is \"No action taken.\" The audit's recommendations on HCD's administrative-cost overspending are still listed as only partially implemented or pending. [^6]\n- **Money lost, units unclear:** A state committee let about $2.7B in housing bond authority expire in 2015–2017 without saying so publicly. The housing agencies don't share a project ID, so their unit counts may overlap. [^25]\n- **Evaluation blocked:** AB 505 would have had the LAO evaluate Homekey. It died in the Assembly Housing Committee in Jan 2026 without a hearing. [^26]\n- **Not on the high-risk list:** The State Auditor's Dec 2025 high-risk list doesn't include housing or homelessness spending. [^27]\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n1. **Your Assemblymember and state Senator** (look them up at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov). Ask them to:\n   - Pass the 2018 audit recommendation into law: public, project-by-project reporting for every Prop 1 award (developer, units, cost per unit, start and completion dates).\n   - Ask the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to have the State Auditor audit the first round of Prop 1 awards. Any legislator can request an audit.\n   - Bring back the Homekey evaluation that AB 505 proposed.\n   - **Lower the cost per unit:** fund each project from fewer sources, since each extra source adds about 4 months and $20,460 per unit [^1][^14], and adopt RAND's recommendations: a 30-day approval deadline, synchronized inspections, lower impact fees ($29,000 per unit in California vs. $12,000 in Colorado), and fewer design rules that don't affect safety. [^3]\n2. **Treasurer and Controller candidates:** they'll sit on CTCAC. Ask whether they'll score tax-credit applications on cost per unit and publish final costs for every finished project.\n3. **CTCAC and HCD meetings** take public comment. Agendas are posted on the Treasurer's and HCD's websites.\n4. **Report waste or fraud** to the State Auditor's whistleblower hotline: auditor.ca.gov/hotline or 800-952-5665. You can file anonymously. [^28]\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nThe California Public Records Act is the state's version of FOIA. Anyone can file a request, and you don't need to give a reason. The agency must respond within 10 days, or within 24 days in unusual cases. [^29] Send HCD requests through its online portal or to PRARequest@hcd.ca.gov. [^30]\n\n> **To HCD:** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request records sufficient to show, for every award made from Proposition 1 (2018) and Proposition 1 (2024) bond funds: project name, sponsor and developer, city, award amount and date, number of units, total development cost, and current status (not started, under construction, or completed, with the completion date). I also request any notices of default, recapture or cancellation for these awards. I prefer electronic records in their original format, such as a spreadsheet. Please state the estimated date the records will be available, as Gov. Code § 7922.535 requires.\n\n> **To HCD:** All monitoring reports, notices of default, and recapture or settlement records for Homekey projects sponsored by Shangri-La Industries, and for the All Star Lodge in San Bernardino.\n\n> **To CTCAC (State Treasurer's Office):** For every tax-credit project in San Bernardino County awarded from 2019 to 2025, the final cost certification showing the total development cost at completion, alongside the cost in the application.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** a real backlog of ready projects; rents are crushing low-income households; the bond funds farmworker, tribal and student housing that the market won't build.\n- **Against:** No official ballot argument against was filed. [^31] Republican lawmakers, including Asm. Carl DeMaio, say only ~11% goes to veterans despite the name [^11], and that it borrows without addressing why building here costs so much [^22][^32]; RAND finds that at Colorado's costs, the same money would build 4x+ as many units. [^3]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute.\n- Summary: Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for rental housing, veterans' mortgages, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and down payment help.\n- Fiscal impact: \"Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years\" to repay the bond.\n- A YES vote means: The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.\n- A NO vote means: The state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.\n- Argument for: Builds affordable homes for veterans, seniors and people with disabilities; expands homeownership; speeds up shovel-ready housing; helps people at risk of homelessness. \"Requires strict fiscal accountability and public oversight with no new taxes.\"\n- Argument against: No argument against was submitted.\n- Supporters: US Vets, CA Federation of Teachers, Habitat for Humanity CA, and others\n- Opponents: None submitted\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (pro) \"No new taxes\" is true, but the bond is repaid from the General Fund: roughly $500–600M a year for 25 years, about 15% more than paying cash after inflation. [^2]\n- (summary) Of the $11.25B, $1.25B is the veterans home-loan program, which veterans' loan payments have historically repaid. The other $10B is a general obligation bond. [^2]\n- (general) The campaign is funded almost entirely by affordable-housing developers and nonprofits ($13.9M of $15.3M), the same groups that would compete for the grants. [^7]\n- (general) Scale check: up to 40,000 subsidized rentals over several years, against roughly 100,000 homes California builds in a typical year. It doesn't change the cost of building. [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Terner Center, LIHTC costs and impact fees (Jan 2026). https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/LIHTCImpactFees2026.pdf\n[^2]: LAO 2026. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop1-110326.pdf\n[^3]: RAND, High Cost of Multifamily Housing in California (Apr 2025). https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3743-1.html\n[^4]: State Auditor 2014-037. https://information.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2014-037.pdf\n[^5]: State Auditor 2018-037. https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2018-037/introduction.html\n[^6]: State Auditor 2018-037 status of recommendations. https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/responses/2018-037/all\n[^7]: SoS, March 2024 results (statement of vote). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2024-primary/sov/115-state-ballot-measures-formatted.pdf\n[^8]: HCD 2016-17 annual report (Prop 46/1C outcomes). https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/HCD_2016-17_Annual-Report_Final.pdf\n[^9]: LAO 2018, Prop 1 analysis. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2018\n[^10]: LAO, state housing spending (Feb 2023). https://shou.senate.ca.gov/sites/shou.senate.ca.gov/files/LAO%20-%20Recent%20State%20Housing%20Funding.pdf\n[^11]: KQED (Sept 28, 2026). https://www.kqed.org/news/12100622/proposition-1-authorizes-california-to-issue-a-11-25-billion-bond-to-fund-affordable-housing\n[^12]: LAO 2024, March 2024 Prop 1 analysis. https://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2024/proposition-1.pdf\n[^13]: California Today prop guide (donors). https://californiatoday.com/guides/elections/2026-california-proposition-1-guide/\n[^14]: CalMatters, 40,000 stalled units (Mar 9, 2026). https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/ca-is-ready-to-build-40000-affordable-housing-units-but-money-has-run-out/\n[^15]: SB 417 text (Ch. 16, Stats. 2026), via Digital Democracy. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb417\n[^16]: HCD director page. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about/executive-team/director\n[^17]: HCD, Moss sworn in as Housing and Homelessness Agency secretary (Jun 30, 2026). https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/governor-newsom-swears-tomiquia-moss-secretary-of-new-california-housing-and-homelessness-agency\n[^18]: CTCAC agenda, Sept 1, 2026 (committee members). https://treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ctcac/CTCAC_Meeting_Notice_and_Agenda_9-1-2026.pdf\n[^19]: HCD funded multifamily projects 2019–2025. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/hcd-funded-multifamily-projects-2025.pdf\n[^20]: CTCAC staff reports (project-level developer, units, costs). https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/meeting/staff\n[^21]: LAist, Homekey fraud charges (Oct 16, 2025). https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/bill-essayli-federal-charges-homelessness-homekey\n[^22]: CalMatters Homekey, 100 records requests (May 7, 2026). https://calmatters.org/housing/2026/05/newsom-homekey-records/\n[^23]: The Real Deal, state sues Shangri-La (Jan 8, 2024). https://therealdeal.com/la/2024/01/08/california-state-sues-shangri-la-industries-after-project-homekey-defaults\n[^24]: ABC7, All Star Lodge foreclosure (Mar 2, 2024). https://abc7.com/post/san-bernardino-all-star-lodge-motel-project-homekey-foreclosure/14476936/\n[^25]: State Auditor 2020-108, California's housing agencies (Nov 2020). https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2020-108.pdf\n[^26]: Digital Democracy, AB 505 (Castillo). https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab505\n[^27]: State Auditor 2025-601, high-risk list (Dec 2025). https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-601_Report-WordPress.pdf\n[^28]: State Auditor whistleblower brochure. https://www.ucop.edu/uc-whistleblower/_files/csa-brochure.pdf\n[^29]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^30]: HCD records requests. https://hcd.ca.gov/contact-us/public-records-requests\n[^31]: Official Voter Guide, Prop 1 arguments (SoS). https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop1-arg-rebuttals.pdf\n[^32]: CalMatters via KPBS (Oct 2, 2026). https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/10/02/proposition-1-borrow-11-25-billion-for-housing\n[^33]: CA SoS contributions. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-1-sb-417-limon-veterans-and-affordable-housing-bond-act-2026-ch-16-2026\n"},{"id":"prop-2","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 2: Bigger rainy day fund and extended extra debt payments","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-2","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-2.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-2","label":"Prop 2","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 2: Bigger rainy day fund and extended extra debt payments\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-2\n\n- number: 2\n- title: Bigger rainy day fund and extended extra debt payments\n- type: Legislative constitutional amendment (ACA 20, Gabriel)\n- sponsor: Legislature (Democratic majority), backed by Gov. Newsom\n\n**Our read: Lean yes.** Lets the state save more for recessions. No one is spending for or against it; the real test is whether lawmakers stop raiding the fund.\n\n## Key findings\n- The 2014 rainy day fund peaked near **$23B**, then the state **pulled about $12.2B in 2024–25 and 2025–26** and suspended deposits. It fell to **$11.5B**, with $15.1B projected for 2026–27. [^1]\n- The 10% cap was only operative in 2 years (2022–23 and 2023–24). Without the cap, about **$2B more** would have been saved. [^1][^2]\n- The LAO estimates revenue losses in the three recessions before 2020 were about **50% of a year's General Fund taxes**, far more than the current cap. Even a 20% cap would cover less than half of that. [^1]\n- **No campaign on either side.** Nobody is spending money for or against it. [^3]\n\n## Track record\n| Year | Event | Rainy day fund |\n|---|---|---|\n| 2014 | Prop 2 (2014) creates the current rules: 10% cap, half of set-asides to debt | Builds up through the 2010s |\n| 2022–23 | Cap binds | ~12% of revenue, near the ~$23B peak |\n| 2024–25 & 2025–26 | Deficits | ~$12.2B withdrawn; deposits suspended |\n| End of 2025–26 | — | $11.5B |\n| **Prop 2 (2026)** | Cap rises to 20%; extra debt payments run to 2040 | Up to 20% of General Fund taxes allowed |\n[^1][^2]\n\n## What it does\n- Raises the cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund taxes. [^1]\n- Extends required extra payments on pension and retiree-health debt from 2030 to 2040. The money can also repay internal borrowing, the ~$20B federal unemployment-insurance loan, and required school payments. [^1][^4]\n- Deposits don't count toward the spending limit until they're withdrawn. [^1]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- No committees on either side. The main beneficiary is the state budget itself.\n- The trade-off is real: money that's saved isn't spent, and leaving deposits out of the spending limit lowers the odds of taxpayer rebates (the critics' \"slush fund\" argument). [^5]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- Yes, it targets a real structural problem: very volatile revenue. The recent record shows the limit is discipline, not size. Lawmakers suspended deposits and drew the fund down in two straight years, and a bigger cap doesn't stop that.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** A bigger cap only helps if leaders actually make the deposits and don't drain the fund early. The rules for tapping it don't change. [^1]\n\n### Who decides\n- **The Governor** can declare a \"budget emergency,\" but only after a disaster or when there isn't enough money to keep spending at the highest level of the last three years (adjusted for population and inflation). **The Legislature** then needs a majority vote to withdraw money. In the first year of an emergency, it can take no more than half the fund. [^6]\n- **The Department of Finance** writes the budget numbers the deposits are based on. Its director is Joe Stephenshaw. [^7]\n- **The LAO** is the Legislature's nonpartisan budget office and tracks the fund's balance every year. [^1]\n\n### What to watch\n- Lawmakers took about $12.2B out in 2024–25 and 2025–26 and suspended deposits. [^2] If Prop 2 passes, watch whether the next budget (due June 15, 2027) puts the fund back on a path toward 20%, or declares another emergency.\n- Prop 2 widens what the extra debt payments can be used for, adding school payments and repaying internal loans. [^1] Watch whether the money keeps going to pension and retiree-health debt, or gets used to patch the budget.\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n- **The next governor** (Becerra or Hilton): will they commit to no budget-emergency withdrawals outside a recession?\n- **Your Assemblymember and state Senator** (findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov): ask them to require a public multiyear plan for rebuilding the fund before any emergency withdrawal is approved.\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^8]\n\n> **To the Department of Finance:** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request the worksheets showing how the required Budget Stabilization Account deposits and extra debt payments under Article XVI, Section 20 were calculated for fiscal years 2024–25 through 2026–27, and any records supporting the budget emergency declarations for those years.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** Gov. Newsom, legislative Democrats, CA Democratic Party, Sacramento Bee. Save in booms to avoid cuts in busts.\n- **Against:** Reform California, legislative Republicans, SD Union-Tribune, OC Register. It lets lawmakers keep more without triggering refunds.\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Increases State's Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.\n- Summary: Increases the Rainy Day Fund voters approved in 2014, to help pay for education, health care, public safety and other services during downturns.\n- Fiscal impact: Higher state budget reserves.\n- A YES vote means: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change: higher reserves, and extra debt payments for a longer period.\n- A NO vote means: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.\n- Argument for: \"Protect schools, healthcare, and public safety funding.\" Doubles the Rainy Day Fund, limits overspending in surplus years, keeps education funded in downturns. Backed by firefighters, hospitals, clinics and educators.\n- Argument against: \"Guarantees more spending, not savings.\" Excludes reserve deposits from the constitutional spending limit, which makes taxpayer rebates less likely. Provides no new money for schools, health care or public safety.\n- Supporters: CA Professional Firefighters, LA Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Newsom, Xavier Becerra, Asm. Jesse Gabriel\n- Opponents: Asm. David Tangipa\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (con) The rebate point is real: deposits wouldn't count toward the Gann spending limit until withdrawn, which lowers the odds of taxpayer refunds. That's the main trade-off. [^1]\n- (pro) The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst has long urged bigger reserves. The cap rises from 10% to 20% of General Fund taxes, against a budget whose revenue swings with the stock market. [^1]\n- (general) No campaign committee registered on either side. This is one of the few measures squarely aimed at a long-term structural problem. [^3]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: LAO budget reserves overview (Aug 6, 2024). https://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/state_admin/2024/Budget-Reserves-Overview-080624.pdf\n[^2]: California Today Prop 2 guide. https://californiatoday.com/guides/elections/2026-california-proposition-2-guide/\n[^3]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^4]: CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-2-rainy-day-fund/\n[^5]: Official Voter Guide arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop2-arg-rebuttals.pdf\n[^6]: Voter guide 2014, Prop 2 analysis (budget emergency rules). https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/en/propositions/2/analysis.htm\n[^7]: CTCAC agenda, Sept 1, 2026 (lists Finance Director). https://treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ctcac/CTCAC_Meeting_Notice_and_Agenda_9-1-2026.pdf\n[^8]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^9]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop2-110326.pdf\n[^10]: Asm. Jesse Gabriel, ACA 20 press release (June 25, 2026). https://gabriel.asmdc.org/press-releases/20260625-california-legislature-places-constitutional-amendment-strengthen-rainy-day\n"},{"id":"prop-3","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 3: Makes the 2012 high-income tax permanent","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-3","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-3.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-3","label":"Prop 3","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 3: Makes the 2012 high-income tax permanent\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-3\n\n- number: 3\n- title: Makes the 2012 high-income tax permanent\n- type: Initiative constitutional amendment\n- sponsor: California Teachers Association\n\n**Our read: Toss-up: weigh it carefully.** Makes the “temporary” top-earner tax permanent: $9–10B a year. School spending is up 75%, results are flat, and no money is tied to outcomes.\n\n## Key findings\n- The \"temporary\" top-earner tax has raised **more than $104B since 2012**, currently **$9–10B a year**. [^1]\n- It was sold as temporary twice: 7 years in 2012 (Prop 30), then extended 12 years in 2016 (Prop 55). **This measure removes the end date** (now after 2030). [^2]\n- School spending per student is **up 75% after inflation** since 2012–13. But **fewer than half of 4th graders meet state reading standards, and 37% meet math**, and scores haven't recovered from the pandemic. [^3]\n- Only **about 40%** of the money goes to schools and community colleges under the state's minimum-funding rule (Prop 98). The rest frees up the general budget. [^2]\n- The sponsor is the teachers' union, whose members' pay comes from this money: **$53.8M** of the $74.8M raised by the main Yes committees. The opposition has raised $5,500. [^4][^5]\n\n## Track record\n| Period | Measure | What it did | Promise |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| 2013–2018 | Prop 30 (2012) | Raised rates on top earners through 2018 and added a ¼-cent sales tax, which Prop 55 did not renew [^6] | Temporary, to stop recession-era school cuts |\n| 2019–2030 | Prop 55 (2016) | Extended the income-tax part for 12 years | Temporary extension |\n| 2031+ | **Prop 3** | Same rates, permanent | No more renewal votes |\n| Total so far | | **$104B+ raised; $9–10B/yr recently** [^1] | |\n\nOutcomes since 2012: per-pupil spending rose from below the national average to 16th in the nation. Adjusted for labor costs, it ranks 31st. [^3]\n\n## What it does\n- Keeps rates of 10.3% on income over ~$360K up to 12.3% over ~$721K. [^7]\n- Paid by about the top 2% of filers, who already pay about half of all state income tax. [^2]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $81.1M** (Ballotpedia's count of the main committees is $74.8M). **No $5,500 (CalTax).** [^5][^4]\n- CTA opposes Prop 40, the other \"tax the rich\" measure. [^8]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- It prevents a $5–15B budget cliff, but it locks in the state's dependence on volatile capital-gains income, the main reason California's budget swings so much. Spending is up sharply while results are flat, and the measure ties no money to outcomes.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** The money is already flowing, about $9–10B a year, and it will keep flowing with no end date and no link to student results. [^1] The real accountability tools are local: your school board decides how its share is spent, in public.\n\n### The rules this money already carries\nThe 2012 tax created an **Education Protection Account (EPA)**. Each school district and community college gets a share. Under the state Constitution, each district must:\n- decide how to spend it **in an open session of a public board meeting**\n- **not spend it on administrators' salaries or benefits**, or any other administrative cost\n- **post on its website** how much it received and how it spent it\n- have its annual **independent audit check** that the money was spent properly\n[^9]\n\n### Who's accountable\n- **Your school board and community college board.** They vote on the EPA spending plan every year, usually in June with the budget.\n- **The State Superintendent of Public Instruction**, who runs the Department of Education. That race (Barrera vs. Shaw) is on this ballot.\n- **The Legislature and Governor**, who decide how much of the rest of the budget goes to schools. Only about 40% of this tax ends up as new school money. [^2]\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n- At your district's June budget meeting, ask: **how did the EPA money change reading and math results?** Fewer than half of 4th graders meet reading standards, and 37% meet math. [^3]\n- Ask your legislators to tie future increases to published results, such as reading and math by school and per-student spending by school.\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^10]\n\n> **To your school district:** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request the district's Education Protection Account spending plans and year-end accountings for 2020–21 through 2025–26, the board resolutions adopting them, and the sections of the annual independent audit that test EPA spending.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** CTA, school employees, PTA, CA Democratic Party, CMA. Without it, they say, schools face billions in cuts, including teacher layoffs. [^5]\n- **Against:** CalTax, Reform California, OC Register, SD Union-Tribune. California already has the highest income taxes of all 50 states, and voters were promised this was temporary. [^5]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.\n- Summary: Makes permanent the existing voter-approved tax rates on individuals earning over \"$371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation).\" Revenue goes to public education.\n- Fiscal impact: Keeps $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state income tax revenue that would otherwise expire in 2031.\n- A YES vote means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.\n- A NO vote means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.\n- Argument for: Protects school and health care funding without raising taxes; prevents a tax cut for the wealthiest by keeping rates the top 2% have paid for 15 years; requires audits so money reaches classrooms.\n- Argument against: Californians already pay some of the highest taxes in the country with a high cost of living; the state wastes billions on failed programs and should fix spending before making taxes permanent.\n- Supporters: California Teachers Association, CA School Nurses Organization, California State PTA, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA\n- Opponents: California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA, CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (pro) \"Without raising taxes\" is accurate today, but these rates were sold as temporary twice, in 2012 (Prop 30) and 2016 (Prop 55). This makes them permanent. [^2]\n- (summary) \"Revenue goes to public education\" overstates it. Because of the Prop 98 school-funding formula, the Legislative Analyst estimates only about 40% ends up as new school money; the rest frees up funds elsewhere. [^2][^7]\n- (general) Placed on the ballot by the California Teachers Association, whose members benefit. Yes side raised $81.1M (CTA alone $53.8M). The No side raised $5,500. [^5][^4]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: California Budget & Policy Center (Apr 2026). https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/how-a-tax-on-wealthy-households-funds-schools-health-care-more/\n[^2]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop3-110326.pdf\n[^3]: PPIC, what the next governor needs to know (July 1, 2026). https://www.ppic.org/blog/what-californias-next-governor-needs-to-know-about-pk-12-education/\n[^4]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^5]: Official Voter Guide arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop3-arg-rebuttals.pdf\n[^6]: EdSource on Prop 55 (2016). https://edsource.org/2016/prop-55-initiative-to-extend-income-tax-increases-to-benefit-schools/570475\n[^7]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-3-high-income-tax/\n[^8]: CalMatters Prop 40 guide (CTA position). https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-40-billionaire-tax/\n[^9]: Berkeley Unified EPA resolution (2014), quoting Art. XIII § 36. https://www.berkeleyschools.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/EPA_Board_Resolution_05-27-14.pdf\n[^10]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^11]: CA SoS contributions. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-3-provides-permanent-funding-schools-and-healthcare-extending-existing-tax-high-incomes-initiative-constitutional-am\n"},{"id":"prop-4","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 4: Allows public financing of political campaigns","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-4","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-4.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-4","label":"Prop 4","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 4: Allows public financing of political campaigns\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-4\n\n- number: 4\n- title: Allows public financing of political campaigns\n- type: Legislative measure (SB 42, Umberg)\n- sponsor: Legislature\n\n**Our read: Lean no.** Lets the state and any city or county spend tax money on political campaigns, with no further vote by you. The best-studied program didn’t broaden who donates.\n\n## Key findings\n- It repeals the 1988 ban (Prop 73) on spending public money on candidates' campaigns. It creates no program itself, but **afterward the Legislature, any city council or any county board could create one by statute, ordinance or charter, with no further vote of the people**. [^1][^2]\n- **The guardrails can be loosened later without you.** The ban and its replacement rules sit in the Political Reform Act, which the Legislature can amend by a **two-thirds vote** if it finds the change \"furthers the purposes\" of the act. A statute, ordinance or charter can also raise a program's spending limits, within a formula. [^3][^2]\n- Rules a program must follow: candidates must show \"broad-based support\" through contributions or vouchers of **$10 or less**, accept voluntary spending limits, and can't use the money for legal fees, fines or repaying their own loans. Money earmarked for schools, transportation or public safety is off-limits, but **general-fund money isn't**. [^2][^1]\n- Only **five California cities** (including San Francisco and Berkeley) have public financing today. [^4]\n- **The best-studied program, Seattle's $100 \"democracy vouchers,\" did not diversify the donor pool.** The voters it mobilized were mostly those already overrepresented among donors. [^5][^6]\n- **Yes $984.6K, No $0.** Top donors are the Yes on 4 committee and Movement Voter PAC. [^7]\n\n## Track record\n| Program | Model | Evidence |\n|---|---|---|\n| Prop 73 (1988) | Banned public financing for most state and local offices | Some charter cities are exempt and run programs [^1] |\n| San Francisco, Berkeley, others | Matching funds or vouchers | 5 cities statewide [^4] |\n| Seattle | Four $25 vouchers per voter | No improvement in donor diversity by race, income, age or party [^6] |\n| **Prop 4 (2026)** | Allows programs statewide | Effect depends on what gets built later |\n\n## What it does\n- Lets the state and local governments create public financing if they choose. It can't use money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety. [^4]\n- Cost: a few hundred thousand dollars a year, mostly for the FPPC. [^1]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- Author Sen. Tom Umberg [^8] also filed to run for the Board of Equalization (District 4) this year. [^9] Incumbent legislators would write any state program.\n- Taxpayers would pay for any program, including for candidates they oppose.\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- Big-money influence is real. But the strongest evidence, from Seattle, shows public financing didn't change who funds politics, and once the ban is gone, programs can be created and grown by the officials who benefit from them, with no vote of the people. [^6][^2]\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** Prop 4 creates no program, so the accountability fight comes later, when a city, county or the state actually designs one. [^1]\n\n### Who decides\n- **The Legislature** for any state program, and **city councils and county boards** for local ones. In Rancho Cucamonga, that's the City Council.\n- **The FPPC** (Fair Political Practices Commission) would carry most of the state's administrative cost. [^1]\n\n### What to ask for in any program\n- **Public lists** of every candidate who gets public money, how much, and what they spent it on.\n- **A random audit** of each campaign that receives public funds, with clawbacks for misuse.\n- **Published results**, so voters can tell if the program changed who gives and who runs. Seattle's voucher program did not diversify its donors. [^6]\n- **No money from funds earmarked for schools, transportation or public safety.** The measure already bars that. [^4]\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^10] Once a program exists, ask the agency running it for its payment records and audit files. Candidates' campaign filings are already public through the Secretary of State and local clerks.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** Common Cause, Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters, CA Democratic Party, Sacramento Bee. It helps small donors and new candidates compete. [^7]\n- **Against:** CalTax, HJTA, Reform California, Hispanic Chambers, former FPPC chair Dan Schnur, SF Chronicle, OC Register, SD Union-Tribune. Taxpayers would pay for campaigns, with no spending limits. [^7]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.\n- Summary: Repeals the ban on state and local governments offering public funding to candidates. Programs could not use money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety.\n- Fiscal impact: A few hundred thousand dollars a year for the Fair Political Practices Commission.\n- A YES vote means: State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs, subject to limits on which public funds could be used and who could receive them.\n- A NO vote means: The state and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs.\n- Argument for: California is the only state that bans public campaign funding. Removes the ban with \"strict taxpayer safeguards.\" Special interests want to keep the ban.\n- Argument against: Lets politicians use taxpayer money for negative campaigns, with \"NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money.\"\n- Supporters: League of Women Voters of CA, California Nurses Association, Consumer Watchdog\n- Opponents: California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (summary) This creates no program by itself. It only lets governments create one later. Five California cities, including Berkeley and San Francisco, already have public financing. [^4]\n- (con) Prop 4 itself funds no one. Any actual program, including how many candidates qualify and for how much, would be set later by the state or a local government. [^1][^4]\n- (general) Author Sen. Tom Umberg is also on your ballot, running for Board of Equalization District 4 (if you're in that district). Research on whether public financing works is mixed. [^4]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop4-110326.pdf\n[^2]: SB 42 (2025), latest text. https://app.legiplex.com/ca/legislature/2025/2025-r/bills/sb42/drafts-latest\n[^3]: Gov. Code § 81012 (amending the Political Reform Act). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=81012\n[^4]: CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-4-public-fundraising/\n[^5]: APSR, Seattle voucher study. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/campaign-finance-vouchers-do-not-expand-the-diversity-of-donors-evidence-from-seattle/BD8E21A4B646DE4EA56BF8787DF0FF81\n[^6]: Election Law Blog on Seattle voucher study (APSR). https://electionlawblog.org/?p=142223\n[^7]: Official Voter Guide arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop4-arg-rebuttals.pdf\n[^8]: Sen. Umberg press release on SB 42. https://sd34.senate.ca.gov/news/legislators-and-advocates-rally-behind-california-fair-elections-act\n[^9]: SoS candidate list, Board of Equalization (June 2026 primary). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-primary/boe.pdf\n[^10]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^11]: KQED voter guide (money). https://www.kqed.org/voterguide/california/proposition-4\n"},{"id":"prop-5","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 5: Changes recall elections (no replacement candidates on the same ballot)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-5","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-5.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-5","label":"Prop 5","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 5: Changes recall elections (no replacement candidates on the same ballot)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-5\n\n- number: 5\n- title: Changes recall elections (no replacement candidates on the same ballot)\n- type: Legislative constitutional amendment (SCA 1, Newman)\n- sponsor: Legislature; idea from Secretary of State Shirley Weber\n\n**Our read: Lean yes.** Recalls would no longer seat a replacement who won with a plurality; the lieutenant governor steps in until a new election.\n\n## Key findings\n- The **2021 recall of Gov. Newsom cost taxpayers just over $200M** ($174M counties, $26M state). He kept his job. [^1]\n- Under today's rules, the replacement with the most votes wins, even without a majority. [^2] Supporters say a replacement can win with \"far less than 50%\"; the 2021 recall would have seated someone backed by about 28% of recall voters. [^3] (In 2003, Schwarzenegger's 4.2M votes actually topped the 4.0M cast to keep Davis. [^4][^5])\n- **No campaign on either side.** No committees registered as of Oct 22, 2026. [^3][^6]\n- The author, Sen. Josh Newman, was **himself recalled in 2018** and won the seat back in 2020. [^7][^2]\n- The idea came from Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Under Prop 5, a recalled governor would be replaced by the lieutenant governor until a new election (or for the rest of the term, if late in the term). [^7][^8]\n\n## Track record\n| Year | Recall | Outcome |\n|---|---|---|\n| 2003 | Gov. Gray Davis (D) | Recalled; Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) won the same-ballot replacement race |\n| 2018 | Sen. Josh Newman (D) | Recalled; won the seat back in 2020 |\n| 2021 | Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) | Survived; cost ~$200M |\n| **Prop 5** | — | Removal-only vote; vacancy filled later or by appointment/succession |\n[^2][^1][^8]\n\n## What it does\n- The recall ballot only asks whether to remove the official. No replacement question. [^8]\n- The vacancy is filled by a later special election or by appointment. For governor, the lieutenant governor serves until a new governor is elected. The recalled official can run in that later election. [^7][^8]\n- Cost: unknown; a separate special election could cost or save millions. [^8]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- Democratic lawmakers put it on the ballot. Republican lawmakers voted no, saying it would \"dilute the power of the voters\" and add special-election costs. [^9] Opponents argue politicians, not voters, would pick who fills the seat. [^3]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- It fixes a real quirk (a plurality replacement), but it also removes the main reason to run a recall, which is getting your candidate in. Supporters call that stability; opponents call it a weaker voter tool.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** If Prop 5 passes, an official removed by recall would be replaced later, in a special election or by succession or appointment. Who fills the seat, and when, becomes the thing to watch. [^8]\n\n### Who's accountable\n- **The Secretary of State** runs statewide recalls and certifies the results. That race (Weber vs. Wagner) is on this ballot, and the idea for Prop 5 came from Secretary Weber. [^7]\n- **The Legislature** would write the details of the special elections that fill a seat. [^8]\n- **County registrars** run the elections and bear most of the cost: the 2021 recall cost counties $174M. [^1]\n\n### What to ask for\n- A published cost estimate before any separate special election, and a deadline for holding it.\n- Clear rules for who governs in the meantime, so vacancies don't stretch on.\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^10] Ask your county registrar for its cost reports from the 2021 recall and any later special elections. Counties file these with the state to get reimbursed.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** Common Cause, League of Women Voters, CA Democratic Party, Indivisible, Sacramento Bee. A recall should be about removal, not a backdoor election.\n- **Against:** CA Republican Party, Election Integrity Project, Reform California, SD Union-Tribune, OC Register. It protects incumbents and their party.\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.\n- Summary: Today voters pick a replacement on the same ballot as the recall. This would fill vacancies through a later special election or an appointment.\n- Fiscal impact: Net effect unknown; a recall could save or cost millions depending on the office.\n- A YES vote means: Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy.\n- A NO vote means: Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.\n- Argument for: \"Restores the recall to its original purpose: removing corrupt officials.\" Closes a loophole that lets a replacement win with a small share of the vote.\n- Argument against: \"Limits voters' right to select a replacement for recalled officials.\" For statewide offices, other politicians would choose; for lower offices, a costly later election leaves the seat empty for months.\n- Supporters: Sen. Josh Newman; League of Women Voters of CA and California Common Cause\n- Opponents: No contact listed\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (con) For governor, the lieutenant governor would take over until the next election, usually someone from the same party. That's the core Republican objection. [^2]\n- (pro) The plurality problem is real: under today's rules a replacement can win with far less support than the official being removed. [^2]\n- (general) Author Sen. Josh Newman was himself recalled in 2018 and later won his seat back. The idea came from Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who is on your ballot. [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: AP via KPBS, recall cost (Feb 8, 2022). https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/02/08/california-recall-election-cost-taxpayers-200-million\n[^2]: CalMatters explainer (Oct 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/california-election-proposition-5-explainer/\n[^3]: Official Voter Guide arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop5-arg-rebuttals.pdf\n[^4]: SoS 2003 Statement of Vote, recall question. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2003-special/ssov/recall_ques_sd.pdf\n[^5]: Wikipedia, 2003 recall results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election\n[^6]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^7]: CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-5-recall-reform/\n[^8]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop5-110326.pdf\n[^9]: LAist, Prop 5 explainer. https://laist.com/news/politics/democrats-want-to-change-rules-for-recall-elections-with-prop-5\n[^10]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^11]: SoS contributions (no committees as of Oct 22, 2026). https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-5-sca-1-newman-elections-recall-state-officers-res-ch-204-2024\n"},{"id":"prop-37","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 37: Up to $25B state-backed loans for middle-income buyers of newly built homes","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-37","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-37.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-37","label":"Prop 37","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 37: Up to $25B state-backed loans for middle-income buyers of newly built homes\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-37\n\n- number: 37\n- title: Up to $25B state-backed loans for middle-income buyers of newly built homes\n- type: Initiative statute\n- sponsor: A coalition of real estate interests and labor unions; the California Association of Realtors is the largest funder\n\n**Our read: Lean no.** Up to $25B in state-backed loans for buyers of new homes. The Realtors fund it, and no one knows how many homes it would finance.\n\n## Key findings\n- The Realtors put up **$18.4M of the $33.6M** for Yes. **No one is funding the No side**, and no ballot argument against was filed. [^1]\n- The state's last down-payment program, **Dream For All, ran through $300M in 11 days** in 2023. It reached 2,564 buyers with an average loan of ~$112K. One loan officer estimated **30–50% could have bought without it**. [^2][^3]\n- Only **newly built** homes qualify, which steers demand to builders. Builders who meet labor standards also get **new limits on homeowner defect lawsuits**, including a 30% cap on contingency lawyers' fees. [^4][^5]\n- **No one has estimated how many homes this would finance.** It depends on whether investors buy the bonds. [^4]\n\n## Track record\n| Program | $ | Buyers helped | Lesson |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Dream For All, Phase 1 (2023) | $300M | 2,564 | First come, first served; 65% of initial buyers white, 34% Hispanic or Latino [^2][^3] |\n| Dream For All, Phase 2 (2024–25) | ~$260M + $300M | ~1,700 awards; 18,000+ applicants | Lottery and first-generation priority broadened access; 75%+ people of color [^6] |\n| Both phases | ~$860M (sum of phases) | 4,000+ total | Phase 2 drew 18,000+ eligible applications for about 2,000 awards; repaid funds must be recycled to keep going [^6] |\n| **Prop 37** | **Up to $25B** (bonds, not tax money) | Unknown | 17% second loans on new homes only |\n\n## What it does\n- CalHFA can sell up to $25B in revenue bonds for second loans covering up to 17% of the price. The buyer puts at least 3% down. [^4]\n- The buyer must be the home's first purchaser, with household income up to 2x the area median, and the price must be under set limits. [^4] CalMatters adds that buyers must live in the home. [^2]\n- Builders who opt into labor standards get a changed defect process: claims must name each homeowner and each defect, builders can repair and then get a signed release, and they lose these protections if they sell a home more than 25% above the cap. [^5]\n- Today, builders can be sued for defects in new homes for up to 10 years (4 for rentals). Condo insurance runs 3–4x what a comparable rental costs. [^5]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- The Realtors earn commissions on more sales. Builders get buyers for new homes plus liability relief. Carpenters' unions get labor standards. All three are funders or signers. [^1]\n- The ballot argument was signed by Treasurer Fiona Ma, who sits on the CalHFA board that would run the program and is now running for Lt. Governor. [^1][^7]\n- The bonds are repaid from buyers' loan payments, not the General Fund. Buyers owe monthly payments on the second loan. [^4]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- It helps some middle-income buyers with the down payment, but it adds demand without lowering the cost to build. The defect-liability change does address one real reason so few condos get built in California (3% of new multifamily units, vs. 38% in Canada). It just comes bundled with a benefit for the people funding the campaign. [^5]\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** Up to $25B in loans would be run by one agency, CalHFA, and the measure requires **no public reporting and no audits**. [^4] Taxpayers aren't on the hook if loans fail (bondholders are), but buyers are. [^5]\n\n### Who runs it, and who answers for it\n- **CalHFA** decides how many bonds to sell, sets lending standards, and picks how much risk to take. [^4][^5] Its executive director is Tony Sertich. [^8]\n- **CalHFA's board** includes the State Treasurer. Treasurer Fiona Ma signed the ballot argument for Prop 37 and is now running for Lt. Governor. [^1] **The next Treasurer (Kounalakis or Hawks) inherits that seat.**\n- **No agency is named** to enforce the builders' labor standards or check buyer eligibility. [^4]\n\n### Lessons from the last program\n- Dream For All ran through $300M in 11 days. One loan officer estimated that 30–50% of buyers could have bought without it. [^2][^3] Demand outran the money about 9 to 1, and a lottery later broadened who got loans. [^6]\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n1. **CalHFA and its board** (meetings are public):\n   - Publish quarterly data by county: loans made, buyer income, price, builder, and late payments and defaults.\n   - Use a lottery or need-based priority, not first come, first served.\n   - Publish which builders opt into the labor standards and defect-lawsuit limits, and how many defect claims each one gets.\n2. **Your Assemblymember and state Senator:** add an annual public report and a State Auditor audit after the first $5B, since the measure has neither.\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^9]\n\n> **To CalHFA:** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request records sufficient to show, for each Dream For All loan (2023–2025), with personal information removed: county, purchase price, loan amount, household income as a percentage of area median income, and current status (current, delinquent, paid off, or defaulted). I prefer a spreadsheet.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** CA Democratic Party, Becerra, Realtors, carpenters, SEIU, Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle. It opens homeownership to people locked out.\n- **Against:** League of Women Voters, Reform California, OC Register, SD Union-Tribune. The state shouldn't be a mortgage lender, and buyers would carry more debt.\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute.\n- Summary: \"Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages\" on newly built homes under about $1.5 million, covering up to 17% of the price. Buyers must live in the home, meet income limits and put at least 3% down. Bonds are repaid by mortgage payments, not the state.\n- Fiscal impact: No direct state or local costs.\n- A YES vote means: The state would create a new homebuying assistance program, funded by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds repaid by homeowners' loan payments.\n- A NO vote means: The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.\n- Argument for: \"Zero Taxpayer Cost—No Taxpayer Risk.\" Private bond investors, not taxpayers, fund low-interest mortgages that keep homeownership in reach for the middle class.\n- Argument against: No argument against was submitted.\n- Supporters: United Nurses Associations of CA, CA Conference of Carpenters, Treasurer Fiona Ma\n- Opponents: None submitted\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (summary) Not in the summary: a \"qualified builder option\" that gives builders meeting labor standards more flexibility on construction-defect claims before homeowners can sue. It weakens an existing homeowner protection. [^4]\n- (general) Funded by the California Association of Realtors ($18.4M of $33.6M). Realtors, builders and construction unions benefit most directly; only brand-new homes qualify. [^1]\n- (pro) Signer Fiona Ma sits on the CalHFA board that would run this program and is on your ballot for Lieutenant Governor. [^1]\n- (con) No argument against made it into the booklet, but the League of Women Voters and Reform California oppose it, saying it adds buyer debt and puts the state in mortgage lending. [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Official Voter Guide arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop37.pdf\n[^2]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-37-homebuyers-loan/\n[^3]: CalMatters via KQED, Dream For All recipients (Apr 2023). https://www.kqed.org/news/11946353/californias-dream-for-all-home-loan-program-ran-through-300-million-in-11-days-who-got-the-money\n[^4]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop37-110326.pdf\n[^5]: GrowSF (supports; summary of defect provisions). https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-37/\n[^6]: CalHFA, Dream For All lessons learned (Jan 2026). https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/about/press/reports/DFA-LessonsLearned-2026-01.pdf\n[^7]: Ballotpedia, Fiona Ma profile. https://ballotpedia.org/Fiona_Ma\n[^8]: CTCAC agenda, Sept 1, 2026 (lists CalHFA executive director). https://treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ctcac/CTCAC_Meeting_Notice_and_Agenda_9-1-2026.pdf\n[^9]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^10]: CA SoS contributions. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-37-creates-loan-program-middle-income-buyers-qualified-new-homes-initiative-statute\n"},{"id":"prop-38","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 38: $8.4B bond for immunology research (half to one institute)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-38","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-38.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-38","label":"Prop 38","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 38: $8.4B bond for immunology research (half to one institute)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-38\n\n- number: 38\n- title: $8.4B bond for immunology research (half to one institute)\n- type: Initiative bond act\n- sponsor: Billionaire Gary K. Michelson (Michelson Center for Public Policy)\n\n**Our read: Lean no.** $8.4B bond. About $4.2B is written for one institute with three employees, chaired by the measure’s funder.\n\n## Key findings\n- About **$4.2B** is written for one unnamed nonprofit. UCLA confirms the only group that meets the criteria is CIII, which **Michelson chairs and has given at least $120M** since 2022. [^1]\n- As of Sept 2026, CIII had **3 employees** (about 51 hires planned). Its building isn't due until at least late 2028 and is ~$100M short. [^2]\n- California's last research bonds (stem cells, $8.5B over Props 71 and 14) have funded **116 clinical trials in 20 years**. CIRM's 2025 report names **no FDA-approved therapy** it funded. [^3][^4]\n- A National Academy of Medicine review (2011) found the stem-cell board **\"cannot exert independent oversight\"** because members' own institutions got the grants. The top 5 recipients took $1.8B. [^5]\n- Repaying it would cost **$500M to $600M a year for about 20 years**. [^6]\n\n## Track record\n| Measure | $ | Outcome so far | Oversight issues |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Prop 71 (2004) | $3B | Created CIRM. Funded basic research, labs, and early trials | NAM (2011): board members' institutions were also grantees |\n| Prop 14 (2020) | $5.5B | $4.6B awarded overall by June 2025; 116 trials; no approvals named | Same governance model; $3.8B left to spend as of 2024 |\n| **Prop 38 (2026)** | **$8.4B** | Half to one institute, half to grants picked by a council of the institutions that will receive them | Institute is exempt from public records, open meetings and political reform laws [^1] |\n\n**Single-target measures** have passed before. Prop 34 (2024), written to hit one AIDS nonprofit, passed with 50.9%. [^1]\n\n## What it does\n- $8.4B general-obligation bond for immunology research (cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's). Administration capped at 2%. [^6]\n- The state gets 10% of revenue from funded discoveries. Treatments sold in California must be discounted 20%. [^6]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $71.3M** (one committee funded by Michelson; co-founder Meyer Luskin gave at least $5M). **No: just over $9,900**, from small donors (as of Oct 26). [^7][^8][^1]\n- The measure's criteria (a UC medical center with 3.5M+ outpatient visits, 200,000+ sq ft, $250M+ in donations, UC officials on the board) fit UCLA and CIII. UCSF is second at 3.4M visits, just under the bar. [^1]\n- Two $50M Michelson gifts to CIII programs (vaccines, microbiome) are described in near-identical terms in the measure. [^1]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- Federal research cuts are real, and immunotherapy is promising. But this sends ~$4.2B of public debt to a three-employee institute chaired by the measure's funder, with transparency exemptions. The stem-cell precedent shows decades-long payback, if any.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** About $4.2B would go to a private institute that the measure **exempts from the Public Records Act, open-meetings laws and the Political Reform Act**. [^2] The institute must publish an annual report and get an independent audit [^6], but unlike the stem-cell agency it has no citizen oversight committee led by the Controller. [^9]\n\n### Who decides, and who answers for it\n- **The Department of Public Health (CDPH)** picks the institute and makes the final award decision. [^6][^2] Its director is Dr. Erica Pan (since Feb 2025). [^10]\n- **The California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII)**, the only institute that qualifies, had 3 employees in Sept 2026. Four senior UCLA officials sit on its board, including UCLA Health CEO John Mazziotta. [^2]\n- **The grant council**, made up of 7 UC campuses and 10–15 other research institutions, picks grant winners **from among its own members**. [^6] The National Academy of Medicine criticized the same setup at the stem-cell agency. [^5]\n- **The UC Regents.** Even they aren't sure which institute records are public, because UCLA officials sit on its board. Regent Michael Cohen asked for an answer at the November meeting. [^2]\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n1. **Your Assemblymember and state Senator:** put the institute under the Public Records Act and open-meetings laws for any state money it gets, and give the State Controller the same role it plays at the stem-cell agency, where it chairs a six-member financial oversight committee. [^9]\n2. **CDPH:** publish the institute's annual reports and audits, and each funding release. Senior state officials must approve each release. [^2]\n3. **UC Regents** (each meeting takes public comment): publish UCLA's agreements with the institute.\n4. **Ask for results, not activity:** trials started, therapies approved, and revenue returned to the state. The state gets 10% of revenue, and treatments sold in California must be discounted 20%. [^6]\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^11] The institute is exempt, but UC and CDPH aren't.\n\n> **To the University of California (UCLA):** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request UCLA's August 2024 affiliation agreement with the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy and any amendments, the institute's budgets and progress reports provided to UCLA or the UC Regents since 2024, and any lease for its space at the UCLA research park.\n\n> **To CDPH:** All communications since Jan 1, 2025 between CDPH and the institute, its funder, or the Prop 38 campaign about the institute's eligibility or the measure's award criteria.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** Gov. Newsom, both major parties, American Association of Immunologists, City of Hope, patient groups. They argue it replaces lost federal money and brings drug discounts.\n- **Against:** League of Women Voters, Stanford's Robert Kaplan, and the editorial boards of the Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, OC Register and SD Union-Tribune. They call it a giveaway with no accountability.\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.\n- Summary: \"Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research.\" Half goes to one University of California-affiliated nonprofit institute, half to research grants.\n- Fiscal impact: $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bonds, possibly offset if the research generates revenue.\n- A YES vote means: The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy.\n- A NO vote means: The state could not borrow $8.4 billion for that research.\n- Argument for: Funds research to cure and prevent cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. \"Strong accountability including independent audits\" and a mandated 20% prescription discount; designed to cost taxpayers nothing.\n- Argument against: Supports research but this is the wrong approach: decades of bond debt and less flexibility. \"Research funding should be guided through the normal budget process.\"\n- Supporters: Michael J. Fox Foundation, Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Kidney Cancer Association, American Nurses Association/CA\n- Opponents: Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., Stanford School of Medicine\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (pro) \"Cost taxpayers nothing\" contradicts the official fiscal estimate on the same page: $500–600M a year for about 20 years from the General Fund. [^6]\n- (summary) \"One UC-affiliated institute\": only one qualifies, the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, principally funded by the measure's author, Gary Michelson. As of Sept 2026 it had three employees. [^2]\n- (pro) \"Independent audits\" sits next to an exemption: the institute would be exempt from public records, open meetings and political reform laws. [^1]\n- (general) Michelson funded the $71.2M Yes campaign. Every major newspaper editorial board opposes it. [^8][^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CalMatters via KPBS (July 31, 2026). https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/07/31/is-this-proposition-a-4-billion-giveaway-to-a-billionaire-backed-la-research-center\n[^2]: CalMatters (Oct 20, 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2026/10/prop-38-california/\n[^3]: CIRM 2024 annual report. https://www.cirm.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CIRM24_Annual-Report_110524_low-res_Pages.pdf\n[^4]: CIRM 2025 annual report. https://www.cirm.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/remediated_CIRM24_Annual-Report25_100125.pdf\n[^5]: Capitol Weekly, CIRM at 20 (Dec 5, 2024). https://capitolweekly.net/kudos-criticism-mark-california-stem-cell-agency-as-it-turns-20/\n[^6]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop38-110326.pdf\n[^7]: Ballotpedia News, 2026 ballot measure fundraising (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^8]: CA SoS contributions. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-38-authorizes-bonds-immunology-research-initiative-statut\n[^9]: State Controller, CFAOC (CIRM oversight committee). https://sco.ca.gov/eo_about_cfaoc.html\n[^10]: CDPH director page. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/meet-the-director\n[^11]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n"},{"id":"prop-39","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 39: Voter ID and citizenship verification","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-39","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-39.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-39","label":"Prop 39","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 39: Voter ID and citizenship verification\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-39\n\n- number: 39\n- title: Voter ID and citizenship verification\n- type: Initiative constitutional amendment\n- sponsor: Reform California / Asm. Carl DeMaio (R)\n\n**Our read: Lean no.** Voter ID plus an ID number on mail ballots. Texas rejected 1 in 8 mail ballots when it tried this; fraud runs about 4 per 10 million.\n\n## Key findings\n- **The closest test case is Texas.** When it began requiring an ID number on mail ballots in 2022, **12.4% of mail ballots were rejected** in the March primary (1 in 8), up from under 1% in 2020. By November the rate fell to **2.7%** as voters adjusted. [^1][^2]\n- California already rejects about **1.7% of mail ballots** (148,241 in the June 2026 primary), mostly for arriving late. Brookings found about **4 fraud cases per 10 million mail ballots**. [^1][^3]\n- About **13M of 16M** Californians voted by mail in 2024, so the ID-number rule would reach about 80% of voters. [^4]\n- **$17M** of the Yes money came from one Illinois billionaire, Richard Uihlein. [^5][^6] By Oct 26 the Yes side reported $39.5M. [^7]\n- The sponsor's PAC network raised **$5M in 2024**. A sworn complaint pending at the FPPC alleges DeMaio used Reform California money to help his own Assembly campaign. Four earlier FPPC probes ended in two warnings and two findings of no violation. [^6][^8]\n\n## Track record\n| Place / year | Rule | Mail ballot rejection rate |\n|---|---|---|\n| Texas, 2020 general | Signature only | under 1% |\n| Texas, Mar 2022 primary | New ID-number rule (SB 1) | **12.4%** |\n| Texas, Nov 2022 general | Same rule, after voter outreach | 2.7% |\n| California, June 2026 primary | Signature check | 1.73% (63% of those for lateness) |\n| **California, Prop 39** | ID number on every mail envelope | Unknown; the LAO says ID numbers must be verified before ballots are counted |\n\n## What it does\n- In-person voters must show government ID. The state must issue a free ID card on request. [^4]\n- Every mail-ballot envelope needs the last 4 digits of a government ID chosen at registration. Existing voters must pick one too. [^4]\n- Officials must try to verify citizenship against government data and report county rates each year. The Legislature fills in the details. [^4]\n- Cost: tens of millions to low hundreds of millions a year. [^4]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $39.5M across 2 committees** as of Oct 26 [^7]. As of early October: Uihlein $17M, Steven Bray $3M+ in loans, Nicole Shanahan $370K, the Winklevoss twins $250K each. [^5][^6]\n- **No $33.3M across 10 committees** as of Oct 26 [^7]. Top donors: CA Democratic Party ~$5.5M, Graton Rancheria $2M, Patty Quillin and Quinn Delaney $1.5M each, SEIU $1M. Becerra and Speaker Rivas run a joint No committee. [^5][^6]\n- Political scientist David McCuan says the donors may be testing a playbook for swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. [^5][^6]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- Most states require some ID at the polls [^6], and confidence in elections is a real issue. But the documented fraud it targets is rare, and the main measurable effect, based on Texas, is a temporary rise in rejected legitimate mail ballots.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** The measure leaves the hard details to the Legislature: which databases count for checking citizenship, and **what happens when a mail ballot's ID number is missing or doesn't match**. [^4] Those rules will decide how many legal votes get rejected. In Texas, 12.4% of mail ballots were rejected the first time a similar rule applied. [^1]\n\n### Who's accountable\n- **The Legislature** must write the rules, including whether voters get a chance to fix (\"cure\") a missing or wrong ID number. [^4]\n- **The Secretary of State** oversees statewide elections. That race (Weber vs. Wagner) is on this ballot.\n- **County registrars** verify ID numbers and citizenship. In Rancho Cucamonga, that's the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.\n- **The State Auditor** must report on state and county compliance every odd-numbered year. [^4]\n\n### What to ask for\n- A cure process for every rejected ballot, with notice by mail, text and email, and a deadline after Election Day.\n- County-by-county reports of rejected ballots by reason, published before and after each election.\n- Free ID cards that are easy to get, since the state must provide them on request. [^4]\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^9]\n\n> **To the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters:** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request the number of vote-by-mail ballots challenged and rejected in the November 2024 and June 2026 elections, by reason (late, signature mismatch, missing signature, other), and the number later cured.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** CA Republican Party, Reform California. Basic ID is normal elsewhere and builds trust.\n- **Against:** ACLU, Common Cause, League of Women Voters, CA Democratic Party, Sacramento Bee. It solves a non-problem and disenfranchises mail voters.\n- Poll: 43% support (PPIC, Sept 2026).\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.\n- Summary: \"Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number.\" In-person voters must show government-issued ID.\n- Fiscal impact: \"Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions\" a year.\n- A YES vote means: Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote.\n- A NO vote means: A voter's identity would continue to be established with the voter's signature.\n- Argument for: \"Yes on Prop. 39 gives California a BIPARTISAN solution for VOTER ID.\" Increases trust and confidence in elections.\n- Argument against: Adds costly, unnecessary barriers that \"could block eligible California voters, expose personal information to identity theft.\" \"Don't let MAGA billionaires decide which voters count.\"\n- Supporters: The Transparency Foundation, Latino American Political Assn, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn\n- Opponents: ACLU California Action, Common Cause, League of Women Voters of CA\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (summary) The big practical effect is on mail ballots, which about 13 million of 16 million Californians used in 2024. Every existing voter would have to pick an ID number to write on future envelopes. [^4]\n- (pro) \"Bipartisan\": the measure was created and is led by Reform California and Asm. Carl DeMaio (R). Its largest donor is Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein ($17M). [^5]\n- (con) \"MAGA billionaires\" is campaign language. The No side is funded too: $33.6M, led by the CA Democratic Party (~$5.5M). [^5]\n- (general) Studies find no widespread voter fraud for this to fix. Most states require some ID at the polls. [^5]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: KSAT/AP, Texas rejections (Apr 6, 2022). https://www.ksat.com/news/texas/2022/04/06/more-than-12-of-mail-in-ballots-were-rejected-in-texas-under-new-gop-voting-rules-final-tally-shows/\n[^2]: electionline, Texas Nov 2022. https://electionline.org/?p=9132\n[^3]: AP via ABC7, CA rejected ballots (July 2026). https://abc7.com/post/150000-mail-ballots-rejected-californias-primary-despite-efforts-count-every-vote/19571066/\n[^4]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop39-110326.pdf\n[^5]: KQED/CalMatters on funders (Oct 7, 2026). https://www.kqed.org/news/12103398/why-are-out-of-state-billionaires-funding-a-california-voter-id-measure\n[^6]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-39-voter-id/\n[^7]: Ballotpedia News, 2026 ballot measure fundraising (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^8]: CalMatters via inewsource on Reform California (Mar 4, 2026). https://inewsource.org/2026/03/04/carl-demaio-reform-california-republican-party/\n[^9]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^10]: CA SoS contributions. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-39-establishes-additional-voter-identification-and-citizenship-verification-requirements-initiative-constitutional-a\n"},{"id":"prop-40","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 40: One-time 5% tax on billionaires (mostly for health care)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-40","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-40.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-40","label":"Prop 40","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 40: One-time 5% tax on billionaires (mostly for health care)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-40\n\n- number: 40\n- title: One-time 5% tax on billionaires (mostly for health care)\n- type: Initiative constitutional amendment and statute\n- sponsor: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW)\n\n**Our read: Lean no.** A one-time 5% tax on billionaires for health care. Revenue is “very hard to predict,” and the sponsor union offered to drop it for a deal.\n\n## Key findings\n- The sponsor, SEIU-UHW, has filed **dozens of initiatives since 2012, and few if any have passed**: its dialysis Props 8, 23 and 29 all lost, with 40%, 37% and 32%. Several others were dropped after deals with hospitals. [^1][^2]\n- In June 2026 the union **offered to drop this measure for a 2% legislative deal**. No deal happened. [^3]\n- Wealth taxes elsewhere: **12 OECD countries had one in 1990 and 4 in 2017; as of 2025, 3 do** (Spain, Norway, Switzerland, per the Tax Foundation), raising 0.6–4.3% of their tax revenue. The OECD says they \"often failed to achieve their redistributive objectives.\" [^4]\n- Revenue is \"tens of billions\" but **\"very hard to predict\"** (LAO). The sponsor says ~$100B. Six billionaires reportedly left before the Jan 1 cutoff, taking an estimated **$26.8B** of the projected base. [^5][^6][^1]\n- The 90% for health care is **one-time** money, not an ongoing funding source [^5]. Health care spending could indirectly benefit members of the sponsor's union through more secure jobs and pay. [^7]\n\n## Track record\n**The sponsor's ballot history**\n| Year | Measure | Target | Result | Union spent |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 2012, 2014 | Hospital initiatives | Hospital pricing and executive pay | Withdrawn after deals with hospitals | n/a |\n| 2018 | Prop 8 | Dialysis revenue caps | Lost, 40% yes | $19.3M (vs. $111M+ from dialysis firms) |\n| 2020 | Prop 23 | Dialysis staffing | Lost, 37% | $8.9M |\n| 2022 | Prop 29 | Dialysis staffing | Lost, 32% | $8.0M |\n| 2026 | Prop 40 | Billionaire wealth | ? | $32.9M raised by its Yes committee through Oct 22 [^8] |\n| 2026 | Prop 44 | Community clinics | ? | $16.9M |\nMost commentators read the dialysis measures as pressure to unionize clinics. [^1][^2]\n\n**Taxes on the very rich in other states**\n| Tax | Projected | Actual |\n|---|---|---|\n| Washington capital-gains tax, year 1 (2023) | — | $786M from ~3,000 payments [^9] |\n| Washington, year 2 (2024) | $1.5B counted in the budget | $433M as of May 15, 2024 (partial). Expected to \"fluctuate year to year\" with the economy [^9] |\n\n## What it does\n- One-time tax equal to 5% of net worth for people worth over $1B who lived in California on Jan 1, 2026. It can be spread over 5 years, at extra cost. Real estate, pensions and retirement accounts generally are excluded. [^5]\n- 90% to public health care, 10% to education, food aid and administration. Exempt from the state spending limit and the Prop 98 school formula. [^5]\n- Voided if Prop 41 or 42 gets more yes votes. [^10]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $33.4M** (mostly SEIU-UHW). **No $130.3M**, led by Building a Better California (Sergey Brin $102M, Eric Schmidt $40.2M, John Doerr $40M). Peter Thiel gave $3M. [^8][^11][^6]\n- **The money fight is billionaires vs. a union.** Brin, one of the billionaires the tax targets, reportedly left the state before the cutoff. [^6]\n- Labor is split. CTA, firefighters and the Building Trades oppose it. Teamsters, AFSCME and the Labor Federation support it. [^10]\n\n## Fact-check\n- The opponents' ads say it's a \"Trojan horse\" that lets politicians extend the tax to everyone. CalMatters rated that **only partially true**. Legislative changes must be \"consistent with and further the purposes\" of the act; an expert said lawmakers \"probably couldn't lower the threshold,\" and expanding the tax would likely need another vote. [^12]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- No. It is one-time money, not ongoing funding, its revenue is \"very hard to predict,\" and it could shrink the income-tax base if billionaires leave (LAO: probably less than $1B a year lost). Health groups say they \"weren't consulted in designing the measure\"; Planned Parenthood and the CMA oppose it. [^5][^10]\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** The tax is collected by the Franchise Tax Board, but **where the health money goes is left to the Legislature**, up to $22.5B a year. There's **no State Auditor review and no independent oversight board**. [^13]\n\n### Who decides, and who answers for it\n- **The Franchise Tax Board** assesses and audits the tax. [^13] Its board is the State Controller, the chair of the Board of Equalization, and the Director of Finance. [^14] **The Controller and Board of Equalization races are both on this ballot.**\n- **The Legislature** decides each year how to spend the health money, within broad uses: restoring federal cuts, Medi-Cal and other coverage, safety-net providers, and preventing closures. [^13]\n- **The Department of Finance** must report to the Legislature on the fund, and certify that the money **adds to** existing health spending rather than replacing it. [^13]\n\n### What to watch\n- **Collection.** Revenue is \"very hard to predict.\" [^5] Six billionaires reportedly left before the cutoff. [^6] Watch for lawsuits over residency, and how much is actually collected.\n- **Supplanting.** One-time money can quietly replace regular spending. The Finance Department's certification is the check, so read it.\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n1. **Your Assemblymember and state Senator:** require a State Auditor audit of how the fund is spent, and publish every grant or payment by recipient.\n2. **Controller and Board of Equalization candidates:** they'll sit on the Franchise Tax Board. Ask how they'll publish collections data without exposing individual taxpayers.\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^15] Individual tax returns are confidential, but how the fund is spent isn't.\n\n> **To the Department of Finance:** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request each report and supplanting certification submitted to the Legislature under Government Code section 16355(f) concerning the 2026 Billionaire Tax Reserve Fund, with supporting worksheets.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** SEIU-UHW, Bernie Sanders, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation, Sacramento Bee. Billionaires gained the most from federal tax cuts, and the money prevents clinic and hospital closures. [^10]\n- **Against:** Gov. Newsom, Becerra, Hilton, the Business Roundtable, CMA, CTA, Planned Parenthood, LA Times. It's volatile, it drives out taxpayers, and it doesn't fix structural funding. [^10][^16][^17]\n- Poll: 45% support among likely voters, down 3 points from six weeks earlier (UC Berkeley–LA Times poll, late Sept 2026). [^7]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.\n- Summary: A one-time 5% tax on taxpayers with assets over $1 billion, mainly for health care. Exempt from the school-funding formula and the state spending limit.\n- Fiscal impact: A temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars over several years, plus a possible ongoing loss of under $1 billion a year in income tax from billionaires.\n- A YES vote means: The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.\n- A NO vote means: The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.\n- Argument for: \"Trump slashed healthcare funding to pay for billionaire tax breaks,\" ending coverage for over a million Californians and raising premiums for millions more. Billionaires should pay their fair share.\n- Argument against: A \"flawed, one-time tax scheme that hurts our economy.\" Damages the budget, does nothing to lower health care costs, and has no safeguards or accountability.\n- Supporters: Sen. Bernie Sanders, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West\n- Opponents: CA Primary Care Association, CA School Boards Association, California Taxpayers Association, CA Teachers Association, CA Medical Association\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (general) Sponsor SEIU-UHW is a health care workers' union; the LA Times reported the spending could benefit its own members. It sponsors Prop 44 too, and has used initiatives as leverage against health companies since 2011. [^7][^10]\n- (summary) If Prop 41 or Prop 42 gets more yes votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 is voided even if it passes. The booklet doesn't flag this on Prop 40's page. [^10]\n- (pro) \"Over a million\" refers to federal Medicaid cuts in the 2025 budget law. Prop 40 is one-time money against an ongoing shortfall, which is why Planned Parenthood and the CA Medical Association say it doesn't fix long-term funding. [^10]\n- (con) The opposition is funded mostly by billionaires who would pay the tax: Building a Better California, with $100M+ from Sergey Brin. Several billionaires reportedly left the state around the Jan 1 cutoff. [^7][^6][^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, SEIU-UHW (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEIU_United_Healthcare_Workers_West\n[^2]: Ballotpedia, SEIU-UHW. https://ballotpedia.org/SEIU-UHW\n[^3]: AP on the 2% offer (June 18, 2026). https://abcnews.com/Business/wireStory/california-labor-union-offers-scale-back-billionaire-tax-134014894\n[^4]: Euronews on European wealth taxes (Sept 29, 2025). https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/09/29/wealth-taxes-in-europe-who-collects-them-and-how-much-do-they-raise\n[^5]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop40-110326.pdf\n[^6]: Fortune, six billionaires left (Mar 17, 2026). https://fortune.com/2026/03/17/6-billionaires-left-california-billionaire-tax-newsom-brin-page-thiel-spielberg-revenue/\n[^7]: GV Wire (Oct 13, 2026). https://gvwire.com/2026/10/13/california-union-leaders-billionaire-tax-faces-pushback-from-fellow-labor-groups/\n[^8]: SoS, contribution totals. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-40-imposes-one-time-tax-certain-individuals-and-trusts-initiative-constitutional-amendment-and-statute\n[^9]: KUOW, Washington capital gains receipts (May 2024). https://www.kuow.org/stories/capital-gains-tax-receipts-in-washington-tumble\n[^10]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-40-billionaire-tax/\n[^11]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^12]: CalMatters fact check (Oct 2, 2026). https://calmatters.org/health/2026/10/prop-40-billionaire-tax-fact-check/\n[^13]: Prop 40 legal text (annotated by GrowSF). https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-40/legal-text/\n[^14]: LAO, state fiscal functions (Mar 21, 2013). https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/state_admin/2013/State-Fiscal-Functions-032113.pdf\n[^15]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^16]: CalMatters, Newsom positions (Oct 9, 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/\n[^17]: Wikipedia, 2026 billionaire tax initiative (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_California_billionaire_tax_initiative\n[^18]: OECD, role and design of net wealth taxes. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-role-and-design-of-net-wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd_9789264290303-en/full-report/component-4.html\n[^19]: CalMatters (Oct 2020), union's ballot strategy. https://calmatters.org/politics/california-election-2020/2020/10/california-healthcare-union-proposition-23/\n[^20]: Fortune, Thiel donation (Jan 14, 2026). https://fortune.com/2026/01/14/peter-thiel-makes-his-biggest-donation-in-years-to-help-defeat-californias-billionaire-wealth-tax/\n"},{"id":"prop-41","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 41: Audits of programs funded by new special taxes (and a poison pill for Prop 40)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-41","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-41.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-41","label":"Prop 41","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 41: Audits of programs funded by new special taxes (and a poison pill for Prop 40)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-41\n\n- number: 41\n- title: Audits of programs funded by new special taxes (and a poison pill for Prop 40)\n- type: Initiative constitutional amendment\n- sponsor: Opponents of Prop 40 (Building a Better California coalition)\n\n**Our read: Lean no.** Audits sound good, but its key clause voids Prop 40 if it wins more votes, and it adds cost to every future citizen tax measure.\n\n## Key findings\n- It's funded by the people Prop 40 would tax: **$58.4M for Yes** through one committee, backed by Building a Better California (**Brin $102M, Schmidt $40.2M, Doerr $40M** across its measures). [^1][^2]\n- The clause that matters most right now **voids state taxes enacted after Jan 1, 2026 that exempt their revenue from the spending limit**. Prop 40 does exactly that, and if Prop 41 gets more votes, Prop 40 is nullified even if it passes. [^3][^4]\n- The spending limit it would apply (the 1979 \"Gann limit\") has **forced a $1.1B taxpayer rebate** before (1987–88). In 2021 the state was estimated to have gone over it again. Under Prop 41, new special taxes would count under it, \"potentially triggering automatic refunds that reduce funding for other state programs.\" [^5][^6][^3]\n- Gov. Newsom has **not taken a position** on Prop 41, even though he endorsed Prop 42 and opposes the billionaire tax. [^7]\n\n## Track record\n| Year | Spending-limit event | Result |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1979 | Prop 4 creates the Gann limit | Caps state spending of tax revenue |\n| 1986–87 | Revenue tops the limit | **$1.1B rebate** to taxpayers in 1987–88 |\n| 1988 | Prop 98 | Part of any excess goes to schools first |\n| 1990 | Prop 111 | Loosens the formula; excess split between rebates and schools |\n| 2018–22 | State projected over the limit again | LAO said the state might have to cut taxes or issue refunds |\n| **2026** | **Prop 41** | New special taxes count under the limit, with audits every 4 years |\n[^5][^6]\n\n## What it does\n- Before a citizen special-tax initiative can qualify, the State Auditor must review the programs it funds, including ways to cut their annual costs by 10%. A summary goes in the voter guide. [^4]\n- Programs funded by special taxes created or increased after Jan 1, 2026 get audited every 4 years. [^4]\n- Cost: low millions a year for the Auditor (growing over time), plus a few hundred thousand dollars per qualified initiative for the voter guide. [^4]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $58.4M. No $22.7M**, $21.2M of it from SEIU-UHW's Prop 40 committee (through Oct 22, 2026). [^1]\n- Supporters: Reform California, Sergey Brin, Stewart Resnick. [^3]\n- The audit idea is broadly popular. The money behind it comes almost entirely from people trying to defeat one specific tax.\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- Ongoing audits would outlive the Prop 40 fight and add real accountability. The pre-qualification audit adds cost and delay to every future citizen tax measure, including ones unrelated to billionaires. Counting special taxes under the limit could quietly defeat what voters approved.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** Prop 41 makes the State Auditor review programs funded by new special taxes, but its recommendations are only advice. Savings depend on what lawmakers do with them. [^4]\n\n### Who's accountable\n- **The State Auditor** does the audits: once before a citizen tax initiative qualifies, then every four years for programs funded by special taxes created after Jan 1, 2026. [^4] Taxes passed after that date pay for their own audits. [^4]\n- **The Legislature** decides whether to act on audit findings.\n\n### What to watch\n- Whether the Auditor gets enough staff and money to do the new work without dropping other audits.\n- Whether the four-year audits are published and get legislative hearings.\n- Prop 41's other effect: it would void Prop 40 if Prop 41 gets more votes. [^3]\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^8] The State Auditor publishes its reports and tracks whether agencies follow its recommendations on its website, so check there before filing a request.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** Reform California, SD Union-Tribune, OC Register. Programs should prove they work. [^3]\n- **Against:** SEIU-UHW, CA Democratic Party, Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle. It is \"designed to trick voters into unknowingly blocking a wealth tax on billionaires.\" [^3]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues From State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.\n- Summary: Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenue from the voter-approved spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes.\n- Fiscal impact: Net effect unknown; depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature and other policymakers.\n- A YES vote means: The State Auditor would review programs a proposed special-tax initiative would fund before it goes on the ballot, and regularly review programs funded by new special taxes. The state might not be able to exclude new special-tax spending from its spending limit.\n- A NO vote means: The State Auditor's responsibility to review government programs would not change, and neither would spending limit requirements.\n- Argument for: Taxpayers deserve better results; homelessness programs got billions with little to show. Requires the independent State Auditor to conduct \"PUBLIC AUDITS\" of programs funded by new taxes.\n- Argument against: Not really about audits: a \"billionaire-funded trick designed to undo the California Billionaire Tax\" that would cost Californians health care.\n- Supporters: CalCPAs, CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, CalTax\n- Opponents: Sen. Bernie Sanders, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (summary) \"Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026\" that skip the spending limit: Prop 40 does exactly that. If 41 gets more yes votes than 40, Prop 40 is voided. [^1][^3]\n- (con) The \"billionaire-funded\" charge checks out: backers include Building a Better California, whose largest donors are Sergey Brin ($102M), Eric Schmidt ($40.2M) and John Doerr ($40M). [^2]\n- (pro) The audit tool is real and would outlive the Prop 40 fight. It also adds cost and delay to every future citizen tax measure, including ones unrelated to billionaires. [^4]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SoS, contribution totals (through Oct 22, 2026). https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-41-requires-audits-programs-funded-new-state-special-taxes-prohibits-new-state-taxes-are-excluded-existing-voter-app\n[^2]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^3]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-41-tax-audits/\n[^4]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop41-110326.pdf\n[^5]: LAO, Gann limit history (Apr 13, 2000). https://lao.ca.gov/2000/041300_gann/041300_gann.html\n[^6]: CalTax on the limit (Apr 23, 2021). https://caltax.org/2021/04/23/state-spending-limit-is-major-issue-analyst-reports-indicating-any-new-tax-hikes-might-have-to-be-refunded/\n[^7]: CalMatters, Newsom positions (Oct 9, 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/\n[^8]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n"},{"id":"prop-42","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 42: Bans new state taxes on owning personal property (stocks, accounts, etc.) and certain retroactive taxes","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-42","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-42.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-42","label":"Prop 42","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 42: Bans new state taxes on owning personal property (stocks, accounts, etc.) and certain retroactive taxes\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-42\n\n- number: 42\n- title: Bans new state taxes on owning personal property (stocks, accounts, etc.) and certain retroactive taxes\n- type: Initiative constitutional amendment\n- sponsor: Opponents of Prop 40 (Building a Better California coalition)\n\n**Our read: Toss-up: a permanent call.** Bans state wealth taxes in the Constitution for good. Backed by $128M, mostly from billionaires, plus Newsom and building trades.\n\n## Key findings\n- **$128.0M for Yes, one of the biggest Yes campaigns on the ballot** (more than Prop 3's $74.8M or Prop 38's $71.3M), through one committee backed by Building a Better California (Brin $102M across its measures). [^1][^2]\n- Its Yes committee is named \"Protect Retirement & Life Savings\" [^1], but **Prop 40 already generally excludes pensions and retirement accounts** [^3]. The people who benefit most from a permanent wealth-tax ban are those whose wealth sits in unrealized gains.\n- It's **permanent**: it would take another statewide vote to ever allow a wealth tax in California. Wealth taxes have mostly disappeared abroad (12 OECD countries in 1990, 4 in 2017, and 3 in 2025 per the Tax Foundation). [^4]\n- Unlike most billionaire-backed measures, it has backing from **Gov. Newsom** plus police and fire unions [^5] and the State Building Trades [^6].\n\n## Track record\n| Question | Today in California |\n|---|---|\n| Does the state tax owning stocks or accounts? | No. It taxes only the income from them. [^7] |\n| Existing personal-property taxes | Vehicle license fee and business-equipment property tax. **Not repealed** by Prop 42, which applies only to new taxes. [^7] |\n| Retroactive taxes | Prop 42 limits when they're allowed (LAO's example of a retroactive tax: \"a tax on money someone earned two years ago\"). [^7] |\n| Wealth taxes abroad | 12 OECD countries in 1990 → 4 in 2017 → 3 in 2025 (Spain, Norway, Switzerland, per the Tax Foundation), raising 0.6–4.3% of their tax revenue. [^4] |\n\n## What it does\n- Bans new state taxes on simply owning personal property (anything but real estate). [^7]\n- Limits retroactive taxes. [^7]\n- Voids conflicting taxes enacted after Jan 1, 2026, which includes Prop 40 if Prop 42 gets more votes. [^6]\n- Fiscal effect: could reduce future tax revenues; when and by how much is unclear. [^7]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $128.0M. No $22.7M** ($21.2M from SEIU-UHW's Prop 40 committee), through Oct 22, 2026. [^1]\n- Supporters: Building a Better California, Sergey Brin, Reform California, Peace Officers Research Association, California Professional Firefighters, State Building Trades [^6], Gov. Newsom [^5].\n- The public-safety and construction unions are a notable crossover, since their members aren't the ones being taxed. I didn't find a public explanation of their reasons.\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- It settles a policy question permanently in the Constitution instead of leaving it to future voters. Whether that's good depends on whether you want a wealth tax off the table for good. Its near-term purpose is to defeat Prop 40.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** Prop 42 is a ban, so there's no new money to follow. What to watch is how courts read \"personal property\" and \"retroactive,\" and whether the ban spills over onto taxes it wasn't aimed at. [^7]\n\n### Who's accountable\n- **The courts** will define the edges of the ban. Expect lawsuits over any new state tax enacted after Jan 1, 2026. [^6]\n- **The Legislature and the Franchise Tax Board** would have to fit future tax laws within it.\n\n### What to watch\n- Any state tax bill that's challenged or dropped because of Prop 42.\n- Lost revenue: the LAO says the effect on future revenue is unclear in size and timing, so watch for budget estimates. [^7]\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^8] The Legislature isn't covered by the Public Records Act. Its records fall under a separate law, the Legislative Open Records Act.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** no taxes on unrealized gains or merely owning savings; no retroactive taxes. SD Union-Tribune, OC Register. [^6]\n- **Against:** written to protect billionaires, framed around retirees who aren't at risk. SEIU-UHW, CA Democratic Party, Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle. [^6]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.\n- Summary: Bars new state taxes on owning personal property and taxes that apply retroactively. Voids conflicting taxes enacted after January 1, 2026.\n- Fiscal impact: \"Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.\"\n- A YES vote means: The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.\n- A NO vote means: The state could still create new taxes on owning financial assets or other personal property.\n- Argument for: The constitution lets lawmakers tax retirement and savings that were already taxed when earned. This protects those savings by banning new and retroactive personal property taxes.\n- Argument against: A \"billionaire-funded trick\" meant to undo the California Billionaire Tax that would cost Californians health care.\n- Supporters: CA Professional Firefighters, State Building & Construction Trades Council, AMVETS Department of CA\n- Opponents: Sen. Bernie Sanders, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (pro) The retirement framing is notable because Prop 40 already excludes pensions and retirement accounts. The people a wealth-tax ban protects most are those whose wealth is in unrealized gains, chiefly the very wealthy. [^3]\n- (summary) Prop 40 taxes net worth as of Jan 1, 2026, so if 42 gets more yes votes, Prop 40 is voided. [^5]\n- (general) Yes side raised $128.0M from one committee. It's a permanent constitutional ban: allowing any future wealth tax would take another statewide vote. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SoS, contribution totals (through Oct 22, 2026). https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-42-prohibits-new-state-personal-property-taxes-and-certain-retroactive-state-taxes-initiative-constitutional-amendme\n[^2]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^3]: LAO Prop 40 (retirement exclusion). https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop40-110326.pdf\n[^4]: Euronews on wealth taxes (Sept 29, 2025). https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/09/29/wealth-taxes-in-europe-who-collects-them-and-how-much-do-they-raise\n[^5]: CalMatters, Newsom positions (Oct 9, 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/\n[^6]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-42-property-taxes/\n[^7]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop42-110326.pdf\n[^8]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n"},{"id":"prop-43","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes proposed by citizens","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-43","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-43.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-43","label":"Prop 43","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes proposed by citizens\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-43\n\n- number: 43\n- title: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes proposed by citizens\n- type: Legislative constitutional amendment (ACA 22, Wicks)\n- sponsor: Legislature, as part of a deal with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association\n\n**Our read: Toss-up: a legislative deal.** Citizen-initiated local special taxes would need two-thirds again. It’s a deal that took a broader anti-tax initiative off the ballot.\n\n## Key findings\n- **It's a deal to avoid something bigger.** Legislative Democrats put this on the ballot so the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association would drop a broader initiative. That one would have slashed real estate sales taxes statewide and **revoked taxes that previously passed by a simple majority**. [^1][^2]\n- Since a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling, citizen-initiated local special taxes have been able to pass by simple majority. **LA's mansion tax (Measure ULA, 58% yes in 2022) has generated $1.4B since 2023**, per the city, and Sonoma's 2024 wildfire sales tax passed with 62%. **Neither would have passed under Prop 43's threshold.** [^1][^3]\n- It isn't retroactive, so ULA and similar taxes stay [^1]. It applies to new, increased or extended citizen taxes from Jan 1, 2027. [^3]\n- **Yes $16.4M** (business and property-owner committee $15.5M, HJTA committee $0.85M). **No $10.4M**, $7.8M of it through a labor-sponsored committee. Through Oct 22, 2026. [^4]\n\n## Track record\n| Year | Event | Effect |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1996 | Prop 218 | Special taxes placed by local governments need two-thirds |\n| 2017 | State Supreme Court ruling | Citizen-initiated special taxes now need only a majority [^5] |\n| 2022 | LA Measure ULA | 58% yes; $1.4B generated since 2023 |\n| 2024 | Sonoma County wildfire and emergency services sales tax | 62% yes |\n| **2026** | **Prop 43** | Two-thirds for citizen special taxes from 2027 on |\n[^3][^2]\n\n## What it does\n- New, increased or extended local special taxes proposed by citizen initiative need two-thirds starting Jan 1, 2027. [^3]\n- Fiscal effect: local revenue may grow more slowly; the size is unknown. [^3]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- The Yes money comes from business and property-owner groups, and most No money from labor [^4]. Unions and advocates would lose a tool they've used to pass local taxes by majority.\n- The Legislature traded this for HJTA dropping a broader measure. Its author, Asm. Buffy Wicks, says she is \"adamantly opposed\" to Prop 43. [^1]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- It makes the rule the same whether a tax comes from a city council or a petition, and it ends a workaround. It also lets one-third of voters block taxes most voters support. ULA is the test case for both sides: it raised real money, and critics argue it impeded new construction.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** Starting Jan 1, 2027, a special tax (one with a set purpose) proposed by citizens would need a two-thirds vote, the same bar that already applies when a city council or county board proposes one. [^3] Voters lose the majority-vote route that court rulings opened. Taxes that already passed that way stay. [^1]\n\n### Who's accountable\n- **Your city council and county board of supervisors** still decide which taxes they put on the ballot, and under what rules.\n- **County registrars and city clerks** run local elections and report which vote threshold applies to each measure.\n\n### What to watch\n- Fights over how a measure is labeled, since a \"special\" tax needs two-thirds and other kinds don't.\n- Whether groups that used citizen initiatives for local taxes, like LA's mansion tax, shift to other approaches. [^1]\n\n### Public records to request (CPRA)\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^6] For any local tax measure, ask your city clerk or county registrar for the petition, the official title and summary, and any legal opinion on which vote threshold applies.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** HJTA, Reform California, Southern California News Group, SD Union-Tribune. It stops special interests from passing taxes in low-turnout elections. [^2]\n- **Against:** CA Democratic Party, SEIU Local 1000, Sacramento Bee. It lets moneyed interests block tax initiatives most voters support. [^2]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.\n- Summary: Raises the vote needed to pass voter-proposed local special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds, starting January 1, 2027. Could slow growth in local tax revenue.\n- Fiscal impact: Local tax revenue may grow more slowly; actual impact unknown.\n- A YES vote means: Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.\n- A NO vote means: Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.\n- Argument for: Restores Prop 13's two-thirds rule for local special taxes and closes a loophole special interests use to pass earmarked taxes. \"Closes this loophole, protecting taxpayers, homeowners and renters.\"\n- Argument against: Limits money for fire, 911, schools, roads, hospitals and housing. \"Lets just 33.4% of voters veto what nearly 67% want.\"\n- Supporters: California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA, CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce\n- Opponents: CA Professional Firefighters, CA Federation of Teachers, Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (general) The Legislature put this on the ballot as part of a deal with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, to keep a more restrictive tax measure off the ballot. [^1]\n- (pro) The \"loophole\" is a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling (California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, from nearby Upland) that let citizen-initiated special taxes pass with a majority. Taxes proposed by city councils already need two-thirds. [^3]\n- (con) \"33.4% veto\" is accurate math for any two-thirds rule, and it's the same threshold councils already face. [^3]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CalMatters (Oct 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/california-prop-43-election-2026/\n[^2]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-43-tax-threshold/\n[^3]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop43-110326.pdf\n[^4]: SoS, contribution totals (through Oct 22, 2026). https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-43-aca-22-wicks-local-taxes-limitation-res-ch-132-2026\n[^5]: LAist voter guide. https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-guides/2026-election-california-general-proposition-43-local-special-tax\n[^6]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n"},{"id":"prop-44","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 44: Requires nonprofit community health clinics to spend 90% of revenue on health care services","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-44","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-44.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-44","label":"Prop 44","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 44: Requires nonprofit community health clinics to spend 90% of revenue on health care services\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-44\n\n- number: 44\n- title: Requires nonprofit community health clinics to spend 90% of revenue on health care services\n- type: Initiative statute\n- sponsor: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW)\n\n**Our read: Lean no.** Clinics must spend 90% of revenue on care. The pay problem is real, but the sponsor union allegedly offered to drop it for members.\n\n## Key findings\n- **The pay problem is real.** In 2024 the CEOs of AltaMed and North East Medical Services each made about **$1.95M**. Three other clinic CEOs made $667K to $730K. [^1]\n- **None of the 7 clinics funding the No campaign meets 90%.** Their combined ratio is **77.4%** on $3.28B in revenue, and two are under 65%. Several ran **14–17% surpluses**. [^1]\n- LAO: clinics report spending **an average of about 80%** of revenue on health care services, though it varies by clinic. [^2]\n- The sponsor is a union that tried the same rule as a bill (AB 1113), which **died in committee** (filed away Feb 2, 2026). [^3][^4] Clinics allege in federal court that it **offered to drop Prop 44 for union membership**. The union calls that \"categorically false.\" [^3]\n- The same union is behind Prop 40 [^3], and its dialysis measures failed three times (43%, 37%, 32% yes in 2018, 2020, 2022). [^5]\n\n## Track record\n**Clinics funding the No side (2024 filings)**\n| Clinic | Share of revenue on program services | Notes |\n|---|---|---|\n| AltaMed | 83.9% | $1.72B revenue; CEO $1.95M; gave $6.1M to No |\n| WellSpace Health | 77.9% | 16.6% surplus |\n| TrueCare | 73.8% | CEO pay in the $667K–$730K range |\n| North East Medical Services | 73.5% | CEO $1.95M (over $1M of it deferred/retirement) |\n| Neighborhood Healthcare | 72.0% | 14.4% surplus |\n| Innercare | 64.7% | 29.8% on management and fundraising |\n| Family Health Centers of San Diego | 64.5% | 16.3% surplus |\nSingle-year numbers can include one-time items like capital grants, and the Attorney General would decide what counts. [^1][^2]\n\n## What it does\n- Private nonprofit safety net clinics must spend at least 90% of revenue on health care services, with other costs like administration capped at 10%. California has about 2,000 safety net clinics in all. [^2]\n- A shortfall is paid as a penalty. It's refunded if the clinic complies within 5 years; otherwise it goes to clinic workforce programs. Waivers are possible. [^2]\n- State enforcement costs run in the low tens of millions a year, paid by clinic fees. [^2]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- **Yes $16.9M, all from SEIU-UHW. No $38.6M**, led by AltaMed ($6.1M) and the clinic association. [^6][^1]\n- Both sides have a stake. The clinics are fighting a rule they'd fail. The union represents health workers and has sponsored initiatives aimed at health care employers before (the dialysis measures).\n- The clinic association's claim that \"nearly half of clinics could close\" (with $1.7B in first-year penalties) comes from a study it paid for. [^3]\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- It targets a real issue (executive pay, surpluses, overhead) with a blunt rule. It's unclear exactly which costs would count as health care services; the Attorney General would define that. [^2] A disclosure-and-audit approach could address pay without risking clinic cuts.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** The Attorney General would define what counts as \"health care services,\" and that definition decides which clinics pass. [^2] The clinics fighting the measure combined spend 77.4% of revenue on care, so watch whether they cut overhead or care. [^1]\n\n### Who's accountable\n- **The Attorney General** writes the definitions. That race (Bonta vs. Gates) is on this ballot.\n- **The state** checks compliance using the financial reports clinics already file with the federal government, and collects fees from clinics to cover enforcement. The measure doesn't name a department. [^2]\n- **Clinic boards.** Most are private nonprofits, so they aren't covered by the Public Records Act, but their federal tax returns (Form 990s) are public.\n\n### What to watch\n- Waivers: the measure allows temporary waivers, but doesn't say who grants them or on what grounds. [^2]\n- Whether clinics close or cut services, as the clinic association predicts (in a study it paid for), or whether executive pay and surpluses shrink. [^3]\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n- **Attorney General candidates:** will the definitions of \"health care services\" be written in public, with draft rules and comment periods?\n- **Your local clinic's board:** ask for its ratio of care spending to revenue, and its executive pay, both reported on its Form 990.\n\n### Records to look up\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^7] For private clinics, use public Form 990s instead, which you can search on ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer. [^8]\n\n> **To the Attorney General's office (after passage):** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request all draft definitions, public comments, and communications with clinic operators or SEIU-UHW about defining health care services under Proposition 44.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** SEIU-UHW. It would put more money into patient care and less into executives, which matters more as federal cuts hit.\n- **Against:** the clinic association, CMA, Planned Parenthood [^6], the Hospital Association, the Democratic, Republican and Working Families parties, and the editorial boards of the Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, OC Register and SD Union-Tribune. They say it would cut services or close clinics. [^3]\n- Poll: about 1 in 3 support it (PPIC, Sept 2026). [^3]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.\n- Summary: Penalizes nonprofit community clinics serving underserved areas that spend less than 90% of revenue on \"program services.\"\n- Fiscal impact: State costs in the low tens of millions of dollars a year, covered by fees.\n- A YES vote means: Certain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their yearly revenue on health care services.\n- A NO vote means: The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.\n- Argument for: Holds clinics and executives accountable by putting 90% of revenue into patient care, increasing transparency and reducing executive spending.\n- Argument against: Would \"shut down hundreds of community health clinics\" and cut vital services for millions.\n- Supporters: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (no supporters submitted a statement)\n- Opponents: American Academy of Pediatrics CA, CA School Nurses Organization, CA Academy of Family Physicians, CA Medical Association\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (general) Same sponsor as Prop 40. SEIU-UHW pushed a near-identical bill in 2025 that died in committee. Opposed by the Democratic, Republican and Working Families parties alike. [^3]\n- (con) \"Hundreds of clinics\" comes from a study the clinic association commissioned, not an independent one. The Legislative Analyst says effects are uncertain. Clinics average about 80% today. [^2][^3]\n- (general) Clinics sued the union in federal court in Sept 2026, alleging it offered to drop Prop 44 in exchange for union access or dropping opposition to Prop 40. The union denies it. Unresolved allegation, not a finding. [^3]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: California Today, Prop 44 guide with Form 990 data. https://californiatoday.com/guides/elections/california-proposition-44-2026/\n[^2]: LAO, Prop 44 analysis. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop44-110326.pdf\n[^3]: CalMatters, union and Prop 44 (Oct 7, 2026). https://calmatters.org/health/2026/10/union-billionaire-prop-44-clinic/\n[^4]: Digital Democracy, AB 1113 status. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1113\n[^5]: SoS Statement of Vote, 2018 Prop 8. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2018-general/ssov/ballot-measures-summary.pdf\n[^6]: Official Voter Guide, Prop 44 arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop44.pdf\n[^7]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^8]: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (Form 990 search). https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/\n[^9]: CalMatters guide, Prop 44. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-44-clinic-funding/\n[^10]: SoS, Prop 44 contribution totals (through Oct 22, 2026). https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-44-requires-community-health-clinics-spend-90-percent-revenue-program-services-initiative-statute\n[^11]: SoS Statement of Vote, 2020 Prop 23. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2020-general/sov/official-dec-vote-results-bm.pdf\n[^12]: SoS Statement of Vote, 2022 Prop 29. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/declaration.pdf\n[^13]: Wikipedia, SEIU-UHW history (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEIU_United_Healthcare_Workers_West\n"},{"id":"prop-45","kind":"prop","title":"Prop 45: Faster environmental review (CEQA) for \"essential\" projects","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-45","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/prop-45.md","contests":[{"id":"prop-45","label":"Prop 45","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Prop 45: Faster environmental review (CEQA) for \"essential\" projects\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-45\n\n- number: 45\n- title: Faster environmental review (CEQA) for \"essential\" projects\n- type: Initiative statute\n- sponsor: California Chamber of Commerce\n\n**Our read: Toss-up: real delays, very broad.** Faster CEQA review for housing, roads, utilities and more. The 2025 infill fix is already working; critics warn of a data-center loophole.\n\n## Key findings\n- About **200 CEQA lawsuits** are filed each year. Lawsuits filed in 2020 alone challenged about **48,000 approved housing units**, and cases take **4–5 years** to resolve. The study's lead author backs Prop 45. [^1]\n- **64%** of projects challenged on appeal (2013–2023) were infill in existing communities, and nearly 90% of challenged housing was infill. [^1]\n- **The 2025 infill exemption (AB 130) is already working:** 17,913 units entitled under it since July 2025. California YIMBY is neutral and Greenbelt Alliance opposes. Prop 45 covers **all** housing, including subdivisions at the metro edge. [^2]\n- **Yes $38.6M:** a Building Industry Association committee $7.0M, a PG&E-funded committee $2.4M, plus a $28.2M coalition committee. **No $31.2M** from labor, health and environmental groups, including Wendy Schmidt with $10M. Through Oct 22, 2026. [^3][^4]\n- It's broad: roads and bridges, housing, schools, broadband, water, wildfire mitigation and more. [^5] Critics argue it would make data centers easier to build; the KQED headline called it a possible \"data center loophole.\" [^6]\n\n## Track record\n| Year | CEQA change | Result |\n|---|---|---|\n| Before 2013 | CEQA in force | Applies to most public approvals, from housing to highways [^7] |\n| 2013–2023 | — | ~45 appellate CEQA decisions a year; ~200 trial-court suits a year [^1] |\n| 2017–2024 | Narrow exemptions (housing streamlining bills) | Opponents say they were starting to work [^8] |\n| June 2025 | AB 130 / SB 131: most infill housing exempt | 17,913 units entitled in about 15 months [^2] |\n| **2026** | **Prop 45** | Deadlines and narrower lawsuits for every \"essential\" project, not just housing |\n\n## What it does\n- Optional fast track: 365 business days to finish an environmental report, and a time limit for courts to decide challenges. [^7]\n- Courts can stop only the flawed part of a project, not the whole thing. Only one project alternative is required, and comment periods are capped; tribal consultation only with federally recognized tribes. [^7]\n- Cost: likely high tens of millions, possibly over $100M a year, partly covered by fees. [^7]\n\n## Money and conflicts\n- Builders and utilities are funding it, and they're the ones whose projects would move faster. The main study cited for it comes from a land-use law firm whose lead author openly backs it. [^1]\n- Labor, the main funder of the No side, has its own stake in how projects get approved. I didn't find independent reporting quantifying it.\n\n## Does it solve a lasting problem?\n- CEQA delay is a documented cost [^1]. But the Legislature just fixed the biggest piece (infill housing), and early results are strong. Prop 45 goes much wider, to non-housing projects and greenfield development, and as an initiative statute it could be hard for the Legislature to adjust.\n\n## If you vote yes: accountability\n**Bottom line:** Prop 45 sets deadlines for agencies and courts, but **no state agency is assigned to track which projects use the fast track** or what happens once they're built. [^9]\n\n### Who decides\n- **Project applicants** choose the fast track. **Lead agencies** (usually your city or county, or a state agency for state projects) must finish the environmental report within 365 business days. [^7][^9]\n- **Courts** must resolve challenges, including appeals, within 270 days, with one possible 90-day extension. [^9]\n- Eligible project types include housing, water, clean energy, medical facilities, broadband, schools and transportation. High-speed rail, Delta water conveyance, jails and prisons are excluded. [^9]\n\n### What to watch\n- Whether data centers or other large projects qualify through \"associated infrastructure.\" [^6]\n- How many projects use it, how many are housing, and whether the timelines hold.\n\n### Who to press, and what to ask for\n- **Your Assemblymember and state Senator:** require the state to publish a public list of every project that uses the fast track, with its type, deadlines met or missed, and lawsuit outcomes.\n- **Your city council:** when a big project in town uses the fast track, ask at the hearing what was waived or shortened.\n\n### Records to look up\nAnyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^10] Environmental documents for most projects are already posted on CEQAnet, the state's database of environmental reviews. [^11]\n\n> **To your city or county planning department:** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request a list of all projects that elected the Proposition 45 streamlined review since it took effect, with the application date, the EIR completion date, and any lawsuits filed.\n\n## Both sides\n- **For:** CalChamber, CA Republican Party, hospital associations, the Primary Care Association, BIA, Hispanic Chambers, LULAC, Asm. Buffy Wicks, Sacramento Bee, OC Register, SD Union-Tribune. [^5][^2]\n- **Against:** CA Labor Federation, CA Democratic Party, Nurses Association, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Greenbelt Alliance. [^5][^2]\n- Neutral: California YIMBY, SPUR, Abundant Housing LA. [^2]\n\n## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations\n- Official title: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.\n- Summary: Amends the California Environmental Quality Act to speed review for certain projects, including most housing, transportation, water and health projects, with deadlines for review and for resolving lawsuits.\n- Fiscal impact: \"Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars,\" possibly over $100 million a year, partly covered by fees. Long-term effects uncertain.\n- A YES vote means: Certain projects would become eligible for new review and court-challenge procedures that tighten time limits and narrow what courts can consider.\n- A NO vote means: Public and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures.\n- Argument for: The current system makes California unaffordable. Cuts red tape so housing, water, schools, hospitals, clean energy and wildfire prevention get built faster, with strong environmental protections kept.\n- Argument against: \"Limits environmental and public review of projects built in your community\"; puts corporate profits over public health, air and water; taxpayers pay more.\n- Supporters: CA Children's Hospital Association, California Water Association, CA Council for Affordable Housing\n- Opponents: Coalition for Clean Air, CA Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, National Wildlife Federation\n\nAnnotations (what the booklet leaves out):\n- (general) Sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce. Yes donors include the CA Building Industry Association ($7.0M) and PG&E ($2.4M). Critics flag data centers as a beneficiary. [^3]\n- (pro) The Legislature already passed big CEQA exemptions for infill housing in 2025 (AB 130, SB 131). Prop 45 goes well beyond housing, which is the main concern. [^12][^8]\n- (summary) Not in the summary: it limits tribal consultation to federally recognized tribes and lets courts halt only the non-compliant part of a project. [^7]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Holland & Knight, CEQA appeals study (Sept 24, 2026; advocacy). https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2026/09/ceqa-appeals-increasingly-target-infill-development\n[^2]: CalMatters, YIMBY split on Prop 45 (Oct 26, 2026). https://calmatters.org/housing/2026/10/yimby-prop-45-ceqa/\n[^3]: SoS, Prop 45 contribution totals. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-45-modifies-environmental-review-certain-projects-initiative-statute\n[^4]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/\n[^5]: CalMatters guide, Prop 45. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-45-environmental-review/\n[^6]: KQED, data center loophole (Sept 2026). https://www.kqed.org/news/12100915/housing-fix-or-data-center-loophole-this-ballot-measure-would-overhaul-ceqa\n[^7]: LAO, Prop 45 analysis. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop45-110326.pdf\n[^8]: Daily Journal, opponents say reforms are working. https://dailyjournal.com/article/393858-proposition-45-opponents-say-existing-ceqa-reforms-are-working\n[^9]: LAO initiative analysis, 2025 (eligible projects, court deadline). https://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2025/250480.pdf\n[^10]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays\n[^11]: State Clearinghouse, CEQAnet. https://lci.ca.gov/sch/\n[^12]: Greenberg Traurig, AB 130 and SB 131 (July 2025). https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2025/7/ab-130-and-sb-131-california-legislature-enacts-ceqa-reform-to-accelerate-housing-development\n"},{"id":"governor","kind":"office","title":"Governor","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/governor","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/governor.md","contests":[{"id":"governor","label":"Governor","options":["Xavier Becerra (D)","Steve Hilton (R)"]}],"markdown":"# Governor\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/governor\n\n- office: Governor\n- what_the_job_is: Runs the executive branch, proposes the ~$250B General Fund budget, signs or vetoes bills, appoints judges and agency heads, commands emergency response.\n- candidates: [Xavier Becerra (D), Steve Hilton (R)]\n\n# Governor: what to look for\nThe job is executive: managing a huge bureaucracy and budget, and getting bills through a Legislature. The best evidence is prior experience running large organizations and delivering results through government.\n\n## Xavier Becerra (D) — ballot designation \"Voting Rights Attorney\"\n\n### Key findings\n- **Ran HHS**, the federal department over Medicare, Medicaid, FDA, CDC and NIH, from 2021 to 2025. Rolled out Medicare's first drug-price negotiations: **38–79% discounts on 10 drugs**. [^1]\n- As AG, California **sued the first Trump administration 123 times**. Wins included DACA and the ACA at the Supreme Court; losses included the travel ban. [^2]\n- **Management red flag:** HHS's own inspector general found sponsor safety checks **undocumented in 16%** of migrant-child cases reviewed (Feb 2024). [^3]\n- **Transparency red flag:** as AG, fought release of police misconduct records under a 2018 law; a press group then successfully sued him. [^2]\n- His longtime chief of staff **pleaded guilty** (Oct 2025) in a scheme that siphoned **$225K** from Becerra's dormant campaign account. Becerra was not implicated. [^4]\n\n### Résumé\n- State Assembly 1990–1992; U.S. House 1993–2017, rising to Chair of the House Democratic Caucus (2013–2017). [^5][^6]\n- California Attorney General, Jan 2017 – Mar 2021 (appointed by Gov. Brown; elected 2018 with 63.6%). [^5][^6]\n- U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mar 2021 – Jan 2025: ran the federal department that oversees Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA marketplaces, FDA, CDC and NIH. [^5][^6]\n\n### Track record that supports his pitch (sourced)\n- **Fighting the federal government:** California sued the first Trump administration 123 times (2017–2021, nearly all of it during Becerra's tenure as AG), at about $10M/year. Wins included preserving DACA (Supreme Court, June 2020) and the ACA (California v. Texas, June 2021, where California led 17 states), plus sanctuary-funding and multiple environmental cases. Losses included the travel ban (2018) and the Title X rule. [^7]\n- **Health care costs:** Sued Sutter Health; the settlement required $575M in payments and ended anticompetitive contracting, described as the largest healthcare antitrust case to date. Won a $69M pay-for-delay generic-drug settlement from Teva and, with Assemblymember Jim Wood, produced AB 824 (2019), the first state pay-for-delay law. [^8]\n- **HHS:** Implemented Medicare's first drug-price negotiations: 10 drugs with 38–79% discounts effective 2026, 15 more announced for 2027; expanded 12-month postpartum Medicaid coverage to more than half the states. [^1][^9]\n\n### Track record that cuts against him (sourced)\n- **Migrant children:** As HHS secretary, his agency pushed fast releases of unaccompanied minors in 2021 and missed signs of child labor (NYT investigation, Pulitzer 2023). A Feb 2024 HHS Inspector General report found sponsor safety checks undocumented in 16% of reviewed cases and missed check-in calls in more than one in five. The \"hundreds of thousands missing\" figure Hilton uses is overstated; it mostly reflects children lost track of on paper. [^3]\n- **Police transparency:** As AG he fought release of police misconduct records under the 2018 transparency law, kept withholding them after an appeals court ruled against him, and threatened the reporters with criminal prosecution over records his own office had provided, claiming they were released by mistake. The First Amendment Coalition then successfully sued him. [^2]\n- **Oil/environment:** Accepted the maximum allowable donation from Chevron; environmental advocates point to his apparent reluctance to pursue some litigation against oil companies as AG. [^2]\n- **Campaign account scandal:** His longtime chief of staff Sean McCluskie pleaded guilty (Oct 30, 2025) to conspiracy after $225,000 was siphoned from Becerra's dormant campaign account via sham consulting bills by Newsom's ex-chief of staff Dana Williamson. Becerra was not implicated and cooperated with the Justice Department. The episode raises questions about oversight of his own operation. [^4]\n- **COVID-era unemployment fraud (~$11B+)** happened during his AG tenure; district attorneys faulted the state's response. [^6]\n- **Housing:** Advocates say he focused on pushing cities and counties to move forward with affordable housing, and he has appeared unsteady when pressed on housing policy. [^2]\n\n### Positions\n- Cost of living: emergency declaration to freeze insurance and utility rates; anti-price-gouging. Housing: fund 40,000 approved affordable units, push cities to zone for apartments, expand down-payment help, limit corporate home buying. Homelessness: ongoing rental assistance funding, public dashboard; no voluntary staying on the street when shelter is offered, but no arrests. Taxes: supports extending high-earner rates (Prop 3); opposes Prop 40. Energy: supports clean-energy goals but open to revising the 2035 gas-car ban if unaffordable. [^10]\n- Endorsements: California Faculty Association, Equality California, Planned Parenthood. Opposes Prop 39. [^10][^11]\n\n### Job-applicant read\nDeep government résumé, including running a federal cabinet department (HHS). Strongest proof points are legal wins and health-cost enforcement. Biggest management red flags: the unaccompanied-children oversight failures and the police-records fight, both of which are about how he runs an agency and handles transparency.\n\n## Steve Hilton (R) — ballot designation \"Small Business Owner\"\n\n### Key findings\n- **No elected office or agency-head experience.** His listed past roles are adviser to UK Prime Minister Cameron (strategy director 2010–12), crowdfunding co-founder, author and Fox News host. [^12][^13]\n- His signature government project, the \"Big Society,\" is widely judged to have under-delivered. **Hilton himself said the government lacked the \"political will\"** to carry it out. [^12]\n- Fox News host 2017–2023. Pushed claims about Fauci that PolitiFact found rested on \"unsubstantiated allegations.\" [^14]\n- Debate claim that more in-state oil could bring gas to ~$3: **not supported by energy experts.** [^3]\n\n### Résumé\n- UK: Conservative Party strategist; co-founded consulting firm Good Business (clients incl. Nike, McDonald's, Coca-Cola); Director of Strategy to PM David Cameron, May 2010 – May 2012. [^13][^12]\n- Moved to California 2012; Stanford visiting scholar; co-founder/CEO of political tech startup Crowdpac until May 2018. [^13]\n- Fox News host of \"The Next Revolution,\" 2017–2023. [^13]\n- 2023: launched policy group Golden Together with Lanhee Chen and Gloria Romero (now the GOP Lt. Gov. nominee). [^13][^15]\n- U.S. citizen since May 2021. Has never held elected office or run a government agency. [^13]\n\n### Track record that supports his pitch (sourced)\n- Principal architect of Cameron's \"Big Society\" decentralization agenda (moving school, police and social-service decisions toward local groups and private providers) and the party's modernization strategy. [^12]\n- Built and ran a startup (Crowdpac) and a policy group; has written detailed policy proposals (housing, taxes, energy). [^13][^12]\n\n### Track record that cuts against him (sourced)\n- Big Society: critics called it a backdoor spending cut; former colleagues said it was hard to implement; Hilton himself said the government lacked the \"political will\" to deliver it. Cameron's memoir called him a \"disruptive force.\" [^12]\n- Position shifts: his 2015 book \"More Human\" backed a higher living wage, generous family leave and stricter factory-farm rules, positions at odds with his current deregulation agenda. [^12]\n- On Fox, called for a 2020 election audit and pushed claims about Anthony Fauci that PolitiFact said rested on \"unsubstantiated allegations.\" [^13]\n- Debate claims: his attack on Becerra over migrant children is partly accurate but the \"missing\" number is overstated; his claim that more in-state oil could get gas to ~$3 is not supported by energy experts. [^3]\n- Golden Together's 2023 housing initiative was called a \"developer giveaway\" by the SF Chronicle's Joe Garofoli. [^13]\n\n### Positions\n- Cost of living: suspend environmental rules to lower gas prices, halve the gas tax, eliminate the $800 minimum franchise fee, curb labor/environmental lawsuits. Taxes: no state income tax on the first $150k, flat rate above. Housing: cut fees/rules for small single-family \"starter homes,\" state loans for first-time buyers, limit CEQA lawsuits. Homelessness: enforce camping bans, clear encampments, fund sober housing. Energy: roll back clean-energy mandates, more natural gas. Immigration: repeal sanctuary law. Crime: reopen closed prisons, fewer early releases. Opposes Prop 40. [^12]\n- Endorsements: President Trump (Apr 6, 2026), Nisei Farmers League, Israeli-American Civic Action Network. [^12][^13]\n\n### Job-applicant read\nStrong ideas and communications résumé, startup experience, and two years inside a national government as a senior adviser. No experience running a government agency or budget, and his signature government initiative is widely judged to have under-delivered.\n\n## Context\n- Poll: UC Berkeley IGS / LA Times (Aug 2026): Becerra 55%, Hilton 37%, undecided 7%. [^16]\n- Both oppose Prop 40.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CMS/HHS, negotiated prices and 15 more drugs (Jan 17, 2025). https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/hhs-announces-15-additional-drugs-selected-medicare-drug-price-negotiations-continued-effort-lower\n[^2]: KQED on Becerra as AG (May 21, 2026). https://www.kqed.org/news/12084594/what-ag-xavier-becerra-reveals-about-a-possible-gov-becerra\n[^3]: CapRadio debate fact-check (Oct 1, 2026). https://www.capradio.org/articles/2026/10/01/fact-checking-becerra-and-hilton-in-the-california-governors-debate-on-cnn/\n[^4]: AP on Williamson indictment (Nov 12, 2025). https://www.kait8.com/2025/11/12/california-gov-gavin-newsoms-former-chief-staff-indicted-federal-charges\n[^5]: Congress bioguide, Xavier Becerra. https://bioguideretro.congress.gov/Home/MemberDetails?memIndex=B000287\n[^6]: Wikipedia, Xavier Becerra (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Becerra\n[^7]: KQED Voter's Edge, California's 123 Trump lawsuits (Jan 2025). https://votersedge.kqed.org/news/12023094/california-has-sued-trump-123-times-heres-where-it-won-and-lost\n[^8]: UC Berkeley SPH on Becerra's health record (Jan 2021). https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/news-media/what-does-california-attorney-general-xavier-becerras-record-tell-us-about-what-he-might-do-as-secretary-of-hhs\n[^9]: CMS/HHS, postpartum coverage in more than half of states (Oct 27, 2022). https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-more-half-all-states-have-expanded-access-12-months-medicaid\n[^10]: CalMatters governor guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/governor/\n[^11]: KQED Voter Guide, Prop 39 supporters and opponents. https://www.kqed.org/voterguide/california/proposition-39\n[^12]: CalMatters Hilton profile (July 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/07/california-governor-hilton-profile/\n[^13]: Wikipedia, Steve Hilton (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hilton\n[^14]: PolitiFact fact-check on Fauci claims (Feb 8, 2021). https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/08/worldnetdaily/no-dr-anthony-fauci-did-not-fund-research-tied-cov/\n[^15]: SoS certified candidate list (Nov 3, 2026). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^16]: ABC7 poll (Aug 14, 2026). https://abc7.com/post/xavier-becerra-maintains-commanding-lead-over-steve-hilton-california-governor-race-poll-shows/19674942/\n[^17]: Senate Budget Committee, 2026-27 enacted budget summary ($251B General Fund). https://src.senate.ca.gov/content/2026-27-enacted-budget-initial-summary\n"},{"id":"lieutenant-governor","kind":"office","title":"Lieutenant Governor","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/lieutenant-governor","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/lieutenant-governor.md","contests":[{"id":"lieutenant-governor","label":"Lieutenant Governor","options":["Fiona Ma (D)","Gloria Romero (R)"]}],"markdown":"# Lieutenant Governor\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/lieutenant-governor\n\n- office: Lieutenant Governor\n- what_the_job_is: First in line to succeed the governor; acting governor when the governor is out of state; president of the state Senate with a tie-breaking vote; sits on the UC Regents, CSU Trustees, community college board and State Lands Commission. Budget of nearly $3M. Mostly a platform job.\n- candidates: [Fiona Ma (D), Gloria Romero (R)]\n\n# Lieutenant Governor: what to look for\nReal power is limited to votes on the university boards and the State Lands Commission, plus succession. The best evidence is a record on higher education, public lands, and readiness to be governor.\n\n## Fiona Ma (D) — \"State Treasurer/CPA\"\n\n### Key findings\n- As Treasurer, launched **CalSavers** (2019). By July 2026 it held **$1.89B** in 655,000 funded accounts, but the average balance is **$2,877** and about **35%** of workers opt out. [^1]\n- The state paid **$350K** in 2024 to settle a former staffer's sexual-harassment suit. Ma denies wrongdoing. [^2]\n- On the Board of Equalization, requested investigations of the agency; a 2017 audit led to it being stripped of most duties. [^3][^4]\n- **No higher-education governance role** in her résumé (Assembly, BOE, Treasurer), though the job's main votes are on the UC and CSU boards.\n\n### Résumé\n- CPA. San Francisco Board of Supervisors 2002–2006; State Assembly 2006–2012 (majority whip, then Speaker pro Tem 2010–2012); Board of Equalization 2015–2019 (chair 2016–2017); State Treasurer since Jan 2019. [^5][^6]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- As a legislator, wrote a ban on certain chemicals in baby and children's products whose language was later used in the federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. [^5]\n- On the Board of Equalization, publicly requested outside investigations of the agency. A 2017 Department of Finance audit found employees in revenue jobs had been reassigned to board members' outreach events; Gov. Brown then referred the matter to prosecutors and froze the board's hiring and contracting, and the Legislature stripped most BOE duties that June. Ma welcomed Brown's action. Reporting does not support the stronger claim that she \"initiated\" the audits herself. [^3][^4]\n- As Treasurer: launched CalSavers retirement program (2019); state GO bonds upgraded by Fitch and Moody's in 2019; LAO credited the Treasurer with refinancing much of the state's bond debt to lower annual costs; chaired the Tax Credit Allocation Committee that awards affordable-housing tax credits; ran COVID emergency loan program for health facilities. [^5]\n- Sits on the CalHFA board and signed the official ballot argument for Prop 37. [^7]\n- Her stated higher-ed idea is for CSU to raise revenue through partnerships with private companies. [^8] Her résumé shows no direct higher-education governance role.\n\n### Concerns (sourced)\n- A former employee sued in 2021 alleging sexual harassment (including sharing hotel rooms and a staff house); a judge let the harassment claims go to trial, and the state paid $350,000 to settle in 2024. Ma denies it, called the suit \"frivolous,\" and did not admit wrongdoing. [^2]\n- Shared hotel rooms 13 times with her chief of staff over two years, which she called cost-saving. [^5]\n- A former staffer alleged that a caviar seller stayed with Ma and her staff on work trips. [^9] I could not find any finding of wrongdoing on this.\n- Endorsements: California Labor Federation, Building Trades, AFSCME. Raised ~$2.8M by the primary. [^6][^4]\n\n## Gloria Romero (R) — \"Educator/Businesswoman\"\n\n### Key findings\n- Wrote the 2010 **\"parent trigger\"** law, which lets parents force changes at failing schools. [^10]\n- State Senate Majority Leader 2005–08 (the first woman in the role). **Hasn't held office since 2010.** [^11]\n- Switched to the Republican Party in Sept 2024. She is Hilton's running mate. [^12][^10]\n\n### Résumé\n- Born in Barstow (San Bernardino County); Ph.D. in psychology, UC Riverside; university professor. State Assembly 1998–2001; State Senate 2001–2010 representing East LA/San Gabriel Valley; Senate Majority Leader 2005–2008 (first woman); chaired Senate Education and Public Safety committees. [^11][^10]\n- After leaving office: led the California chapter of Democrats for Education Reform; founded Scholarship Prep Charter School (TK–8). Switched to the Republican Party Sept 4, 2024. Running as Hilton's ticket-mate. [^11]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Authored and passed the Parent Empowerment Act of 2010 (\"parent trigger\"), letting a majority of parents at a low-performing school force a restructuring. [^10][^11]\n- Ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2010 and finished third with 17%. [^11]\n- Stated Lt. Gov. priorities: more transparency on public-university faculty pay and housing allowances; more student representation on UC Regents. [^8]\n\n### Concerns (sourced)\n- Has not held office since 2010. Switched her registration to Republican at a Sacramento news conference on Sept 4, 2024, saying of the Democratic Party, \"I do not recognize it anymore, and I cannot continue,\" and said she would vote for Trump. [^12] Her positions shifted with the switch (crime, gender identity, COVID lockdowns, school choice), and she has called RFK Jr. a \"personal hero.\" [^10]\n- Endorsements: California Republican Party, Reform California. [^6]\n\n## Context\n- Primary: Ma and Romero each near 20% in early returns. [^8]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: State Treasurer, CalSavers snapshot (July 2026). https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/calsavers/July_2026_Participation_Snapshot_Report.pdf\n[^2]: AP on Ma settlement. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/former-california-employee-350k-settle-sexual-harassment-claims-113283548\n[^3]: LA Times on BOE audit (via Ma campaign site). https://fionama.com/news/2017/gov-brown-calls-for-an-investigation-of-alleged-mismanagement-at-californias-tax-board\n[^4]: KQED on BOE nepotism audit (Sept 11, 2017). https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101861564/ongoing-personnel-audit-finds-nepotism-conflicts-at-state-tax-department\n[^5]: Wikipedia (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Ma\n[^6]: CalMatters Lt. Gov. guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/lieutenant-governor/\n[^7]: Official Voter Guide, Prop 37 arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop37.pdf\n[^8]: KQED (June 2026). https://www.kqed.org/news/12086094/democrat-ma-and-republican-romero-in-a-close-race-for-lieutenant-governor\n[^9]: Sacramento Bee on caviar seller (via Yahoo). https://news.yahoo.com/caviar-seller-stayed-california-treasurer-130000987.html\n[^10]: LA Magazine (Jan 16, 2026). https://lamag.com/news-and-politics/democrat-turned-republican-gloria-romero-declares-candidacy-for-lieutenant-governor/\n[^11]: Wikipedia (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Romero_(politician)\n[^12]: Spectrum News on Romero party switch (Sept 4, 2024). https://spectrumlocalnews.com/ca/california/politics/2024/09/04/gloria-romero--former-democratic-state-senate-leader--switches-to-gop\n[^13]: Lt. Governor's office, about the office (boards and duties). https://ltg.ca.gov/about-the-office-of-lt-governor/\n"},{"id":"secretary-of-state","kind":"office","title":"Secretary of State","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/secretary-of-state","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/secretary-of-state.md","contests":[{"id":"secretary-of-state","label":"Secretary of State","options":["Shirley N. Weber (D, incumbent)","Donald P. (Don) Wagner (R)"]}],"markdown":"# Secretary of State\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/secretary-of-state\n\n- office: Secretary of State\n- what_the_job_is: Chief elections officer (certifies results, sets voting-system rules, publishes the voter guide, oversees but does not run county counts), plus business filings and campaign/lobbying disclosure.\n- candidates: [Shirley N. Weber (D, incumbent), Donald P. (Don) Wagner (R)]\n\n## Shirley N. Weber (D) — incumbent\n\n### Key findings\n- **More than five years running statewide elections** (appointed 2021), including the 2021 recall. Oversaw making universal vote-by-mail permanent. [^1]\n- Counting is slow (counties get 30 days), and **1.73% of mail ballots were rejected** in the June 2026 primary, up from 1.56% in 2024, mostly for arriving late. [^2]\n- As a legislator, wrote AB 392 (2019), the stricter police deadly-force standard. [^3]\n\n### Résumé\n- San Diego State professor for nearly four decades (founding faculty of Africana Studies); a local school board; State Assembly 2012–2021; appointed Secretary of State 2021 (first Black person in the role), elected 2022. [^3]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Assembly: authored AB 392 (2019), tightening when police may legally use deadly force; authored the law creating California's reparations task force. Teacher-tenure and evaluation bills she wrote failed. [^4]\n- As SoS: administered the 2021 Newsom recall; oversaw making universal vote-by-mail permanent. [^3][^1]\n- Sued local governments for violating election law; defended against a federal DOJ lawsuit seeking California voter-registration data; defeated a 2024 disability-rights suit over electronic ballot return. [^3] Prop 5, the recall reform on this ballot, grew out of a proposal from her office. [^5]\n\n### Concerns (sourced)\n- California's counts take weeks (counties have 30 days); critics including Wagner say she hasn't pushed to speed it up. She says \"accuracy is far more important.\" [^3]\n- Endorsements: CA Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, SEIU California. [^3]\n\n## Don Wagner (R) — \"Orange County Supervisor\"\n\n### Key findings\n- Long local executive record: Orange County supervisor since 2019, Irvine mayor 2016–19, Assembly 2010–16. [^6]\n- **No election-administration role** in his résumé. His main goals (voter ID, ending universal mail ballots) **require the Legislature**. [^7]\n- Pushed to release sensitive voter data to the Trump Justice Department. [^1]\n\n### Résumé\n- Attorney; judge pro tem; president of the South Orange County Community College District board; State Assembly 2010–2016 (vice chair, Judiciary); Mayor of Irvine 2016–2019; Orange County Supervisor (District 3) since 2019, re-elected 2020 and 2024. [^6]\n- Advanced from the June 2 primary with ~36.7%. [^6]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- As supervisor: criticized the state's COVID response, questioned county DEI spending, and pushed to release sensitive voter information to the Trump DOJ over claims of irregularities. [^1]\n- Platform: voter ID at the polls, roll back universal mail ballots, shorter certification deadline. All would need the Legislature. [^7]\n- Endorsements: CA Republican Party, Reform California, California Republican Assembly. [^1]\n\n### Job-applicant read\nWeber has run statewide elections for more than five years, with no major administration failures found, and the main critique is speed. Wagner has a long executive record in local government but none administering elections; his agenda depends mostly on laws the Legislature would have to pass.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CalMatters SoS guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/secretary-of-state/\n[^2]: AP via ABC7, rejected mail ballots (July 2026). https://abc7.com/post/150000-mail-ballots-rejected-californias-primary-despite-efforts-count-every-vote/19571066/\n[^3]: inewsource/CalMatters (May 1, 2026). https://inewsource.org/2026/05/01/california-secretary-of-state-shirley-weber-counting-ballots/\n[^4]: CalMatters 2022 Weber profile. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2022/secretary-of-state/shirley-weber/\n[^5]: CalMatters Prop 5 guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-5-recall-reform/\n[^6]: Ballotpedia, Don Wagner. https://ballotpedia.org/Don_Wagner\n[^7]: CalMatters (Apr 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/04/california-secretary-state-race/\n"},{"id":"controller","kind":"office","title":"Controller","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/controller","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/controller.md","contests":[{"id":"controller","label":"Controller","options":["Malia M. Cohen (D, incumbent)","Herb W. Morgan (R)"]}],"markdown":"# Controller\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/controller\n\n- office: Controller\n- what_the_job_is: The state's chief accountant and bill-payer. Issues state payments and payroll, audits state and local spending, publishes the state's official financial reports, sits on dozens of boards including CalPERS and CalSTRS.\n- candidates: [Malia M. Cohen (D, incumbent), Herb W. Morgan (R)]\n\nBallot designations below are as certified by the Secretary of State. [^1]\n\n## Malia M. Cohen (D) — incumbent, \"State Controller/Mother\"\n\n### Key findings\n- **Delivered on the core job:** cleared the backlog of the state's chronically late annual financial report, releasing **4 reports in 2 years**. [^2]\n- **Didn't deliver on her 2022 audit promises** (homelessness, EDD, DMV), saying the State Auditor had covered them. A 2024 State Auditor report found the state had not consistently tracked and evaluated its homelessness efforts. [^3][^4]\n- Career path: SF supervisor, then Board of Equalization, then Controller. [^5] Raised $1.2M+. [^3]\n\n### Résumé\n- President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; Board of Equalization (elected 2018, chaired 2019 and 2022); elected Controller Nov 2022, in office since 2023. [^5][^3]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Cleared a years-long backlog of the state's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, which had been chronically late, releasing four reports in two years; says the next one will be about two months late. [^2]\n- Working to modernize FI$Cal (the state accounting system) and state payroll. [^2]\n- Urged the governor and Legislature to show \"restraint\" on spending in 2026 budget talks. [^3]\n\n### Concerns (sourced)\n- In 2022 she promised to scrutinize homelessness spending and take a hard look at EDD and DMV; CalMatters reports she did not follow through, saying the State Auditor had already covered them. A 2024 State Auditor report found California fails to adequately track homelessness spending (the audit's words: the state \"has not consistently tracked and evaluated\" its efforts to end homelessness). [^2][^4]\n- Raised $1.2M+. Endorsed by CA Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, Equality California. [^3] Quoted (not a signer) in the Yes on Prop 37 ballot argument. [^6]\n\n## Herb W. Morgan (R) — \"Chief Investment Officer\"\n\n### Key findings\n- Founded a San Diego investment firm later bought by Cantor Fitzgerald. **No government experience listed** in his CalMatters profile. [^3]\n- Pitch: log every state-funded nonprofit payment in a public database and use AI to flag fraud. He posts his own donations in real time. Raised $367K by April. [^3]\n\n### Résumé\n- Founded a San Diego investment firm later acquired by Cantor Fitzgerald Investment Advisors. No government experience listed there. [^3]\n\n### Track record and platform (sourced)\n- Running on exposing fraud: would require every state-funded nonprofit payment to be logged in a state database and use AI to flag suspicious spending; promises to audit homelessness spending. Publishes his own campaign donations in real time on his website. Raised $367k by April. [^2]\n- Endorsed by CA Republican Party, California Republican Assembly, Unity Party of California. [^3]\n\n### Job-applicant read\nCohen has delivered on the unglamorous core of the job (clearing the late financial-report backlog, systems modernization) but not on the high-profile audit promises she ran on. Morgan has real private investment-management experience, relevant to the pension boards, but no public-sector accounting or audit record.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SoS, certified candidate list (Nov 3, 2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^2]: CalMatters (May 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2026/05/ca-election-2026-controller/\n[^3]: CalMatters Controller guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/controller/\n[^4]: State Auditor 2023-102.1, Homelessness in California (Apr 9, 2024). https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023-102-1/\n[^5]: SCO bio, State Controller's Office official biography. https://sco.ca.gov/eo_about_bio.html\n[^6]: Official Voter Guide, Prop 37 arguments (Nov 2026). https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop37.pdf\n"},{"id":"treasurer","kind":"office","title":"Treasurer","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/treasurer","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/treasurer.md","contests":[{"id":"treasurer","label":"Treasurer","options":["Eleni Kounalakis (D)","Jennifer Hawks (R)"]}],"markdown":"# Treasurer\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/treasurer\n\n- office: Treasurer\n- what_the_job_is: The state's banker. Sells state bonds, invests the state's idle cash, chairs boards that award affordable-housing tax credits and bond allocations, sits on CalPERS and CalSTRS boards.\n- candidates: [Eleni Kounalakis (D), Jennifer Hawks (R)]\n\nBallot designations below are as certified by the Secretary of State. [^1]\n\n## Eleni Kounalakis (D) — \"Lieutenant Governor of California\"\n\n### Key findings\n- **No public-finance job** appears in her résumé: real-estate development (her father founded AKT Development), Ambassador to Hungary, then two terms as Lt. Governor. [^2][^3]\n- **Conflict question:** the Treasurer chairs the committee that awards housing tax credits [^4], and her family is in real-estate development. [^3]\n- Moved over from the governor's race in Aug 2025, when she was polling ~3%. [^2]\n\n### Résumé\n- Developer; her father, Angelo Tsakopoulos, founded Sacramento's AKT Development; major Democratic fundraiser; U.S. Ambassador to Hungary under Obama; Lieutenant Governor (two terms), with seats on the UC Regents and CSU Trustees. [^2][^3]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Regularly voted against tuition increases on the UC and CSU boards. [^2]\n- Cites her \"experience as a developer\" and \"self-professed technical orientation\" as treasurer qualifications. [^3]\n- Switched from the governor's race in Aug 2025 when she was polling ~3% and had raised only ~$100k in six months. [^2]\n- Has nearly nine times as much campaign cash as the other five primary candidates combined; endorsed by Gov. Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, California Labor Federation, Teamsters, National Union of Healthcare Workers. [^3][^2]\n\n### Concerns\n- The treasurer chairs the committees that allocate housing tax credits and tax-exempt bond authority [^4]; her family's development business is relevant for conflict-of-interest scrutiny. CalMatters notes former Treasurer Phil Angelides was also an \"AKT alum\" whose political career her father helped fund. [^3]\n\n## Jennifer Hawks (R) — \"Retired Business Executive\"\n\n### Key findings\n- Retired private-school executive and local GOP activist. **No public-finance or investment record** found. [^5]\n\n### Résumé\n- Silicon Valley retiree; most recently on the executive team at Sacred Heart Schools (Atherton private Catholic school); local GOP activist; no elected office. [^5]\n- Pitch: business background and independence as a check on state government. Endorsed by CA Republican Party, California Republican Assembly, Reform California. [^5]\n- No public-finance or investment record found in CalMatters' coverage.\n\n### Job-applicant read\nNeither candidate has a deep public-finance résumé. Kounalakis has statewide governance experience and real-estate development background; Hawks has private-sector management experience but little documented relevant record.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SoS, certified candidate list (Nov 3, 2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^2]: CalMatters (Aug 8, 2025). https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/08/california-governors-race-kounalakis/\n[^3]: CalMatters (May 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/05/california-treasurer-election-2026/\n[^4]: State Treasurer's Office, responsibilities and functions. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/inside/functions\n[^5]: CalMatters Treasurer guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/treasurer/\n"},{"id":"attorney-general","kind":"office","title":"Attorney General","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/attorney-general","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/attorney-general.md","contests":[{"id":"attorney-general","label":"Attorney General","options":["Rob Bonta (D, incumbent)","Michael E. Gates (R)"]}],"markdown":"# Attorney General\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/attorney-general\n\n- office: Attorney General\n- what_the_job_is: The state's top lawyer. Runs the state Department of Justice, defends state laws, sues on the state's behalf, enforces consumer, environmental, civil rights and antitrust law, oversees local prosecutors and sheriffs, and reviews officer-involved shootings of unarmed people.\n- candidates: [Rob Bonta (D, incumbent), Michael E. Gates (R)]\n\n# Attorney General: what to look for\nA record of litigating big cases, winning them, and running a large legal office with integrity.\n\n## Rob Bonta (D) — incumbent, \"California Attorney General\"\n\n### Key findings\n- Filed his **100th lawsuit** against the Trump administration in under two years. He claims an **80% success rate** and $188B protected, both his office's own figures. First-year litigation cost: **$19M**. [^1][^2]\n- **Police shootings:** 41 fatal-shooting cases closed with **zero officers prosecuted**, an average of **~2 years 5 months** per case, and **none** finished within his own 1-year target. The office got about half the funding it asked for. [^3]\n- Spent **$468K in campaign funds** on lawyers for the federal probe that led to the Oakland mayor's indictment. He says he isn't a target. [^4]\n- As a legislator, wrote the private-prison ban (AB 32), which a federal appeals court later cut back. [^5][^6]\n\n### Résumé\n- Alameda city council (vice mayor) 2010–2012; State Assembly 2012–2021 (East Bay); appointed AG by Gov. Newsom in 2021, elected 2022. [^7][^8]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Assembly: authored AB 32 (2019), banning private prisons and private immigrant detention in California. A 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel ruled against the state in a challenge to the ban in fall 2021, so its reach was cut back. [^5][^6]\n- As AG, first term focused on enforcing housing laws against cities that resist building and on criminal-justice laws. [^8]\n- Second Trump term: filed his 100th lawsuit against the administration in under two years (Oct 2026); 82 suits plus 120 amicus briefs in the first 18 months. Cases include birthright citizenship, frozen federal funds, National Guard deployments in LA, mail voting and Planned Parenthood. He claims the suits protected $200B+ in federal funding; that figure is his own and not independently verified. [^2][^9]\n- His office sued Huntington Beach over its housing plan and voter ID rule; courts sided with the state. [^10]\n\n### Concerns (sourced)\n- Paid more than $468,000 in campaign funds to the law firm Wilson Sonsini to respond to the federal investigation that led to former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao's indictment. He says he was told he was not a target and is not accused of wrongdoing. He returned $155,100 in donations from the Duong family (California Waste Solutions), who were indicted. [^4]\n- Endorsements: CA Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Environmental Voters. [^8]\n\n## Michael E. Gates (R) — \"Deputy United States Attorney\"\n\n### Key findings\n- About 10 years as Huntington Beach city attorney. **He lost the marquee cases** he brought against the state: housing plan, voter ID and sanctuary law. [^10]\n- The city attorney's budget grew from **$2.5M to over $4.3M** during those fights. [^10]\n- Spent part of 2025 at the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, then returned to Huntington Beach. [^3]\n- His management experience is a city attorney's office with a budget of about $4.3M. [^10]\n\n### Résumé\n- Trial attorney; Huntington Beach City Attorney for about a decade; in 2025 appointed deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division, then left in November 2025 to return to Huntington Beach. [^3][^10]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Led Huntington Beach's lawsuits asserting its charter city status exempts it from state laws:\n  - Housing/zoning (from March 2023): the California Supreme Court declined to hear the city's argument; a judge ordered the city to adopt a compliant housing plan, and until then it must approve most developer projects. Lost.\n  - Voter ID: a state appeals court found the city's voter-approved ID rules violated state law; the city is appealing. Lost.\n  - Sanctuary laws: dismissed Dec 2025 (cities lack standing in federal court). Lost. [^10]\n- The city attorney's budget rose from $2.5M (2021-22) to over $4.3M; total legal fees in these cases are unclear. [^10]\n- As city attorney, challenged what he saw as lenient criminal-justice policy and fought parts of the state's housing laws. [^3]\n- Endorsements: CA Republican Party, California Parents Union, California Rifle & Pistol Association. [^3]\n\n### Job-applicant read\nGates has litigated high-profile cases against the state, but his marquee cases have mostly been lost, which is the most direct evidence of how he'd do the job. Bonta has a long record in the role and many wins against the federal government, with a campaign-money episode worth weighing.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Local News Matters, lawsuit tally (Jan 20, 2026). https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/01/21/bonta-california-lawsuits-trump-second-term/\n[^2]: Santa Barbara Independent (Oct 18, 2026). https://www.independent.com/2026/10/18/a-sobering-milestone-attorney-general-bonta-files-100th-lawsuit-against-the-trump-administration-in-under-two-years/\n[^3]: CalMatters on police-shooting investigations (June 10, 2026). https://calmatters.org/justice/2026/06/police-shootings-attorney-general/\n[^4]: KQED (Nov 20, 2025). https://www.kqed.org/news/12065004/california-ag-rob-bonta-wont-rule-out-a-run-for-governor-amid-campaign-fund-questions\n[^5]: IJPR on AB 32. https://www.ijpr.org/immigration/2021-11-18/california-tries-again-to-close-down-privately-operated-prisons-and-immigrant-detention-facilities\n[^6]: CA DOJ on AB 32 ruling. https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-statement-ninth-circuit-decision-california%E2%80%99s-ban\n[^7]: Wikipedia, Rob Bonta (secondary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bonta\n[^8]: CalMatters AG guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/attorney-general/\n[^9]: Sacramento Bee via TNS. https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/national_news/bonta-says-california-s-lawsuits-against-trump-protected-200-billion-in-funding-what-did-they/article_1408d2a6-a9c2-59c0-a721-b962bad32b6a.html\n[^10]: Voice of OC (Dec 2025). https://voiceofoc.org/2025/12/huntington-beach-continues-to-lose-lawsuits-arguing-charter-city-rights/\n"},{"id":"insurance-commissioner","kind":"office","title":"Insurance Commissioner","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/insurance-commissioner","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/insurance-commissioner.md","contests":[{"id":"insurance-commissioner","label":"Insurance Commissioner","options":["Ben Allen (D)","Jane Kim (D)"]}],"markdown":"# Insurance Commissioner\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/insurance-commissioner\n\n- office: Insurance Commissioner\n- what_the_job_is: Regulates the nation's largest property and casualty insurance market, including home and auto insurance and the rules for setting premiums; enforces claims-handling laws; oversees the FAIR Plan (insurer of last resort). The defining issue now is the home-insurance crisis after wildfires.\n- candidates: [Ben Allen (D), Jane Kim (D)]\n\n# Context\n- Homeowner premiums rose 84% between 2020 and March 2026. [^1]\n- FAIR Plan policies: 684,000+, up 152% since Sept 2022. Recent rules let insurers use catastrophe models and reinsurance costs in rates. [^2]\n- First time two Democrats face off for this office. Primary: Kim ~27%, Allen ~20%. [^2]\n\nBallot designations below are as certified by the Secretary of State. [^3]\n\n## Ben Allen (D) — \"California State Senator\"\n\n### Key findings\n- **Directly relevant record:** after the 2025 LA fires, wrote SB 495, making insurers pay **60% of contents coverage without an itemized list** after a declared emergency [^4], and SB 1209 (signed Sept 2026) letting the commissioner order fixes without a long legal process. [^1]\n- First elected to the state Senate in 2014; says he wrote the 2024 climate bond (Prop 4). [^5]\n- A PAC backed by crypto billionaire Chris Larsen has about **$2M** for him. [^1]\n\n### Résumé\n- State senator since 2014 (D-Pacific Palisades; his district was hit by the 2025 LA County fires). [^5][^4]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Wrote the law largely restricting plastic straws and single-use plastics, and says he wrote Prop 4 (2024 climate bond). [^5]\n- After the 2025 fires: wrote SB 495 (signed Oct 2025), requiring insurers to pay 60% of contents coverage limits, up to $350,000, to total-loss policyholders without an itemized inventory [^4]; SB 1209 (signed Sept 2026) lets the commissioner order insurers to fix problems found in investigations without a lengthy legal process. [^1]\n- Platform: consumer advocate in the department, real-time claim-delay reporting, explanations for denials, stronger FAIR Plan oversight, more staff for consumer complaints; a wildfire-resilience loan program and rethinking where California builds. [^5]\n- Endorsed by Consumer Federation of California, CA Democratic Party, CA Professional Firefighters, Sierra Club, Sens. Schiff and Padilla, SF Chronicle. [^5][^6] A PAC backed by crypto billionaire Chris Larsen has ~$2M for him. [^1]\n\n## Jane Kim (D) — \"Attorney/Consumer Advocate\"\n\n### Key findings\n- **No insurance-regulation experience** found; she describes herself as \"a civil rights attorney and consumer advocate.\" [^5][^6]\n- Proposes a state-run disaster insurer. It would **need the Legislature**, and Allen says it has \"very little chance of ever getting passed.\" [^5][^1]\n- As an SF supervisor, secured Free City College and an early $15 minimum wage. [^5] Led the California Working Families Party 2022–26. [^1]\n\n### Résumé\n- Attorney; former San Francisco Supervisor; state director, California Working Families Party, Jan 2022 – Jan 2026. [^5][^1]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- As supervisor: secured Free City College for SF residents, passed what CalMatters describes as the state's first $15 minimum wage ordinance, and a tenant anti-eviction ordinance. [^5]\n- No insurance-regulation experience in available reporting.\n- Platform: \"natural disaster insurance for all,\" a state-run authority guaranteeing wildfire and flood coverage, funded by premiums paid to insurers; it would need the Legislature. Also: tie insurers' auto business to writing home policies, rate freezes after claims, public claims dashboards, expand low-cost auto insurance. [^5][^1]\n- Endorsed by SEIU California, California Teachers Association, California Nurses Association, California Labor Federation, Bernie Sanders. Outside spending against her outweighs spending for her. [^5][^1][^6]\n\n### Job-applicant read\nAllen has a direct, recent legislative record on the exact problem (claims handling and insurer enforcement after fires). Kim has a record of passing progressive local policy and a bold structural proposal, but no insurance background and a plan that depends on legislation Allen calls very unlikely to pass.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Mission Local (Oct 14, 2026). https://missionlocal.org/2026/10/ben-allen-jane-kim-california-insurance-commissioner/\n[^2]: CalMatters (June 2026). https://calmatters.org/economy/2026/06/california-insurance-commissioner-top-two/\n[^3]: SoS, certified candidate list (Nov 3, 2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^4]: Dept. of Insurance, SB 495 signed (Oct 10, 2025). https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2025/release067-2025.cfm\n[^5]: CalMatters Insurance Commissioner guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/insurance-commissioner/\n[^6]: Official Voter Guide candidate statements. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/candidates/insurance-commissioner-candidate-statements.htm\n"},{"id":"superintendent","kind":"office","title":"Superintendent of Public Instruction","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/superintendent","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/superintendent.md","contests":[{"id":"superintendent","label":"Superintendent of Public Instruction","options":["Richard Barrera","Sonja Shaw"]}],"markdown":"# Superintendent of Public Instruction\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/candidates/superintendent\n\n- office: Superintendent of Public Instruction (nonpartisan)\n- what_the_job_is: Runs the state Department of Education for ~6 million students. Note: starting in 2027 a governor-appointed education commissioner will run the department and many duties shift to the State Board, shrinking this office.\n- candidates: [Richard Barrera, Sonja Shaw]\n\n# Local note\nSonja Shaw is board president of Chino Valley Unified, near Rancho Cucamonga.\n\nBallot designations below are as certified by the Secretary of State. [^1]\n\n## Richard Barrera — \"State Superintendent Advisor\" (Democrat)\n\n### Key findings\n- **18 years on the San Diego Unified board** (~103,000 students). 2022 to 2025: reading proficiency **53.1% → 56.2%**, math **41.1% → 45.3%**, graduation 90.3%. [^2]\n- Keeps only the state-minimum **2% reserve**, which some peers call risky. [^2]\n- Former labor-council leader; CTA's independent-expenditure committee has put about **$5M** behind him. [^2]\n\n### Résumé\n- UC San Diego BA, Harvard MPP; held a leadership post at a regional labor council of 135 unions; San Diego Unified board member for 18 years (five as president); since 2024 a paid adviser at the state Department of Education under Supt. Tony Thurmond. [^2]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- San Diego Unified (~103,000 students, $2.9B budget): ELA proficiency 53.1% (2022) → 56.2% (2025); math 41.1% → 45.3%; graduation 90.3% (2025, state 87.5%). [^2][^3]\n- Adopted A-G college-prep requirements for all graduates in 2009 (he says Latino A-G completion rose from 25% to 70%, his own figure); early community schools; ethnic studies in high school; teacher pay up 50% over 12 years with 100% family health coverage. [^2]\n- District keeps only the state-minimum 2% reserve, which some peers call risky. [^2]\n- Endorsed by CTA (~$5M in independent spending), California Charter School Advocates, United Domestic Workers. [^2][^4]\n\n## Sonja Shaw — \"School District President\" (Republican)\n\n### Key findings\n- Chino Valley Unified board president (~26,500 students). 2022 to 2025: reading **58.9% → 62.1%**, math **44.6% → 49.8%**, graduation 95.5%. [^5]\n- Her board's gender-identity parental-notification policy was **ruled unconstitutional** (Sept 2024), and state law now bans such policies. [^6]\n- Did not attend college; was a stay-at-home mother before organizing parents during the pandemic. [^5]\n\n### Résumé\n- No college; former stay-at-home mom who organized parents to attend board meetings during the pandemic, then won a board seat; now president. [^5]\n\n### Track record (sourced)\n- Chino Valley Unified (~26,500 students, $446M budget): ELA proficiency 58.9% (2022) → 62.1% (2025); math 44.6% → 49.8%; graduation 95.5% (2025). Both districts beat state growth. [^5][^3]\n- July 2023: her board adopted a policy requiring staff to tell parents within three days if a student asked to change name/pronouns or use facilities or sports that didn't match their birth-certificate gender. AG Bonta sued; a judge blocked parts of it (Oct 2023) and later ruled it violated the state constitution's equal protection clause (Sept 2024). The board replaced it with a gender-neutral records-change notice. A state law in effect since Jan 1, 2025 (SAFETY Act, AB 1955) now bans such policies. [^6]\n- In 2023 she presided over the meeting where then-Supt. Thurmond was escorted out; she accused him of \"perverting children.\" Tore up a cease-and-desist letter from a transgender athlete's mother at a board meeting. [^5][^4]\n- Opposes policies allowing transgender athletes in girls' sports; wants a return to academic basics. Endorsed by CA Republican Party, Moms for Liberty, California Rifle and Pistol Association. [^5][^4]\n\n### Job-applicant read\nBoth point to real test-score gains in their districts. Barrera has two decades of board governance of a large district plus labor and state-department experience; Shaw has a few years on a mid-size board, with a record defined by high-profile culture-war fights and a policy courts found unconstitutional.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SoS, certified candidate list (Nov 3, 2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^2]: EdSource on Barrera. https://edsource.org/2026/richard-barrera-california-education-superintendent/756001\n[^3]: EdSource / LA School Report (Oct 15, 2026). https://www.laschoolreport.com/shaw-and-barrera-offer-starkly-different-visions-for-california-schools/\n[^4]: CalMatters SPI guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/superintendent-of-public-instruction/\n[^5]: EdSource on Shaw. https://edsource.org/2026/sonja-shaw-california-superintendent-candidate/756133\n[^6]: Spectrum News (Mar 19, 2025). https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/education/2025/03/19/parental-notification-policy-chino-valley-\n"},{"id":"local-county","kind":"local","title":"San Bernardino County (countywide) (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/county","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-county.md","contests":[{"id":"county--measure-i-make-the-half-cent-transportat","label":"County Measure I","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"county--county-superintendent-of-schools","label":"County Superintendent of Schools","options":["Cali Binks","Alejandro \"Alex\" Vara"]},{"id":"county--county-board-of-education-area-b-west-va","label":"County Board of Education, Area B (west valley only)","options":["Rita Fernandez-Loof (incumbent)","Miki R. Inbody","Kimberly L. Watson"]}],"markdown":"# San Bernardino County (countywide) (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/county\n\n- title: San Bernardino County (countywide)\n- type: county\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure I** makes the county's half-cent transportation sales tax **permanent**, 14 years before it expires. It raises about **$250M a year** now, and the extension is projected at **~$7.5B over its first 30 years**. It needs **two-thirds**. [^1][^2]\n- **County Superintendent of Schools** is an open seat: **Cali Binks** (Yucaipa-Calimesa superintendent since 2013) vs. **Alex Vara** (34 years at Rialto Unified, Redlands school board 2016–2024). [^3][^4]\n- Most county offices were **settled in June** and aren't on this ballot: District Attorney (Jason Anderson), Sheriff (Shannon Dicus), Assessor (Josie Gonzales), Auditor-Controller/Treasurer (Ryan Hutchison), and Supervisors in Districts 2 (Jesse Armendarez) and 4 (Curt Hagman). [^5]\n- **Supervisor Curt Hagman's home was searched by the FBI on July 28**, in the same investigation that reached Ontario's airport. He hasn't been charged and has stayed in office. He isn't on this ballot. [^6]\n\n## Measure I: Make the half-cent transportation sales tax permanent\n**What it does:** Continues the 1/2-cent transportation sales tax (first passed in 1989, extended in 2004) past its March 31, 2040 end date, **with no new end date**. Money is limited to streets, highways, freeways, transit and transportation technology; administration is capped at 1%; the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee continues. **Needs two-thirds.** [^1]\n\n**Track record**\n| Measure I | Years | Revenue | Notes |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Original (1989) | 1990–2010 | — | First half-cent tax |\n| Renewal (2004) | 2010–2040 | ~$250M a year now | Some cities borrowed against future revenue |\n| **2026 extension** | 2040 → no end date | ~$7.5B in the first 30 years | Valley split: 50% regional projects, 25% local streets, 25% operations; 1% admin cap; oversight committee continues |\n[^2][^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** The ordinance was adopted by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), \"along with a resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors.\" [^1] Supporters say the tax has drawn nearly **$3B in state and federal matching money**. Critics point to **$150.9M in bond debt** in 2025, interest costs, and the I-10 Express Lanes toll project (**$929M of SBCTA money**). [^7][^8]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Road and transit funding is a permanent need, and this money stays local and restricted. The cost is giving up the leverage of a renewal vote, which is how voters normally hold the agency accountable. Nothing forces a vote now; the tax runs until 2040 either way.\n\n**Both sides:** For: SBCTA and most city councils (Redlands voted to back it). Against: no organized campaign found; the SB County Sentinel has criticized SBCTA's spending.\n\n## County Superintendent of Schools\nJob: heads the county office of education, whose duties include \"teacher certification, school safety inspections.\" Nonpartisan. [^3]\n\n### Cali Binks\n- **Key findings:** Superintendent of Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified since 2013; 36 years in education. **June primary: 38.8%.** [^3][^4]\n- Reportedly endorsed by the San Bernardino County Republican Party. [^4]\n\n### Alejandro \"Alex\" Vara\n- **Key findings:** 34 years at Rialto Unified (aide, teacher, principal); Redlands Unified board member 2016–2024. **June primary: 31.3%.** [^3][^4]\n- Read: Binks has run two districts as superintendent. Vara has school-site and board experience but hasn't run a district or county office.\n\n## County Board of Education, Area B (west valley only)\nJob: approves the county office of education's budget and hears charter-school and student expulsion appeals. It doesn't run local districts. **Only voters in Area B see this race**: parts of the west valley, including Chino and southwest Rancho Cucamonga. Areas A and D were uncontested, so those elections were canceled. [^9][^5]\n\n### Rita Fernandez-Loof (incumbent)\n- Ballot designation \"Trustee / Engineer / Parent.\" [^9] I found no campaign site or coverage of her board record; the county board's minutes would show it.\n\n### Miki R. Inbody\n- **Key findings:** 30+ years in public education, including as a county education administrator. **Superintendent of Fontana Unified** since the 2022-23 school year, with retirement announced for December 2026. Endorsed by San Bernardino teachers' groups. [^9][^10][^11]\n\n### Kimberly L. Watson\n- \"Retired educator.\" [^9] I found no other reporting.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure I impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/County/IA_SBCTA.pdf\n[^2]: Redlands Community News, council backs Measure I continuation. https://redlandscommunitynews.com/news/council-backs-measure-i-continuation-plan-for-2026-ballot/article_680c400a-a50a-4ea3-95cb-abf4340ca1c7.html\n[^3]: The Ballot Brief, County Superintendent. https://theballotbrief.com/state/california/san-bernardino-county/superintendent-of-schools\n[^4]: Desert Trumpet, Morongo Basin candidate list (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/local-elections-the-morongo-basin\n[^5]: Ballotpedia, San Bernardino County municipal elections (2026): ,_California_(2026). https://ballotpedia.org/Municipal_elections_in_San_Bernardino_County\n[^6]: KVCR, FBI search fallout (Aug 11, 2026). https://www.kvcrnews.org/local-news/2026-08-11/fbi-search-fallout-in-san-bernardino-county-shakes-up-ontario-elections\n[^7]: Measure I argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/County/AF_SBCTA.pdf\n[^8]: SB County Sentinel, Measure I interest payments (Apr 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/04/sbcta-still-squanders-measure-i-tax-revenue-on-interest-payments/\n[^9]: The Ballot Brief, County Board of Education Area B. https://theballotbrief.com/state/california/san-bernardino-county/board-of-education-area-b\n[^10]: Fontana Herald News, Fontana's superintendent retires after 35 years (July 14, 2026). https://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/news/fontana-s-superintendent-retires-after-35-years/article_7ab0e7b6-30da-4191-bd38-12229f4e646e.html\n[^11]: SBTA endorsement list (2026). https://sbta.info/documents/2026_Election_Endorsements_SB_County_2.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-adelanto","kind":"local","title":"Adelanto (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/adelanto","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-adelanto.md","contests":[{"id":"adelanto--measure-p-one-cent-sales-tax-for-the-gen","label":"Adelanto: Measure P","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"adelanto--mayor","label":"Adelanto: Mayor","options":["Gabriel Reyes (incumbent)","Stevevonna Evans (councilmember)","Ronald Beard"]},{"id":"adelanto--city-council-two-seats","label":"Adelanto: City Council (two seats)","options":["Angelo Meza (incumbent)","Amanda Uptergrove (incumbent)","Jayshawn Johnson","Edward C. Reyes","Taisha Brown"]}],"markdown":"# Adelanto (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/adelanto\n\n- title: Adelanto\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Adelanto\n- region: High Desert\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure P** is a permanent **1-cent sales tax**, about **$3M a year** for the general fund, with an annual independent audit. The city says it has **one fire station covering 55 square miles** and more than **$100M in unfunded street projects**. [^1][^2]\n- **History matters here.** Former Mayor Richard Kerr was sentenced in 2023 to 14 months in federal prison for taking more than **$57,000 in cannabis-related bribes**. Former Mayor Pro Tem Jermaine Wright got **5 years** in 2022 for bribery and attempted arson. [^3][^4]\n- Voters rejected a vacant-land parcel tax in March 2024 (**34.8% yes**; it needed two-thirds). Adelanto has the **lowest per-capita income** in the county, $17,799. [^5]\n- **Mayor:** incumbent **Gabriel Reyes** faces Councilmember **Stevevonna Evans** and **Ronald Beard**. The live issue is a proposal to zone large parts of the city for **data centers**, which the Planning Commission rejected 3–2 in August after **47 of 59 speakers** opposed it. [^6][^7]\n\n## Measure P: One-cent sales tax for the general fund\n**What it does:** 1% sales and use tax starting April 1, 2027, with no end date. It's a general tax, so the money can go to any city purpose; the city lists streets, storm drains, parks, fire and paramedics, policing and homelessness. A CPA audits it every year and the results are posted online. Groceries, prescriptions and diapers are exempt. [^1][^2]\n\n**Track record**\n| Year | Revenue attempt | Result |\n|---|---|---|\n| ~2016–2018 | Courting cannabis businesses as a revenue base | 2+ dozen operations; the Sentinel reports little tax collected; two officials later convicted of bribery |\n| Mar 2024 | Measure U vacant-land parcel tax (~$6.2M/yr, 20 years) | Failed, 34.8% yes |\n| **2026** | **Measure P** 1-cent sales tax | ~$3M a year |\n[^6][^4][^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** The Yes argument names no signers. I found no organized opposition filing. [^2]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** The service gaps are real. But in a city with this history, the annual audit is the main safeguard, and it's a city-hired CPA reporting to the council, not an independent citizens' committee.\n\n## Mayor\n### Gabriel Reyes (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Current mayor. After the Planning Commission rejected the data-center zoning, he called for removing its chair, who had voted for it. [^6]\n\n### Stevevonna Evans (councilmember)\n- Sitting councilmember running against Reyes. Evans wants the planning commission chair removed from the commission entirely. [^6]\n\n### Ronald Beard\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate. [^7]\n\n## City Council (two seats)\nGoodParty lists these candidates; its list may be incomplete, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Angelo Meza (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember. [^6][^7]\n\n### Amanda Uptergrove (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember. [^6][^7]\n\n### Jayshawn Johnson\n- Planning commissioner who **voted against** recommending the data-center zoning in August 2026. [^6]\n\n### Edward C. Reyes\n- Filed for council, per the SB County Sentinel's list at the close of filing. I found no independent reporting on this candidate. [^6]\n\n### Taisha Brown\n- Filed for council, per the same list. I found no independent reporting on this candidate. [^6]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: City Attorney, Measure P impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofAdelanto/IA_CityofAdelanto.pdf\n[^2]: Measure P argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofAdelanto/AIF_CityofAdelanto.pdf\n[^3]: Ganjapreneur, Kerr sentenced (Aug 2023). https://ganjapreneur.com/former-adelanto-california-mayor-sentenced-to-14-months-for-cannabis-related-bribes/\n[^4]: U.S. Attorney's Office, Wright sentenced (Oct 3, 2022). https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-adelanto-mayor-pro-tem-sentenced-5-years-prison-accepting-bribe-and-attempting\n[^5]: SB County Sentinel, parcel tax rejected (Mar 2024). https://sbcsentinel.com/2024/03/unknown-actor-or-actors/\n[^6]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^7]: GoodParty, Adelanto mayor candidates. https://goodparty.org/elections/ca/san-bernardino-county/adelanto/position/city-executive-mayor/candidates\n[^8]: SB County Sentinel, data center zones (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/resident-mistrust-of-city-council-at-a-fever-pitch-as-adelanto-mulls-data-center-zones/\n[^9]: GoodParty, Adelanto council candidates. https://goodparty.org/elections/ca/san-bernardino-county/adelanto/position/city-legislature/candidates\n"},{"id":"local-apple-valley","kind":"local","title":"Apple Valley (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/apple-valley","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-apple-valley.md","contests":[{"id":"apple-valley--mayor","label":"Apple Valley: Mayor","options":["Scott Nassif (incumbent)","David Dencker","Robert Lucero","Angelita Valles"]},{"id":"apple-valley--council-district-3","label":"Apple Valley: Council District 3","options":["Kari Leon (incumbent)","Ted Bohanon","Evaggelia Markov"]},{"id":"apple-valley--council-district-4","label":"Apple Valley: Council District 4","options":["Curt Emick (incumbent)","Brian Cochrane","Matthew Rutledge"]}],"markdown":"# Apple Valley (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/apple-valley\n\n- title: Apple Valley\n- type: town\n- jurisdiction: Town of Apple Valley\n- region: High Desert\n\n## Key findings\n- **Mayor:** incumbent **Scott Nassif** (unopposed in 2024) faces **David Dencker, Robert Lucero and Angelita Valles**. [^1][^2]\n- **Both council incumbents face two challengers.** District 3: Kari Leon vs. Ted Bohanon and Evaggelia Markov. District 4: Curt Emick vs. Brian Cochrane and Matthew Rutledge. [^1]\n- Voters passed a **1-cent sales tax (Measure P) in 2024 with 64%**, and the town set up a citizens' oversight committee for it. How that money has been spent is the main record to ask the incumbents about. [^3][^2]\n\n## Mayor\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); a few late or withdrawn filings may differ, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Scott Nassif (incumbent)\n- Current mayor; the only mayoral candidate on the 2024 ballot. [^2]\n\n### David Dencker\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Robert Lucero\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Angelita Valles\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 3\n### Kari Leon (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember. [^1]\n\n### Ted Bohanon\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Evaggelia Markov\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 4\n### Curt Emick (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember. [^1]\n\n### Brian Cochrane\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Matthew Rutledge\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^2]: Town of Apple Valley, elections. https://applevalley.org/services/town-clerk/elections\n[^3]: CaliforniaCityFinance, Nov 2024 local measure results. https://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2411final.pdf\n[^4]: Town of Apple Valley, Measure P oversight committee first meeting. https://applevalley.org/town-of-apple-valleys-measure-p-oversight-committee-holds-first-meeting/\n"},{"id":"local-barstow","kind":"local","title":"Barstow (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/barstow","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-barstow.md","contests":[{"id":"barstow--council-district-1","label":"Barstow: Council District 1","options":["Sonia Compton","Valerie Lee","Kelly M. Parker"]},{"id":"barstow--council-district-2","label":"Barstow: Council District 2","options":["James Noble (incumbent)","Latron Lester"]}],"markdown":"# Barstow (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/barstow\n\n- title: Barstow\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Barstow\n- region: High Desert\n\n## Key findings\n- **District 1 is open** (Carmen Hernandez isn't running): Sonia Compton, Valerie Lee and Kelly M. Parker. **District 2:** incumbent James Noble faces Latron Lester. [^1]\n- **Measure C**, a Barstow Community College District bond, is on the same ballot (see school districts).\n- I found almost no independent reporting on these candidates. The county voter guide's candidate statements are the best source.\n\n## Council District 1\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); a few late or withdrawn filings may differ, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Sonia Compton\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Valerie Lee\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Kelly M. Parker\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 2\n### James Noble (incumbent)\n- Current councilman. [^1]\n\n### Latron Lester\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n"},{"id":"local-big-bear-lake","kind":"local","title":"Big Bear Lake (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/big-bear-lake","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-big-bear-lake.md","contests":[{"id":"big-bear-lake--council-district-2","label":"Big Bear Lake: Council District 2","options":["Sonia Ibarra","Kara Flietstra"]},{"id":"big-bear-lake--council-district-3","label":"Big Bear Lake: Council District 3","options":["Ernie Mendoza","Michael Beveridge"]},{"id":"big-bear-lake--council-district-4","label":"Big Bear Lake: Council District 4","options":["Suzy Gilleon","Cody Lewis"]}],"markdown":"# Big Bear Lake (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/big-bear-lake\n\n- title: Big Bear Lake\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Big Bear Lake\n- region: Mountains\n\n## Key findings\n- **Three open seats; no incumbents running.** District 2 (Rick Herrick leaving): Sonia Ibarra vs. Kara Flietstra. District 3 (Randall Putz leaving): Ernie Mendoza vs. Michael Beveridge. District 4 (Perri Melnick leaving): Suzy Gilleon vs. Cody Lewis. [^1]\n- A majority of the five-member council will be new. The long-running fight is **short-term vacation rentals**: residents put a rental-limit initiative on the 2022 ballot over the council's objections. [^2]\n- Departing Councilman Randall Putz appears on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for **Assembly District 34**. [^3]\n- The **San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital bond (Measure Q)** and the **Rim of the World parks parcel tax (Measure R)** cover other mountain communities (see districts).\n\n## Council District 2\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); a few late or withdrawn filings may differ, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Sonia Ibarra\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Kara Flietstra\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 3\n### Ernie Mendoza\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Michael Beveridge\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 4\n### Suzy Gilleon\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Cody Lewis\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^2]: SB County Sentinel, residents' rental initiative (May 2022). https://sbcsentinel.com/2022/05/big-bear-residents-seize-authority-from-city-council/\n[^3]: KVCR voter guide. https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^4]: SB County Sentinel, tourism and rentals in the 2022 race (Oct 2022). https://sbcsentinel.com/2022/10/tourism-regulations-a-factor-in-2022-big-bear-lake-election/\n"},{"id":"local-chino","kind":"local","title":"Chino (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-chino.md","contests":[{"id":"chino--measure-f-business-license-tax-based-on-","label":"Chino: Measure F","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"chino--council-district-2","label":"Chino: Council District 2","options":["Curtis Burton (incumbent)","Jimmy Alexandris"]},{"id":"chino--council-district-3","label":"Chino: Council District 3","options":["Marc Lucio (incumbent)","M S Alam"]}],"markdown":"# Chino (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino\n\n- title: Chino\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Chino\n- region: West Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure F** replaces a roughly **40-year-old business tax capped at $1,250** with a gross-receipts tax. The city says its **top 100 businesses report 65% of gross receipts but pay only 12%** of business tax. It's projected at about **$4.8M a year**. [^1]\n- About **56% of Chino's 4,656 businesses** would pay a flat $25. Large ones, including logistics, would pay up to $1.50 per $1,000 of receipts. [^1]\n- **Both council incumbents on the ballot are retired police officers** elected in 2022: Curtis Burton (District 2) and Marc Lucio (District 3). Their challengers have little public record. [^2][^3]\n\n## Measure F: Business license tax based on gross receipts\n**What it does:** Businesses with $75,000 or less in gross receipts pay a flat **$25**. Above that, per $1,000 of receipts over $75,000: retail **$0.60**, contractors and services **$1.00**, professional and rental **$1.50**. These are maximum rates that only voters can raise. It's a general tax (simple majority). The city lists police, streets and drinking-water protection as uses, but **the measure doesn't legally restrict spending**. [^2]\n\n**Track record**\n| | Current system | Measure F |\n|---|---|---|\n| Structure | Receipts schedules, employee counts and old categories | Rate per $1,000 of receipts by category |\n| Maximum | **$1,250** a year | No cap stated |\n| Who pays most | Small and midsize businesses, relative to size | Largest businesses |\n| Revenue | Not stated | ~$4.8M a year |\n[^1][^2]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** The council voted unanimously to place it. The city is spending **$132K** on the election and **$100K** on outreach. Councilmember Karen Comstock argued that heavy-truck businesses should pay for road wear. The city promises annual audits and public reports. [^1]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** It ties the tax to business size, which the current $1,250 cap doesn't. The open question is whether the city will publish what each category pays today. Without that, voters can't see the exact shift.\n\n## Council District 2\n### Curtis Burton (incumbent)\n- Elected 2022; mayor pro tem since 2025. Retired from the Chino Police Department in 2016 after serving as its first school resource officer. Former planning commissioner; 30+ years in Chino. [^2]\n\n### Jimmy Alexandris\n- Challenger. I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 3\n### Marc Lucio (incumbent)\n- Elected 2022. Retired police captain (26 years); criminology degree from La Verne and a USC master's in executive leadership; in Chino since 2003. [^2]\n\n### M S Alam\n- Challenger. I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Chino Champion, business license tax placed on ballot. https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_00788988-40f1-4240-8856-91441b2bebd8.html\n[^2]: City Attorney, Measure F impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofChino/IA_CityofChino.pdf\n[^3]: Chino Champion, candidates file (Aug 15, 2026). https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_6c34ad71-9977-4430-ab4f-755a31860602.html\n[^4]: City of Chino, Curtis Burton. https://cityofchino.org/directory.aspx?EID=49\n[^5]: City of Chino, Marc Lucio. https://cityofchino.org/directory.aspx?EID=38\n"},{"id":"local-chino-hills","kind":"local","title":"Chino Hills (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-hills","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-chino-hills.md","contests":[{"id":"chino-hills--measure-j-one-cent-sales-tax-for-the-gen","label":"Chino Hills: Measure J","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"chino-hills--council-district-2","label":"Chino Hills: Council District 2","options":["Peter Rogers (incumbent)","Shanita Ayala"]},{"id":"chino-hills--council-district-4","label":"Chino Hills: Council District 4","options":["Brian Johsz (incumbent, current mayor)","Josue Estrada"]},{"id":"chino-hills--council-district-1","label":"Chino Hills: Council District 1","options":["Ray Marquez (incumbent)"]}],"markdown":"# Chino Hills (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-hills\n\n- title: Chino Hills\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Chino Hills\n- region: West Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure J** is a permanent **1-cent sales tax** (7.75% → 8.75%), about **$11.5M a year** for the general fund. That's roughly a 19% boost to a $59.2M general fund. [^1][^2]\n- **The city's case:** a projected **$4.3M deficit** this year, covered by reserves; reserves of about **$25M** that would run out in 3–5 years; a **$4.7M** yearly subsidy to the landscape and lighting districts; and a sheriff contract that went from **$18.3M to $21M**. [^2]\n- **Opponents' case:** the city ended the last three years with surpluses, and its general fund balance is about **61% of spending**, more than three times the Government Finance Officers Association benchmark. [^3]\n- The council commissioned a voter survey (FM3) on a tax but **didn't release the results**, since contracts under $50K don't need a council vote. [^2]\n- **Mayor Brian Johsz and Councilman Peter Rogers face challengers.** Ray Marquez (District 1) is unopposed. [^4]\n\n## Measure J: One-cent sales tax for the general fund\n**What it does:** Adds 1% to the sales tax until voters repeal it; the council can suspend it. It's a general tax (simple majority) with no restriction on spending. The council lists police, wildfire prevention (more than 80% of the city is high fire risk), streets and parks. [^1][^2]\n\n**Track record**\n| Item | Figure |\n|---|---|\n| FY 2026-27 general fund | $59.2M in, $63.5M out (−$4.3M) |\n| Unrestricted reserves | ~$25.4M |\n| Landscape and lighting district subsidy | $4.7M a year |\n| Sheriff contract | $18.3M → $21M |\n| Measure J revenue | ~$11.5M a year |\n[^2][^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** All five council members signed the only Yes argument. Three No arguments were filed and the city clerk drew one by lot (Bill Shannon's), so the others, including one criticizing staff salaries, aren't in the voter guide. The council says **64% of the city's sales tax is paid by visitors**. [^3][^5]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** The main structural gap is the landscape district: homeowners in some areas pay an assessment that no longer covers costs, and the general fund makes up the difference. Measure J would cover that gap with a citywide tax instead of fixing the assessment.\n\n## Council District 2\n### Peter Rogers (incumbent)\n- Current council member; signed the Yes argument on Measure J. [^2]\n\n### Shanita Ayala\n- Challenger. I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 4\n### Brian Johsz (incumbent, current mayor)\n- Appointed to the council in 2017 to replace Peter Graham, then elected; serves as the rotating mayor. Signed the Yes argument on Measure J. [^5][^2]\n\n### Josue Estrada\n- Challenger. I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 1\n### Ray Marquez (incumbent)\n- Unopposed. He has said the city \"tap[s] into the reserves every year.\" [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure J impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofChinoHills/IA_ChinoHills.pdf\n[^2]: Chino Champion, sales tax discussion (June 2026). https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_e1e3b780-3591-42ad-b249-fcc7c06f6052.html\n[^3]: Chino Champion, ballot arguments drawn (Aug 22, 2026). https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_95e053df-08e7-41e4-8d0e-1d963a08df1b.html\n[^4]: Chino Champion, candidates file (Aug 15, 2026). https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_6c34ad71-9977-4430-ab4f-755a31860602.html\n[^5]: SB County Sentinel, Johsz appointed (Aug 2017). https://sbcsentinel.com/2017/08/chino-hills-solons-settle-on-johsz-as-council-replacement-for-graham/\n[^6]: Measure J argument against. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofChinoHills/AA_ChinoHills.pdf\n[^7]: Chino Champion, council agrees to agenda tax (June 13, 2026). https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_ebba2bbf-ddf0-410b-b5b7-ea6609aa11ec.html\n[^8]: SB County Sentinel, anti-tax argument dropped (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/chino-hills-officials-jettison-anti-taxballot-argument-that-decries-high-city-staff-salaries/\n"},{"id":"local-colton","kind":"local","title":"Colton (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/colton","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-colton.md","contests":[{"id":"colton--measure-o-appointed-city-treasurer","label":"Colton: Measure O","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"colton--mayor","label":"Colton: Mayor","options":["Frank Navarro (incumbent)","John Echevarria"]},{"id":"colton--council-district-3","label":"Colton: Council District 3","options":["Luis S. González (incumbent)","Eugene Valdez"]},{"id":"colton--council-district-4","label":"Colton: Council District 4","options":["Drianna Escarcega","Joseph Paulino","Lawrence \"Larry\" Rivas"]}],"markdown":"# Colton (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/colton\n\n- title: Colton\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Colton\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Mayor:** incumbent **Frank Navarro** (won with 77% in 2018 and 69% in 2022) faces **Councilman John Echevarria**, a San Bernardino police lieutenant. Echevarria gives up his council seat if he loses. [^1]\n- **The trash contract is the main record difference.** In 2024 the council extended CR&R's trash franchise to **2037 without competitive bidding**, 3–2. Echevarria voted yes; Navarro voted no. CR&R gave Echevarria **$1,497.50** in Dec 2022. [^1] The Sentinel argues that may have triggered state donor-recusal rules; no agency has made that finding.\n- **Measure O** would make the **city treasurer appointed instead of elected**, starting in 2028. Today the only qualification is living in Colton. [^2][^3]\n\n## Measure O: Appointed city treasurer\n**What it does:** The council appoints the treasurer, sets minimum education and training standards, and reviews performance. It takes effect when the current term ends in November 2028. If it fails, the office stays elected. [^2]\n\n**Track record:** Colton has already cut its council from 7 to 5 members and has considered ending the elected city clerk. [^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** Signed for by Councilmember Luis S. González and Aurelio De La Torre, a former Colton city treasurer. I found no filed argument against. [^3]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Most California cities appoint their treasurer, so this is mainstream. The trade-off is one fewer independently elected official watching the city's money.\n\n## Mayor\n### Frank Navarro (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Mayor since 2018; councilman from 2012 and planning commissioner before that. Founded the watchdog group Citizens for Colton First. [^1]\n- Voted against the no-bid CR&R extension. [^1]\n\n### John Echevarria\n- **Key findings:** District 4 councilman since 2020; San Bernardino police lieutenant. [^1]\n- **Votes:** for the 2024 no-bid CR&R extension; for consolidating council stipends and car allowances into **$1,600 a month** (effective Dec 2026); for removing a two-year wait before former elected officials can be appointed to city boards. [^1]\n- **Money:** $39,848 cash on hand at the last report, ahead of Navarro. CR&R gave him $1,497.50 in 2022. [^1]\n- Caveat: the Sentinel, the main outlet covering this race, is openly critical of him.\n\n## Council District 3\nGoodParty lists these candidates; its list may be incomplete, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Luis S. González (incumbent)\n- Councilmember and utility commissioner; signed the Yes argument for Measure O. [^3][^4]\n\n### Eugene Valdez\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 4\nOpen seat, since Echevarria is running for mayor. GoodParty lists these candidates; its list may be incomplete.\n\n### Drianna Escarcega\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Joseph Paulino\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Lawrence \"Larry\" Rivas\n- Named as a filer by the SB County Sentinel. I found no other reporting. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^2]: City Attorney, Measure O impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofColton/IA_CityofColton.pdf\n[^3]: Measure O argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofColton/AIF_CityofColton.pdf\n[^4]: GoodParty, Colton council candidates. https://goodparty.org/elections/ca/san-bernardino-county/colton/position/city-legislature/candidates\n[^5]: SB County Sentinel, Echevarria runs for mayor (Mar 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/?p=37062\n[^6]: SB County Sentinel, Echevarria and Chastain weigh runs (2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/?p=37502\n[^7]: SB County Sentinel, Colton council and clerk changes. https://sbcsentinel.com/?p=29241\n"},{"id":"local-fontana","kind":"local","title":"Fontana (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/fontana","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-fontana.md","contests":[{"id":"fontana--mayor","label":"Fontana: Mayor","options":["Acquanetta Warren (incumbent)","Joz Sida"]},{"id":"fontana--council-district-4","label":"Fontana: Council District 4","options":["John Roberts (incumbent)","Ben Vasquez","Luz Perez","Rayman Martinez","Karen Contreras"]},{"id":"fontana--council-district-1","label":"Fontana: Council District 1","options":["Phillip Cothran (incumbent)","Nubia Diaz"]}],"markdown":"# Fontana (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/fontana\n\n- title: Fontana\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Fontana\n- region: West Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Mayor Acquanetta Warren (since 2010) faces Joz Sida**, a Democratic Socialist endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who leads a progressive slate running for council and treasurer. [^1]\n- **Warehouses are the record to judge.** Fontana approved several dozen warehouses totaling about **16 million sq ft** in south Fontana over five years. In 2021 the state Attorney General **sued the city** over a 205,000 sq ft warehouse next to Jurupa Hills High School. The 2022 settlement produced what the AG called some of the strictest warehouse rules in California. [^2]\n- In a 2023 enforcement sweep, the regional air district found **more than 49% of Fontana's warehouses** in violation of at least one air rule. [^3]\n- Voters approved a **1-cent sales tax (Measure T) in 2024 with 51.5%**. [^4]\n- In 2023 the council cracked down on street vendors, then passed a ban on protests within **300 feet of a home** after protesters showed up at the mayor's house. [^1]\n\n## Mayor\nSeven candidates filed: Acquanetta Warren (incumbent), Jocelyn \"Joz\" Sida, Mylinda Carrillo, Salvador Casillas, Lourdes Goni Garcia, Jaqueline Heredia and Nicholas Ortega. Warren and Sida are the two with a real campaign in the coverage I found. [^3][^1]\n\n### Acquanetta Warren (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Mayor since 2010, the city's first Black mayor. Credited with Fontana's economic growth, largely through logistics. [^1]\n- **Warehouses:** Calls them \"economic advancement.\" Her nickname among critics is \"Warehouse Warren.\" The 2021 state lawsuit and the 2022 settlement (new citywide warehouse standards; $210K from developer Duke Realty for school buffers and air filters for up to 1,750 homes) happened on her watch. [^2][^3]\n- **Street vendors and protests:** Led the 2023 vendor crackdown (\"now it's time to grab a couple of hammers. Done.\") and backed the 300-foot residential picketing ban. [^1]\n- **Endorsements:** the region's two largest carpenters' unions and Teamsters Local 1932, which represents county workers and Amazon warehouse workers. [^1]\n\n### Joz Sida\n- **Key findings:** 37; moved to Fontana as a teenager; lost a school board race in 2012; spent about a decade organizing progressive campaigns elsewhere (reproductive and immigrant rights) before moving back from Chicago in 2023. No elected experience. [^1]\n- Platform: more public input at City Hall, ending the vendor crackdown, and stopping warehouses near schools. Endorsed by Bernie Sanders. [^1]\n\n## Council District 4\n### John Roberts (incumbent)\n- Re-elected in 2022. The Sentinel calls him the county's longest continuously serving local elected official. [^5][^3]\n\n### Ben Vasquez\n- On Sida's progressive slate. [^1]\n\n### Luz Perez\n- Listed as a candidate by GoodParty and Run for Something. I found no independent reporting.\n\n### Rayman Martinez\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate. [^3]\n\n### Karen Contreras\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate. [^3]\n\n## Council District 1\n### Phillip Cothran (incumbent)\n- Re-elected in 2022. [^5]\n\n### Nubia Diaz\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate. [^3]\n\n## City Clerk and City Treasurer\n- Both offices are on the ballot this year; the treasurer race includes a candidate from Sida's slate. [^6][^1] I couldn't confirm the full candidate lists from public sources.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: KQED, progressive challenge to Fontana's mayor (Oct 2026). https://www.kqed.org/news/12105710/progressive-candidate-challenge-fontanas-longtime-mayor\n[^2]: CA Attorney General, Fontana settlement (Apr 18, 2022). https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-innovative-settlement-city-fontana-address\n[^3]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^4]: CaliforniaCityFinance, Nov 2024 local measure results. https://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2411final.pdf\n[^5]: Fontana Herald News, Cothran and Roberts re-elected (Nov 2022). https://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/news/election-phillip-cothran-and-john-roberts-are-reelected-to-fontana-city-council/article_26bf8c5e-5fea-11ed-ab7b-8f0988bc415f.html\n[^6]: SB County ROV, offices up for election. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Report_OfficesUpForElection.pdf\n[^7]: SB County Sentinel, \"Warehouse Warren\" (Apr 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/04/facing-environmentalists-fontana-mayor-still-standing-proud-as-warehouse-warre/\n[^8]: GoodParty, Fontana council candidates. https://goodparty.org/elections/ca/san-bernardino-county/fontana/position/city-legislature/candidates\n"},{"id":"local-grand-terrace","kind":"local","title":"Grand Terrace (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/grand-terrace","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-grand-terrace.md","contests":[{"id":"grand-terrace--measure-n-one-cent-sales-tax-for-general","label":"Grand Terrace: Measure N","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"grand-terrace--mayor","label":"Grand Terrace: Mayor","options":["Bill Hussey (incumbent)"]},{"id":"grand-terrace--city-council","label":"Grand Terrace: City Council","options":["Doug Wilson (incumbent)","Jeremy Briggs"]}],"markdown":"# Grand Terrace (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/grand-terrace\n\n- title: Grand Terrace\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Grand Terrace\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure N is a second try.** It's a permanent 1-cent sales tax for about **$1.2M a year**. Voters rejected a nearly identical tax (Measure M) in 2024, **48.2% to 51.8%**, a margin of 195 votes. [^1][^2]\n- **Nobody filed arguments for or against Measure N**, so the voter guide has none. [^1]\n- New this time: an **advisory committee** would review revenue, spending and audits and report to the council once a year. Groceries and prescriptions stay exempt. [^1]\n- **Mayor Bill Hussey and Councilman Doug Wilson are running again.** Jeremy Briggs filed for the council seat. [^3]\n\n## Measure N: One-cent sales tax for general services\n**What it does:** A 1% sales tax, added to the current 7.75%, for the general fund. Revenue is unrestricted; the city lists law enforcement, non-emergency calls and general services. Placed on the ballot July 28, 2026. No end date is stated. [^1]\n\n**Track record**\n| Year | Measure | Rate | Revenue | Result |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 2024 | Measure M | 1 cent | ~$1.0M a year | **Failed, 48.2%** |\n| **2026** | **Measure N** | 1 cent | ~$1.2M a year | — |\n[^2][^4]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** No ballot arguments on either side, and I found no campaign committees reported. Councilmember Doug Wilson, who is on the ballot this year, wrote an op-ed for it. [^5]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Grand Terrace is one of the smallest cities in the county, and $1.2M is a meaningful share of its budget. The city hasn't published a deficit figure for this measure in the sources I found, so voters are left to judge need from the 2024 campaign.\n\n## Mayor\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); check your sample ballot.\n\n### Bill Hussey (incumbent)\n- Current mayor. [^1][^3]\n\n## City Council\n### Doug Wilson (incumbent)\n- On the council since 2014; ran that year on his building and planning experience. Wrote in support of Measure N. [^6][^5]\n\n### Jeremy Briggs\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate. [^3]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure N impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofGrandTerrace/IA_GT.pdf\n[^2]: Ballotpedia, Grand Terrace Measure M (2024): ,_California,_Measure_M,_Public_Safety_Services_Sales_Tax_Measure_(November_2024). https://ballotpedia.org/Grand_Terrace\n[^3]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^4]: County Counsel, 2024 Measure M impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2024/1105/Measures/GrandTerrace/IA_GrandTerrace.pdf\n[^5]: City News Group, county ballot takes shape (Aug 2026). https://www.citynewsgroup.com/articles/san-bernardino-countys-november-ballot-takes-shape-as-candidates-and-local-measures-move-forward\n[^6]: SB County Sentinel, Wilson's first council run (Sept 2014). https://sbcsentinel.com/2014/09/wilson-seeking-to-bring-his-building-and-planning-savvy-to-gt-council/\n[^7]: City of Grand Terrace, elections. https://grandterrace.hosted.civiclive.com/departments/city_clerk_s_office/elections\n"},{"id":"local-hesperia","kind":"local","title":"Hesperia (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/hesperia","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-hesperia.md","contests":[{"id":"hesperia--council-district-2","label":"Hesperia: Council District 2","options":["Allison Lee (incumbent)","Jessica Navarro","David Ellis"]},{"id":"hesperia--council-district-3","label":"Hesperia: Council District 3","options":["Cameron Gregg (incumbent)","Jacqueline Maheata Tahauri","Nando Monarrez"]},{"id":"hesperia--council-district-4","label":"Hesperia: Council District 4","options":["Erin Baum","Leticia Cisneros","Darrel Sauceda"]}],"markdown":"# Hesperia (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/hesperia\n\n- title: Hesperia\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Hesperia\n- region: High Desert\n\n## Key findings\n- **Three contested districts.** District 2: incumbent Allison Lee vs. Jessica Navarro and David Ellis. District 3: incumbent Cameron Gregg vs. Jacqueline Maheata Tahauri and Nando Monarrez. **District 4 is open** because appointed Mayor Brigit Bennington isn't running: Erin Baum, Leticia Cisneros and Darrel Sauceda. [^1][^2]\n- In 2022 Hesperia skipped its election entirely: two incumbents were unopposed and a third seat was filled by appointment. This year all three seats on the ballot are contested. [^3]\n\n## Council District 2\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); a few late or withdrawn filings may differ, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Allison Lee (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember; term 2023–2026. [^2]\n\n### Jessica Navarro\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### David Ellis\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 3\n### Cameron Gregg (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember; term 2023–2026. [^2]\n\n### Jacqueline Maheata Tahauri\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Nando Monarrez\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 4\nOpen seat.\n\n### Erin Baum\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Leticia Cisneros\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Darrel Sauceda\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^2]: GoodParty, Hesperia council candidates. https://goodparty.org/elections/ca/san-bernardino-county/hesperia/position/city-legislature/candidates\n[^3]: SB County Sentinel, Hesperia bypasses 2022 election. https://sbcsentinel.com/?p=24648\n"},{"id":"local-highland","kind":"local","title":"Highland (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/highland","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-highland.md","contests":[{"id":"highland--measure-e-one-cent-sales-tax-for-police-","label":"Highland: Measure E","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"highland--council-district-2","label":"Highland: Council District 2","options":["Jimmy Saldana (incumbent)"]},{"id":"highland--council-district-4","label":"Highland: Council District 4","options":["Jason Isaacs","Christy Marin"]}],"markdown":"# Highland (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/highland\n\n- title: Highland\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Highland\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure E** is a permanent **1-cent sales tax** (7.75% → 8.75%), about **$6.35M a year** for the general fund. [^1]\n- The city says it has balanced budgets by **delaying maintenance and infrastructure**, and projects spending will exceed revenue **starting in 2027**. [^2]\n- The signers include **Sheriff Shannon Dicus and Supervisor Dawn Rowe**. Highland's police service is a contract with the Sheriff's Department, so a large share of the money would flow to that contract. [^2]\n- **No argument against was filed.** [^3]\n- **Council:** District 2 incumbent **Jimmy Saldana is unopposed**. District 4 is a two-way race between **Jason Isaacs** and **Christy Marin**. [^4]\n\n## Measure E: One-cent sales tax for police, fire and roads\n**What it does:** Adds 1% to the sales tax until voters repeal it. It's a general tax (simple majority), so the listed uses aren't legally binding: police, fire and paramedic staffing, neighborhood patrols, code enforcement, and roads, including the **5th Street Corridor interchange**. Accountability comes through the normal budget and annual audit; **no citizens' oversight committee** is described. [^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** Signed for: Mayor Penny Lilburn, Sheriff Shannon Dicus, Fire Chief Liz Brown, Supervisor Dawn Rowe, and the Highland Area Chamber of Commerce. The Sheriff's Department is the city's contracted police provider. [^2]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** It addresses a projected gap and deferred road work. Because it's a general tax with no committee, voters have to rely on future councils to spend it as promised. Neighboring Yucaipa (60%) and Fontana (51.5%) passed similar 1-cent taxes in 2024. [^5]\n\n## Council District 2\n### Jimmy Saldana (incumbent)\n- Unopposed. [^4]\n\n## Council District 4\n### Jason Isaacs\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Christy Marin\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure E impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofHighland/IA_CityofHighland.pdf\n[^2]: Measure E argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofHighland/AIF_CityofHighland.pdf\n[^3]: SB County ROV, Nov 2026 measures. https://elections.sbcounty.gov/elections/2026/1103/measures/\n[^4]: City of Highland, elections. https://www.highlandca.gov/292/Elections\n[^5]: CaliforniaCityFinance, Nov 2024 local measure results. https://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2411final.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-loma-linda","kind":"local","title":"Loma Linda (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/loma-linda","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-loma-linda.md","contests":[],"markdown":"# Loma Linda (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/loma-linda\n\n- title: Loma Linda\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Loma Linda\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **No city races on the November ballot.** Loma Linda holds its council elections in June, and that election took place on June 2, 2026. [^1]\n- Your ballot still has the countywide races and Measure I, plus the school and water districts that serve your address.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n"},{"id":"local-montclair","kind":"local","title":"Montclair (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/montclair","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-montclair.md","contests":[{"id":"montclair--mayor","label":"Montclair: Mayor","options":["John Dutrey (incumbent)"]},{"id":"montclair--city-council-two-seats-at-large","label":"Montclair: City Council (two seats, at large)","options":["Bill Ruh (incumbent)","Corysa Martinez (incumbent, mayor pro tem)","Alice Garcia","Victor Mendez"]}],"markdown":"# Montclair (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/montclair\n\n- title: Montclair\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Montclair\n- region: West Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Mayor John Dutrey is running again.** He has been on the council or planning commission since about 1990 and has been mayor since 2018. I found no reported challenger. [^1]\n- **Two at-large council seats:** incumbents **Bill Ruh** and **Corysa Martinez** face **Alice Garcia** and **Victor Mendez**. [^1]\n- A **recall drive** against Councilman Ben Lopez, whose term runs to 2028, is collecting money, but it isn't on this ballot. [^2][^1]\n- Montclair's sales tax is already **9%**, the highest of any city in the county today. [^1]\n\n## Mayor\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); a few late or withdrawn filings may differ, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### John Dutrey (incumbent)\n- Ran for mayor in 2018 after 28 years on the council and planning commission. [^3]\n\n## City Council (two seats, at large)\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); a few late or withdrawn filings may differ, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Bill Ruh (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember; term ends Nov 2026. [^4]\n\n### Corysa Martinez (incumbent, mayor pro tem)\n- Current mayor pro tem; term ends Nov 2026. [^4]\n\n### Alice Garcia\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Victor Mendez\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^2]: Recall committee page (advocacy). https://givebutter.com/recall-ben-lopez-accountability-for-montclair-5rp4yz\n[^3]: SB County Sentinel, Dutrey seeks mayoralty (Sept 2018). https://sbcsentinel.com/2018/09/dutrey-seeking-montclair-mayoralty-after-28-years/\n[^4]: City of Montclair, Nov 3 2026 election. https://www.cityofmontclair.org/november-3-2026-general-municipal-election/\n[^5]: SB County Sentinel, Ontario seeks another sales tax (Montclair rate) (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/ontario-despite-being-flush-with-cash-getting-residents-to-hike-sales-tax-in-2022-is-seeking-another-sales-tax-increase/\n"},{"id":"local-needles","kind":"local","title":"Needles (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/needles","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-needles.md","contests":[{"id":"needles--measure-l-11-2m-bond-for-streets-parks-a","label":"Needles: Measure L","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"needles--measure-k-hotel-tax-from-10-to-14","label":"Needles: Measure K","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"needles--measure-d-council-pay-from-1-to-150-a-mo","label":"Needles: Measure D","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"needles--mayor","label":"Needles: Mayor","options":["Janet Jernigan (incumbent)","Jeff Williams"]}],"markdown":"# Needles (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/needles\n\n- title: Needles\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Needles\n- region: Colorado River\n\n## Key findings\n- **Three measures.** Measure L is an **$11.2M bond** for streets, parks and downtown (about **$60 per $100K** of assessed value, needs two-thirds). Measure K raises the hotel tax from **10% to 14%** in steps. Measure D raises council pay from **$1 a month to $150**. [^1]\n- **Measure L has the most safeguards on this ballot:** a separate account, a citizens' oversight body, and independent financial and performance audits sent to the State Auditor. [^1][^2]\n- **Mayor:** incumbent **Janet Jernigan**, who signed the Yes argument for Measure L, faces **Jeff Williams**. [^3][^2]\n\n## Measure L: $11.2M bond for streets, parks and downtown\n**What it does:** Up to $11.2M in general obligation bonds, repaid by a property tax estimated at $60 per $100,000 of assessed value (not market value). Uses: street repaving and potholes, sidewalks, parks (restrooms, irrigation, parking), safety improvements and downtown Main Street. **Can't pay salaries or operating costs.** The city treasurer reports every year. Needs **two-thirds**. [^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** The only signer of the Yes argument is Mayor Jernigan. [^2]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** It pays for one-time capital repairs, which is what bonds are for. It doesn't fund ongoing maintenance, and the analysis doesn't state how long the tax lasts.\n\n## Measure K: Hotel tax from 10% to 14%\n**What it does:** Raises the transient occupancy tax, paid by hotel and short-term-rental guests, to 12% in 2027, 13% in 2029 and 14% in 2030, adding about **$200K to $400K a year**. General fund, simple majority, no end date. [^1]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** It shifts cost to visitors traveling on I-40 and Route 66. At 14% Needles would be on the high end for the region, which can matter for a stopover town that competes with Laughlin and Bullhead City across the river.\n\n## Measure D: Council pay from $1 to $150 a month\n**What it does:** Changes the city charter to pay each council member **$150 a month**, up from $1. Expense reimbursement doesn't change. Cost: about **$20,916 a year**. [^1]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** $1 pay limits who can afford to serve. $150 is still far below the $465 to $700 a month that Twentynine Palms pays. [^4]\n\n## Mayor\n### Janet Jernigan (incumbent)\n- Current mayor; signed the Yes argument for Measure L. [^3][^2]\n\n### Jeff Williams\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## City Council\nThree seats, five candidates: incumbents **Henry Longbrake** and **Jamie McCorkle**, plus Wayne Colburn, Sandra Noble and Charles Dressler. [^5][^3] I found no independent reporting on these candidates.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: City Attorney, Measure L impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofNeedles/30/IA_CityofNeedles.pdf\n[^2]: Measure L argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofNeedles/30/AIF_CityofNeedles.pdf\n[^3]: GoodParty, Needles mayor candidates. https://goodparty.org/elections/ca/san-bernardino-county/needles/position/city-executive-mayor/candidates\n[^4]: Desert Trumpet, Twentynine Palms council pay (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/city-council-and-town-council-candidates\n[^5]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^6]: City Attorney, Measure K impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofNeedles/27/IA_CityofNeedles.pdf\n[^7]: City Attorney, Measure D impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofNeedles/29/IA_CityofNeedles.pdf\n[^8]: GoodParty, Needles council candidates. https://goodparty.org/elections/ca/san-bernardino-county/needles/position/city-legislature/candidates\n"},{"id":"local-ontario","kind":"local","title":"Ontario (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ontario","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ontario.md","contests":[{"id":"ontario--measure-h-half-cent-sales-tax-for-the-ge","label":"Ontario: Measure H","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"ontario--mayor","label":"Ontario: Mayor","options":["Paul Leon (incumbent)","Daisy Macias","Kevin Kizzee","Nicolo Lalama"]},{"id":"ontario--council-district-3","label":"Ontario: Council District 3","options":["Alan Wapner (incumbent, elected at large)","D'Andre Lampkin"]},{"id":"ontario--council-district-2","label":"Ontario: Council District 2","options":["Ruben Valencia","Stephanie Martinez"]}],"markdown":"# Ontario (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ontario\n\n- title: Ontario\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Ontario\n- region: West Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure H** would add a permanent half-cent sales tax (to 9.25%, the highest in the county), about **$32.5M a year** for the general fund. It comes four years after **Measure Q (2022)**, which was projected at $89–95M a year and now brings in about **$60M**. [^1][^2][^3]\n- **The FBI searched Councilman Alan Wapner's home**, Ontario International Airport, and Supervisor Curt Hagman's home on **July 28, 2026**. The warrants are sealed and **no one has been charged**. Wapner dropped his run for mayor and is running for the District 3 seat instead. [^4]\n- **Mayor:** Paul Leon has been mayor since 2005. His main challenger, Councilwoman Daisy Macias, was elected in 2024 with $50K moved from Wapner's campaign account. Wapner also paid about $37K for slate mailers for her this year, which she says she never authorized. [^3]\n- **Mayor Leon says he won't campaign for Measure H**, even though he voted to put it on the ballot. [^3]\n\n## Measure H: Half-cent sales tax for the general fund\n**What it does:** Adds 0.5% to the sales tax starting April 1, 2027, raising Ontario's rate from 8.75% to 9.25%. It's a **general tax** (simple majority), so the money can go to any city purpose. **It has no end date.** The impartial analysis lists no citizens' oversight committee; the Yes argument promises independent audits. [^1][^5]\n\n**Track record**\n| Measure | Year | Promised | Actual |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Measure Q (1 cent, permanent) | 2022 | ~$89–95M a year; $1.2B in projects (water and sewer $242M, broadband $118M, police crime center $41M) | ~$60M a year [^2] |\n| **Measure H (half cent, permanent)** | 2026 | ~$32.5M a year, unrestricted | — |\n[^2][^6]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** The council voted 4–0 on Aug 7, 2026 to place it on the ballot (Wapner was absent). The Yes argument lists no named signers, only \"firefighters, police officers, neighbors and small business owners.\" The No campaign (VoteNoOnH.com, FairOntario) points to the city-owned ONT Field stadium (about $100M, plus a $172M land purchase for the sports complex) as evidence that Measure Q money went to big projects. [^6][^7][^8]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** The city hasn't publicly identified a deficit that requires it. Ontario's general fund is about $481M, the largest in the county. Mayor Leon says about 65% of local sales tax is paid by non-residents. The shortfall versus the Measure Q promise is the strongest reason to ask for a spending accounting before a second permanent tax.\n\n**Both sides:** For: the city council majority, public-safety unions (per the Yes argument). Against: VoteNoOnH.com, FairOntario, the Inland Empire Automobile Dealers Association.\n\n## Mayor\n### Paul Leon (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Appointed to the council in 1998 and mayor since a 2005 special election, re-elected 5 times. He leads Hope Chapel, a local church. He raised $96,449 from January 2025 to June 2026, about 15% of what Wapner raised. [^3]\n- Voted to place Measure H on the ballot, but says he won't campaign for it. [^3]\n- After the FBI searches, he led the council vote to remove Wapner from city boards and committees. [^9][^3]\n\n### Daisy Macias\n- **Key findings:** Elected to the District 4 council seat in 2024 with **36.4%** in a five-way race. She's 35 and a community relations manager at the affordable-housing nonprofit Hope Through Housing Foundation, part of National Community Renaissance, whose founder Jeff Burum is a major local donor. [^3][^9]\n- **Money:** In 2024, Wapner moved **$50K** from his campaign account to hers. In 2026 he paid **$37,265** for slate mailers backing her. She says she \"never authorized it.\" An outside committee run by Jim Previti, funded with $250K from IE Citizens for Government LLC, backs her through independent spending. [^3]\n- She voted against removing Wapner from city committees after the FBI searches. Wapner endorsed her. [^9][^3]\n- She declined KVCR's interview requests, but answered its questionnaire: public safety, homelessness and growth.\n\n### Kevin Kizzee\n- On the ballot. I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Nicolo Lalama\n- On the ballot, running on ending new warehouse development. [^9] I found little other reporting.\n\n## Council District 3\nFirst-ever district election for this area (the council moved to districts in 2022). [^1]\n\n### Alan Wapner (incumbent, elected at large)\n- **Key findings:** On the council since 1994. He has raised at least **$3.9M** since 1994 and **$652K** from January 2025 to June 2026, the most of any local official in the county. [^3]\n- **FBI search, July 28, 2026:** Agents searched his home and his attorney's office. The warrants are sealed and he hasn't been charged. He says, \"I don't believe I am the suspect, the subject, or target of any investigation.\" He resigned from all his commission and board posts in August, including president of the airport authority board. [^9][^3]\n- The Sentinel, a local outlet that often relies on unnamed sources, reports that the FBI is looking at airport land deals and donations from airport contractors. **None of that is confirmed by the FBI or by charges.**\n- Endorsed for mayor (before switching races) by AFSCME, SEIU, and the Ontario police and fire associations.\n\nJonathan Hagman, Supervisor Curt Hagman's son, filed here but withdrew on Aug 4 after the FBI searches. [^9]\n\n### D'Andre Lampkin\n- Content creator and writer; first run for office. Says District 3 has never had its own representative. [^10]\n\n## Council District 2\nNo incumbent lives in this district. Candidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); check your sample ballot. [^3]\n\n### Ruben Valencia\n- Former Ontario councilman. [^3]\n\n### Stephanie Martinez\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure H impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofOntario/IA_Ontario.pdf\n[^2]: Bond Buyer, Ontario's 2022 sales tax plan (Aug 5, 2022). https://bondbuyer.com/news/california-city-plans-sales-tax-measure-to-pay-for-infrastructure-essential-services\n[^3]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^4]: KVCR, FBI search fallout (Aug 11, 2026). https://www.kvcrnews.org/local-news/2026-08-11/fbi-search-fallout-in-san-bernardino-county-shakes-up-ontario-elections\n[^5]: Measure H argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofOntario/AIF_Ontario.pdf\n[^6]: SB County Sentinel, Ontario seeks another sales tax increase (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/ontario-despite-being-flush-with-cash-getting-residents-to-hike-sales-tax-in-2022-is-seeking-another-sales-tax-increase/\n[^7]: Wikipedia, ONT Field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ONT_Field\n[^8]: Measure H argument against. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofOntario/AA_Ontario.pdf\n[^9]: KVCR, Macias mayoral bid (Oct 26, 2026). https://kvcr.org/news/local/2026-10-26/ontarios-mayoral-election-council-newcomer-daisy-macias-eyes-mayors-seat\n[^10]: Lampkin campaign. https://www.lampkinforontario.org/news/is-alan-wapner-district-3-incumbent-ontario-2026\n[^11]: City of Ontario, Measure Q. https://www.ontarioca.gov/MeasureQ\n[^12]: SB County Sentinel, Wapner switches races (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/dogged-by-the-fbi-wapner-makes-a-last-minute-political-switcheroo/\n[^13]: SB County Sentinel, Wapner resigns posts (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/wapner-resigning-from-all-commission-board-adjunct-posts-effective-friday/\n[^14]: SB County Sentinel, Macias's donors (Oct 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/10/what-they-do-they-smile-in-your-face/\n[^15]: SB County Sentinel, graft probe (July 31, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/?p=37684\n[^16]: City of Ontario, municipal elections. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/management-services/city-clerk-records-management/municipal-elections\n"},{"id":"local-rancho-cucamonga","kind":"local","title":"Rancho Cucamonga (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/rancho-cucamonga","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-rancho-cucamonga.md","contests":[{"id":"rancho-cucamonga--mayor","label":"Rancho Cucamonga: Mayor","options":["Lynne B. Kennedy (Mayor Pro Tem)","Oliver King (business owner, attorney)","Michael R. Perez (retired)","Marjorie Hamada (business owner, attorney)","Jaskirat Sondh (businessman)"]},{"id":"rancho-cucamonga--council-district-2","label":"Rancho Cucamonga: Council District 2","options":["Kristine Scott (incumbent)","DeJonae Marie Shaw (licensed vocational nurse)","David VanGorden (retired police officer)","Connie Velazquez (commercial realtor)"]},{"id":"rancho-cucamonga--council-district-3","label":"Rancho Cucamonga: Council District 3","options":["Stacy Henry (school board president)"]}],"markdown":"# Rancho Cucamonga (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/rancho-cucamonga\n\n- title: Rancho Cucamonga\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Rancho Cucamonga\n- region: West Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Open mayor's seat.** Mayor Dennis Michael announced in April 2026 that he won't run again. The best-known candidate is Councilmember **Lynne Kennedy**. [^1][^2]\n- **The issue under the race is Etiwanda Heights.** In January 2026 the council approved a plan change letting developer the Previti Group build about **6,300 homes where the 2019 plan allowed 3,000**. Residents sued under CEQA in February. A new group, Rancho Neighbors United, is backing a mayor and council slate and calling for Kennedy's recall. [^3][^4]\n- The Previti Group paid **$93M for 1,252 acres** of county flood-control land in 2024 (about $74K an acre). At the Planning Commission hearing, **26 of 27 speakers opposed** the change. [^3]\n- **Council District 2:** Kristine Scott is the only candidate with a council record. Her day job is at SoCalGas, a regulated utility. DeJonae Shaw leads the Inland Empire Labor Council. **District 3** has one candidate, Stacy Henry.\n\n## Mayor\nOpen seat, elected at large. Five candidates. [^2]\n\n### Lynne B. Kennedy (Mayor Pro Tem)\n- **Key findings:** Appointed to the council in December 2014 and re-elected since, now representing District 4. Former educator. [^5]\n- Voted with the full council for the Etiwanda Heights density increase, according to the opposition petition. That vote is the basis of the recall call against her. [^1][^4]\n- Platform: public safety, \"fiscal responsibility without new taxes,\" \"responsible planning.\" [^6]\n\n### Oliver King (business owner, attorney)\n- Running on a slate with District 2 candidate David VanGorden, backed by Rancho Neighbors United, a group formed in 2026 around the density fight. [^4] I found no independent reporting on his record.\n\n### Michael R. Perez (retired)\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Marjorie Hamada (business owner, attorney)\n- Didn't file a candidate statement. [^2]\n\n### Jaskirat Sondh (businessman)\n- Didn't file a candidate statement. [^2]\n\n## Council District 2\nJob: one of five votes (four district members plus the mayor) on the city budget, land use, police and fire contracts, and parks.\n\n### Kristine Scott (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** On the council since 2018, re-elected 2022. Regional public affairs manager at **SoCalGas**; formerly a VP at TMG Communications; Building Industry Association volunteer of the year. [^7][^8]\n- Voted for the Etiwanda Heights density increase. [^1]\n- Read: the only candidate with a voting record. Her utility job and building-industry ties are worth weighing on land-use and utility votes.\n\n### DeJonae Marie Shaw (licensed vocational nurse)\n- **Key findings:** LVN for 10+ years. Elected president of the **Inland Empire Labor Council** in April 2026. Ran for county supervisor in 2022 and for AD-50 in 2024 (28.1% in the primary). [^9]\n- Platform: District 2 should get its \"fair share\" of roads, drainage, sidewalks and parks; growth matched with infrastructure. Endorsed by Asm. Robert Garcia, the county Democratic Party, and nurses', building trades, Teamsters and IBEW locals (self-reported).\n\n### David VanGorden (retired police officer)\n- Filed a candidate statement. [^2]\n- On the Rancho Neighbors United slate with mayoral candidate Oliver King. [^4] I found no independent reporting on his record.\n\n### Connie Velazquez (commercial realtor)\n- Didn't file a candidate statement. [^2]\n\n## Council District 3\n### Stacy Henry (school board president)\n- Only candidate. [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Change.org, Protect Etiwanda Heights petition update (advocacy). https://www.change.org/p/protect-etiwanda-heights-neighborhoods-stop-the-high-density-housing-amendment/u/34580747\n[^2]: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2026 election. https://www.cityofrc.us/elections\n[^3]: SB County Sentinel, Etiwanda Heights hearing (Dec 2025). https://sbcsentinel.com/2025/12/pink/\n[^4]: ABNewswire advertorial via Local3News (Oct 2026). https://www.local3news.com/online_features/press_releases/political-campaign-takes-to-the-skies-over-rancho-cucamonga-ahead-of-november-election/article_2573a0fd-b8e3-580e-9d31-2e6a4c5f10ed.html\n[^5]: SB County Sentinel, Kennedy appointed (Dec 2014). https://sbcsentinel.com/2014/12/rancho-cucamonga-city-council-chooses-former-educator-kennedy-to-succeed-steinorth/\n[^6]: Democracy Test Kitchen, Lynne Kennedy. https://www.democracytestkitchen.com/california/2026-general/candidates/lynne-b-kennedy-6587829373a2\n[^7]: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Kristine Scott. https://www.cityofrc.us/directory/kristine-d-scott\n[^8]: Sempra, Scott Woman of the Year (Mar 11, 2019). https://www.sempra.com/socalgas-kristine-scott-recognized-woman-year-assemblymember-james-c-ramos\n[^9]: Inland Valley News, Shaw (Oct 16, 2026). https://inlandvalleynews.com/shaw-says-district-2-deserves-its-fair-share-puts-infrastructure-investment-and-resident-voice-at-center-of-campaign/\n[^10]: SB County Sentinel, Preservation Society lawsuit (Mar 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/03/preservation-society-sues-rc-for-3000-to-6300-residential-unit-entitlement-shift/\n"},{"id":"local-redlands","kind":"local","title":"Redlands (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/redlands","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-redlands.md","contests":[{"id":"redlands--council-district-1","label":"Redlands: Council District 1","options":["Denise Davis (incumbent)","Andrew \"Andy\" Hoder","Douglas Gonzales"]},{"id":"redlands--council-district-3","label":"Redlands: Council District 3","options":["Mario Saucedo (incumbent)"]},{"id":"redlands--council-district-5","label":"Redlands: Council District 5","options":["Paul Barich (incumbent)"]}],"markdown":"# Redlands (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/redlands\n\n- title: Redlands\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Redlands\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Only District 1 is contested.** Incumbent **Denise Davis** faces **Andrew \"Andy\" Hoder** and **Douglas Gonzales**. Mario Saucedo (District 3) and Paul Barich (District 5) are unopposed. [^1]\n- **Redlands Unified** has contested board races in Trustee Areas 1 and 2, covered under school districts.\n\n## Council District 1\n### Denise Davis (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Re-elected in 2022, when she ran as the incumbent. Master's in social and cultural psychology from the London School of Economics; founded the Redlands Youth Council and the Climate Policy Council. [^2]\n- In 2022 she was endorsed by the city's firefighters' and police associations, the Inland Empire Labor Council and Rep. Pete Aguilar. Priorities then: homelessness, affordable housing and public safety funding. [^2]\n\n### Andrew \"Andy\" Hoder\n- **Key findings:** Ran in 2022 too, as the self-described \"dissenter.\" Chaired the city's Street Tree Committee and led a large homeowners association for over a decade. [^3][^2]\n- Argues the council should follow voters on growth, citing the 2020 defeat of Measure G (a rewrite of the city's voter-approved growth limits) and wants police staffing to keep pace with growth.\n\n### Douglas Gonzales\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 3\n### Mario Saucedo (incumbent)\n- Unopposed. [^4]\n\n## Council District 5\n### Paul Barich (incumbent)\n- Unopposed. [^4]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Community Forward Redlands, 2026 election. https://www.communityforwardredlands.com/election2026/\n[^2]: Community Forward Redlands, District 1 candidates in their own words (2022). https://communityforwardredlands.substack.com/p/in-their-own-words-district-1-city\n[^3]: Redlands Community News, Hoder (2022). https://www.redlandscommunitynews.com/news/government/candidate-andy-hoder-wants-to-be-the-dissenter/article_8f6768f4-350f-11ed-9a5e-479287ee9db7.html\n[^4]: Community Forward Redlands, incumbents unchallenged (July 2, 2026). https://www.communityforwardredlands.com/two-redlands-city-council-incumbents-remain-unchallenged-as-filing-period-nears/\n"},{"id":"local-rialto","kind":"local","title":"Rialto (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/rialto","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-rialto.md","contests":[{"id":"rialto--city-council-two-seats-at-large","label":"Rialto: City Council (two seats, at large)","options":["Ed Scott (incumbent)","Edward Montoya Jr. (appointed incumbent)","Ana Gonzalez (nonprofit executive director)","Edward J. Carrillo (city treasurer)","Carl Mayfield (parole agent supervisor)","Robert \"Bobby\" Bustamante (iron worker)","Celina Diaz (human resources)","Blanca Mondragon (community advocate)","Rafael Trujillo (case manager, parent)"]}],"markdown":"# Rialto (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/rialto\n\n- title: Rialto\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Rialto\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Nine candidates for two at-large council seats.** Both incumbents are running: **Ed Scott**, elected and re-elected since 2018, and **Edward Montoya Jr.**, appointed in January 2025. [^1][^2]\n- **The council skipped a special election, which would have cost about $650K, and appointed Montoya instead.** It passed over **Ana Gonzalez**, the top finisher among the 2024 non-winners (17.4%). She's on the ballot again. [^2]\n- City Treasurer **Edward J. Carrillo** is also running for a council seat. [^1]\n\n## City Council (two seats, at large)\nVote for two. Candidates and ballot designations: [^1]\n\n### Ed Scott (incumbent)\n- Rialto city councilman; first won in 2018. [^2]\n\n### Edward Montoya Jr. (appointed incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Army veteran (Iraq and Afghanistan); co-founder and director of the Brotherhood Bridge Foundation, a support network for veterans and first responders. The council appointed him **unanimously** in January 2025 to fill Mayor Joe Baca Sr.'s old seat. [^2]\n\n### Ana Gonzalez (nonprofit executive director)\n- Finished third of seven in 2024 for two seats, with **7,209 votes (17.4%)**. The council considered her for the 2025 vacancy but chose Montoya. [^2]\n\n### Edward J. Carrillo (city treasurer)\n- Rialto's elected city treasurer. [^1]\n\n### Carl Mayfield (parole agent supervisor)\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Robert \"Bobby\" Bustamante (iron worker)\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Celina Diaz (human resources)\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Blanca Mondragon (community advocate)\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Rafael Trujillo (case manager, parent)\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: City of Rialto, 2026 council candidates list. https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8769/2026-City-Council-Candidates-List\n[^2]: SB County Sentinel, Montoya appointed (Jan 2025). https://sbcsentinel.com/2025/01/rialto/\n"},{"id":"local-san-bernardino","kind":"local","title":"San Bernardino (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/san-bernardino","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-san-bernardino.md","contests":[{"id":"san-bernardino--council-ward-1","label":"San Bernardino: Council Ward 1","options":["Virginia Marquez","Ron Alvarado"]},{"id":"san-bernardino--council-ward-2","label":"San Bernardino: Council Ward 2","options":["Christian Thomas Shaughnessy","Benito J. Barrios"]},{"id":"san-bernardino--council-ward-4","label":"San Bernardino: Council Ward 4","options":["Joe Salas","Fred Shorett (incumbent)"]}],"markdown":"# San Bernardino (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/san-bernardino\n\n- title: San Bernardino\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of San Bernardino\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Mayor Helen Tran won re-election outright in June** (54.7%), so the mayor isn't on the November ballot. Wards 1, 2 and 4 go to runoffs. [^1]\n- **Two incumbents are already out.** Ward 1's Theodore Sanchez (on the council since 2019) and Ward 2's Sandra Ibarra each finished third in June. Ward 4's Fred Shorett (since 2009) finished second and is fighting to keep his seat. [^1]\n- **Ward 2 is a comeback attempt.** Benito Barrios held the seat until 2018 and lost it amid controversies, including a 2015 call to the police chief after a traffic stop on a suspended license. Local Democrats formally oppose him. [^2]\n- **Ward 1 features a former councilwoman, Virginia Marquez**, against a government fraud investigator, Ron Alvarado (\"I follow the money\"). [^1]\n- **Measure Z**, a San Bernardino City Unified bond, and **Measure Y**, a college district bond, are covered under school districts.\n\n## Council Ward 1\nJune primary: Marquez 34.2%, Alvarado 31.2%, incumbent Sanchez 24.9%. [^1]\n\n### Virginia Marquez\n- Lifelong 1st Ward resident and former councilwoman. Has worked for the state corrections department and the county 5th District supervisor's office. [^1]\n- Priorities: homelessness, infrastructure, prostitution on the corridors, rent control, downtown jobs, more affordable housing.\n\n### Ron Alvarado\n- Lifelong resident; government fraud investigator; no prior office. [^1]\n- Priorities: code enforcement, streets and sidewalks, parks, arts and cultural districts, **tighter oversight of grants and developer deals**.\n\n## Council Ward 2\nJune primary: Shaughnessy 39.7%, Barrios 32.5%, incumbent Ibarra 27.7%. [^1]\n\n### Christian Thomas Shaughnessy\n- Endorsed by Run for Something, a national group that recruits young progressive candidates. First run for office. [^3] Answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^4]\n\n### Benito J. Barrios\n- **Key findings:** Marine Corps veteran; Ward 2 councilman until losing re-election in 2018. Elected with conservative support and allied with former Mayor John Valdivia, whose career ended in scandal. [^2]\n- **Record:** In 2015 he called the police chief after being stopped for driving on a suspended license, and texted to arrange a gun sale during a council meeting; both drew national coverage. He endorsed Trump in 2016 and pushed for marijuana dispensaries after Prop 64. **He was never charged with wrongdoing.** [^2]\n- The San Bernardino Democratic Luncheon Club voted unanimously to oppose him. He's seeking support from the police officers' association. [^2]\n\n## Council Ward 4\nJune primary: Salas 38.3%, incumbent Shorett 34.4%. [^1]\n\n### Joe Salas\n- Led the primary. Answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^4] I found little other independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Fred Shorett (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** On the council since 2009; Army veteran and businessman. He won his 2018 runoff by **8 votes** (50.1%) and won outright in 2022 (54.3%). [^5]\n- The longest-serving member on the ballot. The June result (34.4%) was the weakest showing of the incumbent's council career, per Ballotpedia's results.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: IECN, June 2026 primary results. https://iecn.com/tran-remains-above-50-san-bernardino-ward-races/\n[^2]: SB County Sentinel, Barrios and Democratic opposition (Dec 2025). https://sbcsentinel.com/2025/12/democrats-opposing-barrios/\n[^3]: Run for Something, Christian Shaughnessy. https://directory.runforsomething.net/candidate/0b0082d668cfec7ecb9994e2067139e7/shaughnessy-christian/\n[^4]: KVCR voter guide. https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^5]: Ballotpedia, Fred Shorett. https://ballotpedia.org/Fred_Shorett\n[^6]: IECN, Ward 1 candidate forum (May 13, 2026). https://iecn.com/san-bernardino-ward-1-candidates-debate-revitalization/\n"},{"id":"local-twentynine-palms","kind":"local","title":"Twentynine Palms (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/twentynine-palms","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-twentynine-palms.md","contests":[{"id":"twentynine-palms--measure-g-one-cent-sales-tax-for-listed-","label":"Twentynine Palms: Measure G","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"twentynine-palms--council-district-4","label":"Twentynine Palms: Council District 4","options":["Octavious Scott (incumbent, mayor pro tem)","Carlos Blandon"]},{"id":"twentynine-palms--council-district-5","label":"Twentynine Palms: Council District 5","options":["McArthur Wright (incumbent)","Shanese Risper"]},{"id":"twentynine-palms--council-district-3","label":"Twentynine Palms: Council District 3","options":["Daniel Mintz (incumbent, mayor)"]}],"markdown":"# Twentynine Palms (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/twentynine-palms\n\n- title: Twentynine Palms\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Twentynine Palms\n- region: Morongo Basin\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure G** is a permanent **1-cent sales tax**, about **$2M a year**. Unlike most general taxes on this ballot, the measure itself **limits spending** to listed services: 911 and emergency response, police patrols, streets and sidewalks, flood response, park safety and **animal shelter upgrades**. The annual audit must confirm compliance. [^1][^2]\n- Property tax brings in only about **23% of city revenue**. Before placing the tax, the city spent on a pollster ($22,500) and an outreach firm ($74,750). [^3]\n- **No argument against was filed.** [^2]\n- **Council pay rises from $465 to $700 a month** after this election. Mayor Daniel Mintz is unopposed; Districts 4 and 5 are contested. [^2]\n\n## Measure G: One-cent sales tax for listed local services\n**What it does:** 1% sales tax starting about April 1, 2027, with no end date. Groceries and prescriptions are exempt. It's labeled a general tax (simple majority), but the measure restricts spending to its stated purposes. [^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** Placed on the ballot July 14, 2026. One argument in favor, none against. Nearby Yucca Valley voters extended their own sales taxes in 2024 with more than 82%. [^4][^5]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** It funds a named list of services, and the audit has to check that spending matches. That makes it one of the more accountable sales taxes on the county ballot.\n\n## Council District 4\n### Octavious Scott (incumbent, mayor pro tem)\n- Navy veteran (8 years); in the city since 2019; on the council since 2022. Degrees in management and public administration; nonprofit workforce work. Priorities: affordability, mixed-income housing, business growth, a youth council. [^2]\n\n### Carlos Blandon\n- Raised in the Coachella Valley; Sacramento State graduate; AmeriCorps. Focus: regional planning, water use, and revitalizing Adobe Road and Twentynine Palms Highway. [^2]\n\n## Council District 5\n### McArthur Wright (incumbent)\n- Retired Marine and ordained minister; on the council 11+ years, including two terms as mayor; works at the Marine Corps base. Priorities: youth, military families, public safety, infrastructure. [^2]\n\n### Shanese Risper\n- Retired Marine; USC business master's; past president of Soroptimist International of Twentynine Palms. Priorities: youth, economic growth, disaster preparedness. [^2]\n- A qualified write-in candidate, Marcelino J. Ryan, is also running in District 5. [^6]\n\n## Council District 3\n### Daniel Mintz (incumbent, mayor)\n- Unopposed. [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: City Attorney, Measure G impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofTwentyninePalms/IA_TP.pdf\n[^2]: Desert Trumpet, council candidates (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/city-council-and-town-council-candidates\n[^3]: Z107.7 FM, council considers sales tax (Oct 2025). https://z1077fm.com/twentynine-palms-city-council-to-consider-2026-sales-tax-measure-tonight\n[^4]: Desert Trumpet, Morongo Basin candidate and measure list (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/local-elections-the-morongo-basin\n[^5]: CaliforniaCityFinance, Nov 2024 local measure results. https://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2411final.pdf\n[^6]: SB County ROV, qualified write-in candidates. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/rov/Elections/2026/1103/List_QualifiedWriteIns.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-upland","kind":"local","title":"Upland (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/upland","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-upland.md","contests":[{"id":"upland--measure-m-business-license-tax-overhaul","label":"Upland: Measure M","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"upland--council-district-2","label":"Upland: Council District 2","options":["James Breitling (incumbent)"]},{"id":"upland--council-district-3","label":"Upland: Council District 3","options":["Carlos A. Garcia (incumbent)"]},{"id":"upland--council-district-4","label":"Upland: Council District 4","options":["Rudy Zuniga (incumbent)"]}],"markdown":"# Upland (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/upland\n\n- title: Upland\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Upland\n- region: West Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure M** rewrites Upland's 1994 business license tax. The top bill rises from **$864 to $28,000** a year, and revenue nearly triples, from about **$1.19M to $3.3M**. Most small businesses would pay less; 9 businesses would hit the new cap. [^1][^2]\n- It's the city's **fourth attempt at new revenue since 2022**. Sales tax increases failed in 2022 and 2024, and a 2024 business-license version was pulled after an outcry. [^2]\n- The city projects a **$5.7M structural deficit** in FY27, plans to spend $8.5M of reserves over two years, and reports **$241M in unfunded street and sidewalk repairs**. [^1][^2]\n- **All three council seats are uncontested.** James Breitling (District 2), Carlos A. Garcia (District 3) and Rudy Zuniga (District 4) are the only qualified candidates. [^1]\n\n## Measure M: Business license tax overhaul\n**What it does:** Replaces the flat schedule (now $54 to $864) with a tax on gross receipts over $100,000: retail 0.065%, service and professional 0.125%, contractors 0.15%, rentals 0.2%, plus **$50 per self-storage unit**. Businesses under $100,000 pay a flat **$75**. The cap is $28,000. Rates start Jan 1, 2028, with a lower rate in 2027. **No end date.** Revenue goes to the general fund. [^1]\n\n**Track record**\n| Year | Revenue attempt | Result |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1994 | Current business license schedule | Still in place; $1.19M a year |\n| 2022 | Sales tax increase | Failed |\n| 2024 | Business license overhaul (cap $29,500 plus up to 5% a year) | Pulled from the ballot after objections |\n| 2024 | Sales tax increase (Measure N, 1 cent) | Failed, 34.8% yes [^3] |\n| **2026** | **Measure M** | $3.3M a year projected |\n[^2][^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** Placed on the ballot 5–0 on Aug 3, 2026. All five council members signed the Yes argument. The No argument comes from Upland Residents for Good Government, which blames council management and cites a council pay raise and the hiring of a third city manager in a short span. Of 5,993 businesses, the city says about 3,296 would pay less. Manufacturing, warehousing and agriculture aren't separate categories. [^2]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** It fixes a real fairness issue: today a tiny business can pay a large share of what the biggest retailer pays. But the extra $2.1M covers only about a third of the projected $5.7M gap, so more cuts or taxes are still likely. Gross-receipts taxes also tend to show up in consumer prices.\n\n## Council District 2\n### James Breitling (incumbent)\n- Unopposed. Voted to put Measure M on the ballot. [^1]\n\n## Council District 3\n### Carlos A. Garcia (incumbent)\n- Unopposed. Voted to put Measure M on the ballot. [^1]\n\n## Council District 4\n### Rudy Zuniga (incumbent)\n- Unopposed. Voted to put Measure M on the ballot. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure M impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/CityofUpland/IA_Upland.pdf\n[^2]: SB County Sentinel, Upland business license reset (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/upland-council-using-ballot-in-business-license-reset-attempt/\n[^3]: CaliforniaCityFinance, Nov 2024 local measure results. https://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2411final.pdf\n[^4]: City of Upland, Nov 3 2026 election. https://www.uplandca.gov/city_clerk/elections_voter_services/november_3_2026_general_election.php\n[^5]: SB County Sentinel, arguments on Measure M (Aug 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/arguments-for-against-upland-measure-m/\n"},{"id":"local-victorville","kind":"local","title":"Victorville (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/victorville","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-victorville.md","contests":[{"id":"victorville--council-district-2","label":"Victorville: Council District 2","options":["Corrine Mora (incumbent)","Ken Lutz","Rafael Angel Porras"]},{"id":"victorville--council-district-4","label":"Victorville: Council District 4","options":["Bob Harriman (incumbent)","Derek Marshall","Kassandra Shamsrouf"]}],"markdown":"# Victorville (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/victorville\n\n- title: Victorville\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Victorville\n- region: High Desert\n\n## Key findings\n- **Two incumbents face two challengers each.** District 2: Corrine Mora vs. Ken Lutz and Rafael Angel Porras. District 4: Bob Harriman vs. Derek Marshall and Kassandra Shamsrouf. [^1]\n- I found little independent reporting on these races. The county voter guide's candidate statements are the best source.\n\n## Council District 2\nCandidate list from the SB County Sentinel at the close of filing (Aug 7, 2026); a few late or withdrawn filings may differ, so check your sample ballot.\n\n### Corrine Mora (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember. [^1]\n\n### Ken Lutz\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Rafael Angel Porras\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Council District 4\n### Bob Harriman (incumbent)\n- Current councilmember. [^1]\n\n### Derek Marshall\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n### Kassandra Shamsrouf\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n[^2]: City of Victorville, election information. https://www.victorvilleca.gov/Government/City-Departments/City-Clerk/Election-Voter-Information/Election-Campaign-Information\n"},{"id":"local-yucaipa","kind":"local","title":"Yucaipa (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/yucaipa","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-yucaipa.md","contests":[{"id":"yucaipa--council-district-1","label":"Yucaipa: Council District 1","options":["Greg Franklin (retired finance officer)","Chelsea Brammer Ramirez (educator)"]},{"id":"yucaipa--council-district-2","label":"Yucaipa: Council District 2","options":["Chris Venable (incumbent, mayor)"]}],"markdown":"# Yucaipa (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/yucaipa\n\n- title: Yucaipa\n- type: city\n- jurisdiction: City of Yucaipa\n- region: East Valley\n\n## Key findings\n- **District 1 is the only contested race:** Greg Franklin, a retired assistant city manager with nearly 30 years at the city, versus Chelsea Brammer Ramirez, an educator endorsed by Mayor Chris Venable. Matthew Howard pulled papers but isn't shown as qualified. [^1]\n- **Mayor Chris Venable is unopposed in District 2.** [^1]\n- Context: voters passed a **1-cent sales tax (Measure S) in 2024 with 60%**, so the next council will oversee that new money. [^2]\n\n## Council District 1\n### Greg Franklin (retired finance officer)\n- **Key findings:** Nearly 30 years at the City of Yucaipa, including as assistant city manager. Says the city built major facilities without borrowing during that time. [^3]\n- Priorities: roads, public safety, responsible growth, local jobs, transparency.\n- Read: the deepest knowledge of the city budget, but as a former senior staff member he'd be voting on the work of colleagues he managed or worked beside.\n\n### Chelsea Brammer Ramirez (educator)\n- **Key findings:** 48; born and raised in Yucaipa. Former county Juvenile Delinquency Prevention commissioner and workforce development coordinator; negotiated contracts for her family's business. Endorsed by Mayor Venable. [^3]\n- Priorities: fully funding public safety, transparent budgets, preserving the city's rural character.\n\n## Council District 2\n### Chris Venable (incumbent, mayor)\n- Unopposed. Didn't file a candidate statement. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: City of Yucaipa, 2026 list of candidates (Aug 13, 2026). https://yucaipa.gov/wp-content/uploads/gen_svcs/election/2026/2026%20List%20of%20Candidates%2008.13.2026.pdf\n[^2]: CaliforniaCityFinance, Nov 2024 local measure results. https://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2411final.pdf\n[^3]: City of Yucaipa, 2026 candidate statements. https://yucaipa.gov/wp-content/uploads/gen_svcs/election/2026/2026%20Candidate%20Statements%20Web.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-yucca-valley","kind":"local","title":"Yucca Valley (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/yucca-valley","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-yucca-valley.md","contests":[{"id":"yucca-valley--council-district-5","label":"Yucca Valley: Council District 5","options":["Rick Denison (incumbent)","Dion Antic"]}],"markdown":"# Yucca Valley (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/yucca-valley\n\n- title: Yucca Valley\n- type: town\n- jurisdiction: Town of Yucca Valley\n- region: Morongo Basin\n\n## Key findings\n- **Only District 5 is contested.** Incumbent **Rick Denison**, a retired fire battalion chief on the council since 2014, faces **Dion Antic**, who owns the Snakebite Roadhouse. Districts 1 and 3 are uncontested: Mayor Pro Tem Jim Schooler and Mayor Merl Abel have no challengers. [^1]\n- Context: in 2024 voters extended the town's two half-cent sales taxes, one general and one for sewers, with **83%** and **82%**. [^2]\n\n## Council District 5\n### Rick Denison (incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Retired battalion chief; on the council since 2014; in Yucca Valley since 1976. Represents the town on SBCTA, LAFCO and SCAG, and chairs SCAG's Energy and Environment Committee. Says his original goals (public safety, roads, a balanced budget) have largely been met. [^1]\n\n### Dion Antic\n- Owns Snakebite Roadhouse (Yucca Valley) and SBR29 (Twentynine Palms). Priorities: turning Old Town into an arts district, reusing vacant buildings, and a \"concierge\" service to speed up permits. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Desert Trumpet, council candidates (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/city-council-and-town-council-candidates\n[^2]: CaliforniaCityFinance, Nov 2024 local measure results. https://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2411final.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-barstow-ccd","kind":"local","title":"Barstow Community College District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/barstow-ccd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-barstow-ccd.md","contests":[{"id":"barstow-ccd--measure-c-37m-college-facilities-bond","label":"Measure C","options":["Yes","No"]},{"id":"barstow-ccd--trustee-area-a","label":"Trustee Area A","options":["Yolanda Minor (incumbent)","Jerrad Schendel"]}],"markdown":"# Barstow Community College District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/barstow-ccd\n\n- title: Barstow Community College District\n- type: district\n- cities: [barstow]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure C** is a **$37M college bond**, about **$25 per $100K of assessed value** a year through 2056–57, with **about $73.7M** in total repayment. It needs **55%**. [^1][^2]\n- Barstow College serves **more than 5,300 students** a year, many of them veterans and active-duty service members. Buildings are more than 60 years old. [^3]\n- **No argument against was filed**, and the argument in favor doesn't name its signers. [^2]\n- **Trustee Area A:** incumbent **Yolanda Minor** (on the board since Oct 2022) faces **Jerrad Schendel**. [^4]\n\n## Measure C: $37M college facilities bond\n**What it does:** Bonds for veterans' transition facilities, classrooms and labs, a university center, child care, trades training, safety systems, roofs and HVAC, solar, and seismic and ADA repairs. It can't pay salaries. Some projects assume state matching money. Annual audits and a citizens' oversight committee. **55%** to pass. [^2]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Small rural college, old buildings and a modest ask. Supporters say they'll partner with Barstow Community Hospital and BNSF on job training. [^3]\n\n## Trustee Area A\n### Yolanda Minor (incumbent)\n- On the board since Oct 2022. [^4]\n\n### Jerrad Schendel\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Measure C tax rate statement. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/BarstowCCD/TR_BarstowCCD.pdf\n[^2]: County Counsel, Measure C impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/BarstowCCD/IA_BarstowCCD.pdf\n[^3]: Measure C argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/BarstowCCD/AF_BarstowCCD.pdf\n[^4]: Ballotpedia, Yolanda Minor. https://ballotpedia.org/Yolanda_Minor\n"},{"id":"local-beaumont-usd","kind":"local","title":"Beaumont Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/beaumont-usd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-beaumont-usd.md","contests":[{"id":"beaumont-usd--measure-b-86m-school-repair-bond","label":"Measure B","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Beaumont Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/beaumont-usd\n\n- title: Beaumont Unified School District\n- type: district\n- cities: []\n- areas: [Unincorporated area near Beaumont]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure B** is an **$86M school bond** at about **$20 per $100K of assessed value** a year through 2056–57, with **about $178M** in total repayment. The district says it **won't raise current tax rates**. It needs **55%**. [^1][^2]\n- The district is mostly in Riverside County; only a small number of San Bernardino County voters see this measure. Check your sample ballot. No argument against was filed. [^3]\n\n## Measure B: $86M school repair bond\n**What it does:** Roofs, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and safety systems, aging classrooms, science labs, and career technology spaces for health sciences, engineering and trades. It can't pay salaries. Citizens' oversight committee and annual audits. **55%** to pass. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure B impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/BeaumontUSD/IA_BUSD.pdf\n[^2]: Measure B tax rate statement. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/BeaumontUSD/TR_BUSD.pdf\n[^3]: SB County ROV, Nov 2026 measures. https://elections.sbcounty.gov/elections/2026/1103/measures/\n"},{"id":"local-chino-basin-wcd","kind":"local","title":"Chino Basin Water Conservation District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-basin-wcd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-chino-basin-wcd.md","contests":[{"id":"chino-basin-wcd--division-7","label":"Division 7","options":["Randy Lee","David Warren"]}],"markdown":"# Chino Basin Water Conservation District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-basin-wcd\n\n- title: Chino Basin Water Conservation District\n- type: district\n- cities: [chino, chino-hills]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Division 7 is open:** incumbent Ryan Sonnenberg isn't running. **Randy Lee**, acting deputy general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, faces **David Warren**, retired assistant general manager of the Rowland Water District. [^1]\n- The district runs groundwater-recharge basins and water-conservation programs. Lee's day job is at IEUA, which also manages groundwater recharge in the Chino Basin. His votes could affect that agency's work, so ask how he'd handle conflicts.\n\n## Division 7\n### Randy Lee\n- Chino Hills resident; acting deputy general manager, Inland Empire Utilities Agency. [^1]\n\n### David Warren\n- Retired assistant general manager and director of operations, Rowland Water District. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Champion Newspapers, 2026 candidate roundup. https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_6c34ad71-9977-4430-ab4f-755a31860602.html\n"},{"id":"local-chino-valley-fire","kind":"local","title":"Chino Valley Fire District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-valley-fire","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-chino-valley-fire.md","contests":[{"id":"chino-valley-fire--board-district-3","label":"Board District 3","options":["Tom Haughey (incumbent)","Winn Williams"]}],"markdown":"# Chino Valley Fire District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-valley-fire\n\n- title: Chino Valley Fire District\n- type: district\n- cities: [chino, chino-hills]\n\n## Key findings\n- **District 3 is a rematch of old fights.** Incumbent board vice president **Tom Haughey**, a former Chino councilman of almost 20 years, faces **Winn Williams**, a retired Chino Valley firefighter and former fire board member. [^1][^2]\n- **Williams was censured three times by the fire board in 2019.** The censures were for violating district policy, publicly criticizing the fire chief, and contacting staff and entering non-public areas despite restrictions. He said the evidence was \"manufactured.\" [^3]\n- District 5 (board president Mike Kreeger) is unopposed. [^1]\n\n## Board District 3\n### Tom Haughey (incumbent)\n- Owns Haughey Insurance Agency (in Chino since 1980). Chino City Council for almost 20 years until 2020; earlier on the Chino and county planning commissions. On the fire board since 2022; vice president. [^2]\n\n### Winn Williams\n- Retired Chino Valley firefighter and former board member. Censured three times in 2019, by a 3–1 vote the third time, with Williams voting no. [^1][^3]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Champion Newspapers, 2026 candidate roundup. https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_6c34ad71-9977-4430-ab4f-755a31860602.html\n[^2]: Chino Valley Fire District, Tom Haughey bio. https://chinovalleyfire.org/directory.aspx?eid=10\n[^3]: SB County Sentinel, Williams rebuked a third time (Nov 2019). https://sbcsentinel.com/2019/11/cvfd-rebukes-williams-for-the-third-time/\n"},{"id":"local-chino-valley-usd","kind":"local","title":"Chino Valley Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-valley-usd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-chino-valley-usd.md","contests":[{"id":"chino-valley-usd--board-district-3","label":"Board District 3","options":["Christopher Shaw","Frank Gerdine"]},{"id":"chino-valley-usd--board-district-4","label":"Board District 4","options":["Shaun Smith (incumbent, appointed)","Meagan Lichthart"]}],"markdown":"# Chino Valley Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/chino-valley-usd\n\n- title: Chino Valley Unified School District\n- type: district\n- cities: [chino, chino-hills]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Two board seats that decide whether the Sonja Shaw majority continues.** Board president Shaw is leaving to run for **state superintendent**. Her husband, **Christopher Shaw**, is running for her District 3 seat against teacher-backed **Frank Gerdine**. [^1]\n- In District 4, **Shaun Smith**, appointed in Sept 2025, faces substitute teacher **Meagan Lichthart**. Champion reported that Shaw and Smith received large donations from one donor; I couldn't read that story. [^1]\n- **Context:** in 2023 the board required staff to tell parents within three days if a student asked to change names or pronouns. Attorney General Bonta sued, a judge ruled it unconstitutional in Sept 2024, and a 2025 state law now bans such policies. Test scores rose over the same years: reading **58.9% → 62.1%** and math **44.6% → 49.8%** (2022–2025). [^2][^3]\n\n## Board District 3\n### Christopher Shaw\n- Construction manager in Chino. Married to board president Sonja Shaw, who withdrew from this seat to run for state superintendent. [^1]\n\n### Frank Gerdine\n- Educator and coach in Chino Hills. Endorsed by the Associated Chino Teachers. [^1]\n\n## Board District 4\n### Shaun Smith (incumbent, appointed)\n- Healthcare technology strategist in Chino Hills. Appointed by the board in Sept 2025 to replace Jon Monroe. [^1]\n\n### Meagan Lichthart\n- Credentialed substitute teacher in Chino Hills with a master's degree in education. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Champion Newspapers, 2026 candidate roundup. https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_6c34ad71-9977-4430-ab4f-755a31860602.html\n[^2]: Spectrum News, Chino Valley parental-notification policy (Mar 19, 2025). https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/education/2025/03/19/parental-notification-policy-chino-valley-\n[^3]: EdSource, Chino Valley's academic record and Sonja Shaw (2026). https://edsource.org/2026/sonja-shaw-state-superintendent-chino-credit/768795\n"},{"id":"local-east-valley-water","kind":"local","title":"East Valley Water District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/east-valley-water","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-east-valley-water.md","contests":[{"id":"east-valley-water--board-of-directors-vote-for-3","label":"Board of Directors (vote for 3)","options":["Ronald Coats (incumbent)","Phillip Goodrich (incumbent)","James Morales Jr. (incumbent)","Jeff Saks"]}],"markdown":"# East Valley Water District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/east-valley-water\n\n- title: East Valley Water District\n- type: district\n- cities: [highland, san-bernardino]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Three at-large seats, four candidates.** Incumbents **Ronald Coats**, **Phillip Goodrich** and **James Morales Jr.** face one challenger, **Jeff Saks**. The top three win. [^1][^2]\n- The district supplies water and sewer service to Highland and parts of San Bernardino. Morales placed first in both 2018 and 2022. [^1]\n\n## Board of Directors (vote for 3)\n### Ronald Coats (incumbent)\n- Current director. [^1]\n### Phillip Goodrich (incumbent)\n- Current director. [^1]\n### James Morales Jr. (incumbent)\n- Director since at least 2018; placed first with 26.6% (2018) and 27.9% (2022). [^3]\n### Jeff Saks\n- The only non-incumbent. I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Ballotpedia, San Bernardino County municipal elections (2026): ,_California_(2026). https://ballotpedia.org/Municipal_elections_in_San_Bernardino_County\n[^2]: East Valley Water District, election information. https://www.eastvalleywater.gov/about/transparency/board-of-directors/election-information\n[^3]: Ballotpedia, James Morales Jr.. https://ballotpedia.org/James_Morales_Jr\n"},{"id":"local-hi-desert-water","kind":"local","title":"Hi-Desert Water District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/hi-desert-water","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-hi-desert-water.md","contests":[{"id":"hi-desert-water--division-1","label":"Division 1","options":["Sharon Rose","Mike Hayward"]}],"markdown":"# Hi-Desert Water District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/hi-desert-water\n\n- title: Hi-Desert Water District\n- type: district\n- cities: [yucca-valley]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Division 1 is open** because incumbent Sue Tsuda didn't file. **Sharon Rose** faces **Mike Hayward**; the Desert Trumpet found little on either. Divisions 3 and 5 were settled without an election. [^1]\n- The district supplies Yucca Valley's water and runs its sewer system.\n\n## Division 1\n### Sharon Rose\n- Campaigns through a Facebook page. [^1]\n### Mike Hayward\n- The Desert Trumpet found no campaign page. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Desert Trumpet, Morongo Basin candidate and measure list (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/local-elections-the-morongo-basin\n"},{"id":"local-morongo-usd","kind":"local","title":"Morongo Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/morongo-usd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-morongo-usd.md","contests":[{"id":"morongo-usd--trustee-area-1","label":"Trustee Area 1","options":["Melissa \"Missy\" Bond (incumbent, appointed)","Ruben Rodriguez","Vadim Altschuler"]},{"id":"morongo-usd--trustee-area-5","label":"Trustee Area 5","options":["Roberta Meyers (incumbent)","Juan Carlos Pineiro","Linda Hamilton"]}],"markdown":"# Morongo Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/morongo-usd\n\n- title: Morongo Unified School District\n- type: district\n- cities: [twentynine-palms, yucca-valley]\n- areas: [Joshua Tree, Morongo Valley, Landers]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Two contested board seats.** Several candidates say they're running because of parents' frustration over **school closures, executive pay and transparency**. [^1]\n- **Area 1** (parts of Twentynine Palms and Joshua Tree; 2-year term after Karalee Hargrove resigned in May): appointed incumbent **Melissa \"Missy\" Bond** vs. **Ruben Rodriguez** and **Vadim Altschuler**.\n- **Area 5** (parts of Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley): incumbent **Roberta Meyers** vs. **Juan Carlos Pineiro** and **Linda Hamilton**.\n- Area 4 (board president Christopher Claire) is unopposed. [^1]\n\n## Trustee Area 1\n### Melissa \"Missy\" Bond (incumbent, appointed)\n- Appointed to fill the seat until this election. [^1]\n### Ruben Rodriguez\n- Answered the Desert Trumpet's questionnaire. [^1]\n### Vadim Altschuler\n- Answered the Desert Trumpet's questionnaire. [^1]\n\n## Trustee Area 5\n### Roberta Meyers (incumbent)\n- Current trustee. [^1]\n### Juan Carlos Pineiro\n- Has a campaign site. [^1]\n### Linda Hamilton\n- The Desert Trumpet couldn't reach this candidate. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Desert Trumpet, Morongo Basin candidate and measure list (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/local-elections-the-morongo-basin\n"},{"id":"local-morongo-valley-csd","kind":"local","title":"Morongo Valley Community Services District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/morongo-valley-csd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-morongo-valley-csd.md","contests":[{"id":"morongo-valley-csd--board-of-directors-vote-for-3","label":"Board of Directors (vote for 3)","options":["Randi Elise Wilson (incumbent)","Steven James Hayden (incumbent)","Johnny Tolbert Jr. (incumbent)","Nelson Leon"]}],"markdown":"# Morongo Valley Community Services District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/morongo-valley-csd\n\n- title: Morongo Valley Community Services District\n- type: district\n- cities: []\n- areas: [Morongo Valley]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Three at-large seats, four candidates:** incumbents **Randi Elise Wilson**, **Steven James Hayden** and **Johnny Tolbert Jr.** vs. challenger **Nelson Leon**. The top three win. [^1]\n- The district provides fire protection and parks in Morongo Valley. I found no reporting on candidates' positions.\n\n## Board of Directors (vote for 3)\n### Randi Elise Wilson (incumbent)\n- Incumbent. [^1]\n### Steven James Hayden (incumbent)\n- Incumbent. [^1]\n### Johnny Tolbert Jr. (incumbent)\n- Incumbent. [^1]\n### Nelson Leon\n- Challenger. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Desert Trumpet, Morongo Basin candidate and measure list (2026). https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/local-elections-the-morongo-basin\n"},{"id":"local-redlands-usd","kind":"local","title":"Redlands Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/redlands-usd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-redlands-usd.md","contests":[{"id":"redlands-usd--trustee-area-1","label":"Trustee Area 1","options":["Patty Holohan (incumbent)","Dale Broome"]},{"id":"redlands-usd--trustee-area-2","label":"Trustee Area 2","options":["Ryan Schavrien","Tiara Richardson","Maria Montes"]}],"markdown":"# Redlands Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/redlands-usd\n\n- title: Redlands Unified School District\n- type: district\n- cities: [redlands, highland, loma-linda, san-bernardino]\n- areas: [Mentone]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Two contested board seats:** Area 1 (incumbent **Patty Holohan** vs. **Dale Broome**) and Area 2 (**Ryan Schavrien**, **Tiara Richardson** and **Maria Montes**, an open seat). [^1]\n- Former board member **Alex Vara** is in the county superintendent runoff; see the countywide page.\n- I couldn't get independent detail on these candidates before publishing. Community Forward Redlands has published candidate comparisons for both areas.\n\n## Trustee Area 1\n### Patty Holohan (incumbent)\n- Current board member. [^2]\n\n### Dale Broome\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate yet.\n\n## Trustee Area 2\n### Ryan Schavrien\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate yet.\n\n### Tiara Richardson\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate yet.\n\n### Maria Montes\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate yet.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Community Forward Redlands, 2026 election guide. https://www.communityforwardredlands.com/election2026/\n[^2]: Community Forward Redlands, Redlands Unified Area 1. https://www.communityforwardredlands.com/redlands-unified-school-board-area-1/\n[^3]: Community Forward Redlands, Redlands Unified Area 2. https://www.communityforwardredlands.com/redlands-unified-school-board-area-2/\n"},{"id":"local-rim-of-the-world-parks","kind":"local","title":"Rim of the World Recreation and Park District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/rim-of-the-world-parks","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-rim-of-the-world-parks.md","contests":[{"id":"rim-of-the-world-parks--measure-r-park-parcel-tax-from-22-to-37","label":"Measure R","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Rim of the World Recreation and Park District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/rim-of-the-world-parks\n\n- title: Rim of the World Recreation and Park District\n- type: district\n- cities: []\n- areas: [Lake Arrowhead, Crestline, Running Springs, Twin Peaks, Blue Jay]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure R** raises the park parcel tax from **$22 to $37 a year** and adds a **1% annual increase**, with **no end date**. It brings in about **$510K more** in its first year and needs **two-thirds**. [^1][^2]\n- The parcel tax already pays **about 70% of the district's $1.1M budget**. The district runs **12 parks, a sports complex and two community centers** across 110 square miles, and gets no state or county operating money. [^2]\n- **No argument against was filed.** An independent auditor reports each year on what was collected and spent. [^1]\n\n## Measure R: Park parcel tax from $22 to $37\n**What it does:** Starting July 1, 2027, raises the special parcel tax to $37, plus 1% a year. Money goes to a special account for park upkeep and repairs, recreation programs and staff, equipment, and emergency repairs after snow, flood or fire. **Two-thirds** to pass. [^1]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Insurance and utility costs are rising, and the district says it has already cut staff and studied fees. A flat per-parcel tax costs a cabin owner the same as a large property owner. [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: County Counsel, Measure R impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/RimoftheWorldRPD/IA_ROTW.pdf\n[^2]: Measure R argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/RimoftheWorldRPD/AF_ROTW.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-sbcusd","kind":"local","title":"San Bernardino City Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sbcusd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-sbcusd.md","contests":[{"id":"sbcusd--measure-z-345m-school-repair-bond","label":"Measure Z","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# San Bernardino City Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sbcusd\n\n- title: San Bernardino City Unified School District\n- type: district\n- cities: [san-bernardino, highland]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure Z** is a **$345M school bond**, about **$45 per $100K of assessed value** a year through 2056–57, with **about $670M** in total repayment. It needs **55%**. [^1]\n- The district serves nearly **45,000 students**. Supporters cite **734 roof leaks last year**, schools more than 55 years old and classrooms over 90 degrees. [^2]\n- **No argument against was filed**, and the argument in favor doesn't name its signers. [^3]\n\n## Measure Z: $345M school repair bond\n**What it does:** Bonds for roof, plumbing and HVAC repairs, classroom and lab modernization, technology, health and building-code upgrades, and career technical education. Annual audits and a citizens' oversight committee. **55%** to pass. [^2][^1]\n\n**Cost:** $45 per $100K of assessed value. A home assessed at $350K pays about **$158 a year**. Total repayment is about twice the amount borrowed. (calculated from the tax rate statement) [^1]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Leaking roofs and failing air conditioning are classic bond projects. Missing from the record: the district's facilities master plan and how much of its older bond money remains. I didn't find either in the sources I checked, so check the district's site before voting.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Measure Z tax rate statement. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBCityUSD/TR_SBCityUSD.pdf\n[^2]: Measure Z argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBCityUSD/AIF_SBCUSD.pdf\n[^3]: SB County ROV, Nov 2026 measures. https://elections.sbcounty.gov/elections/2026/1103/measures/\n"},{"id":"local-sbccd","kind":"local","title":"San Bernardino Community College District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sbccd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-sbccd.md","contests":[{"id":"sbccd--measure-y-898m-college-facilities-bond","label":"Measure Y","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# San Bernardino Community College District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sbccd\n\n- title: San Bernardino Community College District\n- type: district\n- cities: [san-bernardino, colton, grand-terrace, highland, loma-linda, redlands, rialto, yucaipa, big-bear-lake, fontana]\n- areas: [Mentone, Lake Arrowhead, Crestline, Running Springs]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure Y** is an **$898M bond** for San Bernardino Valley College and Crafton Hills College. Repayment is estimated at **about $1.9B** through 2058–59, at **$25 per $100K of assessed value** a year. It needs **55%**. [^1][^2]\n- **This would be the district's third bond since 2008**, after Measure M (2008, $500M) and Measure CC (2018, $470M). Both still have active projects in the oversight committee's 2024–25 report, including a $56.9M technical building and a $45M performing arts center. [^3]\n- **No argument against was filed.** Signers for include a nurse, a local fire chief and a member of the district's own bond oversight committee. [^4]\n- The district covers the East Valley and mountains; parts of Fontana and other cities are in other college districts. Check your sample ballot.\n\n## Measure Y: $898M college facilities bond\n**What it does:** Up to $898M in bonds, limited to projects on the measure's list: career training facilities (firefighting, trades, nursing, teaching), asbestos and mold removal, gas line repairs, safe drinking water, earthquake retrofits, classroom and HVAC upgrades, and a **new community college center in the mountains**. Annual financial and performance audits and a citizens' oversight committee. **55%** to pass. [^2]\n\n**Track record**\n| Bond | Year | Amount | Status |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Measure M | 2008 | $500M | Projects still listed in 2024–25 |\n| Measure CC | 2018 | $470M | Projects still listed in 2024–25, including a $56.9M technical building and a $45M performing arts center |\n| **Measure Y** | **2026** | **$898M** | $25 per $100K through 2058–59; ~$1.9B to repay |\n[^3][^1]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** Signers for: Yolanda Simental (nurse), Rich Sessler (fire chief), Judy D. White (small business owner), Don Averill (citizens' oversight committee member), Richard Jaramillo (trades graduate). An oversight committee member signing for a new bond is worth noting, since the committee's job is to check the district's spending. [^4]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Aging buildings and trade-training space are real needs. But the district hasn't finished spending its 2018 bond, and repayment runs more than 30 years for buildings with shorter useful lives. Before voting, ask for the oversight committee's list of finished Measure CC projects and their final costs.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Measure Y tax rate statement. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBCCD/TR_SBCCD.pdf\n[^2]: County Counsel, Measure Y impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBCCD/IA_SBCCD.pdf\n[^3]: SBCCD Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee, report to the community 2024–25. https://sbccd.edu/district-services/facilities-planning-construction/citizens-bond-oversight-committee/citizens-bond-oversight-committee-report_2024-2025.pdf\n[^4]: Measure Y argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBCCD/AIF_SBCCD.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-mountains-hospital","kind":"local","title":"San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/mountains-hospital","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-mountains-hospital.md","contests":[{"id":"mountains-hospital--measure-q-61m-hospital-seismic-and-er-bo","label":"Measure Q","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/mountains-hospital\n\n- title: San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital District\n- type: district\n- cities: []\n- areas: [Lake Arrowhead, Crestline, Running Springs, Twin Peaks, Blue Jay]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure Q** is a **$61M bond** to keep Mountains Community Hospital in Lake Arrowhead open. It runs **about $23–25 per $100K of assessed value** a year through 2055–56, with **about $106M** in total repayment. It needs **two-thirds**. [^1][^2]\n- **Why now:** state seismic rules require the upgrade **by 2030** or the hospital loses its license. The district already borrowed **$48.5M from the USDA at 3.5%** for a $72M project. It says the **2025 federal Medicaid cuts will cost it $4M a year** starting in 2028, leaving it unable to make the loan payments from operations. [^3]\n- It's the **only emergency room within 45 minutes**. No argument against was filed. A district survey found 72% support. [^4][^3]\n\n## Measure Q: $61M hospital seismic and ER bond\n**What it does:** Pays for a replacement inpatient wing and emergency department, conversion of the old unit to long-term care beds, seismic upgrades, and backup power, water and sewer for 72 hours of outages. Dedicated account, annual audits, citizens' oversight committee. **Two-thirds** to pass. [^2]\n\n**Money and conflicts:** The bond would mainly **repay the USDA loan**, with about $12.5M left as a cushion. The hospital board voted unanimously to place it. [^3]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** Yes, if the alternative is losing the license: the hospital must meet the 2030 seismic deadline either way. The risk is that the bond covers construction debt but not the operating losses the hospital expects from the Medicaid cuts.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Measure Q tax rate statement. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBMCHD/TR_SBMCHD.pdf\n[^2]: County Counsel, Measure Q impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBMCHD/IA_SBMCHD.pdf\n[^3]: Alpine Mountaineer, MCH board approves floating a bond (Aug 13, 2026). https://thealpinemountaineer.com/2026/08/13/mch-board-approves-floating-a-bond/\n[^4]: Measure Q argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/SBMCHD/AIF_SBMCHD.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-sbvmwd","kind":"local","title":"San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sbvmwd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-sbvmwd.md","contests":[{"id":"sbvmwd--division-i-special-election","label":"Division I (special election)","options":["Jose Velasquez (incumbent, appointed)","Jonathan Lee"]},{"id":"sbvmwd--division-iii-open-seat","label":"Division III (open seat)","options":["Amy Malone","Jesus Medina","Dave Mlynarski"]},{"id":"sbvmwd--division-v","label":"Division V","options":["Paul Kielhold (incumbent)","Keith Collier"]}],"markdown":"# San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sbvmwd\n\n- title: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District\n- type: district\n- cities: [san-bernardino, colton, rialto, highland, redlands, loma-linda, grand-terrace, yucaipa, fontana]\n- areas: [Mentone]\n\n## Key findings\n- **The East Valley's wholesale water agency** buys State Water Project supplies and sells them to local water retailers. Its board decides imported-water spending and rates that end up on your water bill.\n- **Three contested divisions.** Division I is a special election: **Jose Velasquez**, appointed in Jan 2025 after Director June Hayes died, faces **Jonathan Lee**. Division III is open: **Amy Malone**, **Jesus Medina** and **Dave Mlynarski**. Division V: incumbent **Paul Kielhold** vs. **Keith Collier**. [^1][^2]\n- Division IV (T. Milford Harrison) was settled without an election. Divisions don't match city lines, so check your sample ballot.\n\n## Division I (special election)\n### Jose Velasquez (incumbent, appointed)\n- Appointed unanimously in Jan 2025. Finance professional with 15+ years in the water industry; Rialto youth soccer coach. [^2]\n\n### Jonathan Lee\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Division III (open seat)\n### Amy Malone\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n### Jesus Medina\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n### Dave Mlynarski\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Division V\n### Paul Kielhold (incumbent)\n- Current director. [^1]\n### Keith Collier\n- I found no independent reporting on this candidate.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Ballotpedia, San Bernardino County municipal elections (2026): ,_California_(2026). https://ballotpedia.org/Municipal_elections_in_San_Bernardino_County\n[^2]: IECN, Velasquez appointed Division I director (Jan 21, 2025). https://iecn.com/san-bernardino-valley-unanimously-selects-jose-velasquez-as-new-division-i-director/\n"},{"id":"local-upland-usd","kind":"local","title":"Upland Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/upland-usd","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-upland-usd.md","contests":[{"id":"upland-usd--measure-a-236-7m-school-repair-bond","label":"Measure A","options":["Yes","No"]}],"markdown":"# Upland Unified School District (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/upland-usd\n\n- title: Upland Unified School District\n- type: district\n- cities: [upland]\n- areas: [San Antonio Heights]\n\n## Key findings\n- **Measure A** is a **$236.7M school bond**, about **$47.46 per $100K of assessed value** a year (up to $49) through 2062–63, with **about $511M** in total repayment. It needs **55%**. [^1]\n- The district says it **hasn't passed a bond since Measure K in 2008**, and reports **602 roof leaks and 1,294 plumbing failures** in two years. [^2][^3]\n- **The only argument against on a county school bond:** a former Chaffey College adjunct says enrollment is **down 25% in 15 years**, taxpayers are still paying for Measure K, and **55% of students are below grade level in math**. [^4]\n\n## Measure A: $236.7M school repair bond\n**What it does:** Bonds for classroom rebuilds, restrooms, career and STEM labs, security (cameras, fencing, secure entries), drop-off traffic and ADA work. It can't pay salaries. Some projects assume state matching money that may not come. Separate account, annual audits, citizens' oversight committee. **55%** to pass. [^5]\n\n**Cost:** A home assessed at $500K pays about **$237 a year** for roughly 36 years. (calculated from the tax rate statement) [^1]\n\n**Both sides:** For: Loren Sanchez (retired superintendent), Farzad Yektafar (Upland YMCA CEO), Sarah Fash (Upland Teachers Association president), Emily Gomez (Highlander Educational Foundation), Steve Spears (retired CPA). They say campuses date from the 1950s and 1960s and the state won't fund the repairs. Against: falling enrollment, a budget that should already cover maintenance, and student performance. [^3][^4]\n\n**Does it solve a lasting problem?** The repair list is specific, and 18 years since the last bond is a long gap. The enrollment drop is the key question: ask the district which campuses it expects to keep open over the 36-year repayment.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Measure A tax rate statement. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/UplandUSD/TR_UplandUSD.pdf\n[^2]: Upland USD, bond information. https://www.upland.k12.ca.us/bond-information\n[^3]: Measure A argument in favor. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/UplandUSD/AIF_UplandUSD.pdf\n[^4]: Measure A argument against. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/UplandUSD/AA_UplandUSD.pdf\n[^5]: County Counsel, Measure A impartial analysis. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Measures/UplandUSD/IA_UplandUSD.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-cd-23","kind":"local","title":"U.S. House, District 23 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-23","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-cd-23.md","contests":[{"id":"cd-23--u-s-house-district-23","label":"U.S. House, District 23","options":["Jay Obernolte (R, incumbent)","Tessa Lynn Hodge (D)"]}],"markdown":"# U.S. House, District 23 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-23\n\n- title: U.S. House, District 23\n- office: U.S. House\n- cities: [adelanto, apple-valley, barstow, big-bear-lake, hesperia, loma-linda, needles, victorville, yucaipa, yucca-valley, redlands, san-bernardino]\n- areas: [Lake Arrowhead, Crestline, Running Springs, Lucerne Valley, Joshua Tree, Morongo Valley, Phelan]\n\n## Key findings\n- Covers the **High Desert, the mountains, Loma Linda, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley and Needles**, plus about 15% of Redlands and 5% of San Bernardino. [^1]\n- **Jay Obernolte (R)**, in Congress since 2021, faces **Tessa Lynn Hodge (D)**, a social worker and businesswoman. He took **57.1%** in the June primary; Hodge led the Democrats with 21.3%. Cook rating R+9. [^2]\n- Obernolte voted for the House version of the 2025 tax-and-spending bill. He says more than **40% of his district is on Medi-Cal**, and he rejects calling its Medicaid changes cuts: \"We're just creating some more requirements.\" [^3]\n\n## U.S. House, District 23\n### Jay Obernolte (R, incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Big Bear Lake resident; video-game developer and business owner; former Assemblymember. Won 2024 with 60.1%. Leads House work on artificial intelligence policy. [^2][^4][^5]\n- **Votes (2025):** Yes on the House version of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill\" (tax-cut extension, new Medicaid work requirements). CBO estimated the House bill would add **$2.4 trillion** to deficits; he says his own math shows savings. Backed the strikes on Iran's nuclear sites and sending Twentynine Palms Marines to Los Angeles. [^3]\n\n### Tessa Lynn Hodge (D)\n- Ballot designation: social worker and businesswoman. First run for Congress. She answered KVCR's questionnaire; Obernolte didn't. [^6][^7] I found no independent reporting on her record.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Senate, 2025 CD-23 district data. https://sdmg.senate.ca.gov/node/1099\n[^2]: Ballotpedia, CA-23. https://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_23rd_Congressional_District\n[^3]: Big Bear Grizzly, Obernolte on the budget bill, Iran and deployments (July 2025). https://www.bigbeargrizzly.net/news/obernolte-yes-on-one-big-beautiful-bill-iran-and-military-deployment-on-u-s-soil/article_663f4a8d-0adc-484d-8425-901426fcc914.html\n[^4]: Wikipedia, Jay Obernolte. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Obernolte\n[^5]: Ripon Advance, Obernolte to lead AI task force. https://riponadvance.com/stories/obernolte-to-lead-new-bipartisan-house-task-force-on-ai/attachment/2020_official_obernolte_jay/\n[^6]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^7]: KVCR voter guide. https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n"},{"id":"local-cd-25","kind":"local","title":"U.S. House, District 25 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-25","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-cd-25.md","contests":[{"id":"cd-25--u-s-house-district-25","label":"U.S. House, District 25","options":["Raul Ruiz (D, incumbent)","Joe Males (R)"]}],"markdown":"# U.S. House, District 25 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-25\n\n- title: U.S. House, District 25\n- office: U.S. House\n- cities: [twentynine-palms]\n\n## Key findings\n- The only county city in this district is **Twentynine Palms**; the rest is the Coachella Valley and Imperial County. [^1]\n- **Raul Ruiz (D)**, an emergency physician in Congress since 2013, faces **Joe Males (R)**, whose ballot designation is mayor pro tem. June primary: Ruiz 60.0%, Males 18.9%. [^2][^3]\n\n## U.S. House, District 25\n### Raul Ruiz (D, incumbent)\n- Emergency physician; in Congress since 2013; won 2024 with 56.3%. [^2]\n\n### Joe Males (R)\n- Ballot designation: mayor pro tem. [^3] I found no independent reporting on his campaign.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Senate, 2025 CD-25 district data. https://sdmg.senate.ca.gov/node/1101\n[^2]: Ballotpedia, CA-25. https://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_25th_Congressional_District\n[^3]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-cd-28","kind":"local","title":"U.S. House, District 28 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-28","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-cd-28.md","contests":[{"id":"cd-28--u-s-house-district-28","label":"U.S. House, District 28","options":["Judy Chu (D, incumbent)","April A. Verlato (R)"]}],"markdown":"# U.S. House, District 28 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-28\n\n- title: U.S. House, District 28\n- office: U.S. House\n- cities: [rancho-cucamonga, upland]\n- areas: [San Antonio Heights, Lytle Creek, Wrightwood]\n\n## Key findings\n- The county part is **north Rancho Cucamonga (42%) and north Upland (51%)**, plus San Antonio Heights, Lytle Creek and Wrightwood. Most of the district is in Los Angeles County's San Gabriel Valley. [^1]\n- **Judy Chu (D)** faces **April Verlato (R)**, a rematch of 2024, when Chu won 64.9%. June primary: Chu 62.2%, Verlato 32.1%. Cook rating D+14. [^2]\n\n## U.S. House, District 28\n### Judy Chu (D, incumbent)\n- In Congress since 2009 (this district number since 2023); first Chinese American woman elected to Congress. [^2][^3]\n\n### April A. Verlato (R)\n- Ballot designation: small business owner. Lost to Chu in 2024. [^4][^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Senate, 2025 CD-28 district data. https://sdmg.senate.ca.gov/node/1104\n[^2]: Ballotpedia, CA-28. https://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_28th_Congressional_District\n[^3]: Wikipedia, Judy Chu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Chu\n[^4]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-cd-31","kind":"local","title":"U.S. House, District 31 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-31","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-cd-31.md","contests":[{"id":"cd-31--u-s-house-district-31","label":"U.S. House, District 31","options":["Gil Cisneros (D, incumbent)","Eric Ching (R)"]}],"markdown":"# U.S. House, District 31 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-31\n\n- title: U.S. House, District 31\n- office: U.S. House\n- cities: [chino, montclair]\n\n## Key findings\n- The county part is **most of Chino (84%) and nearly all of Montclair (95%)**; the rest is in Los Angeles County. [^1]\n- **Gil Cisneros (D)**, in his first term, faces **Eric Ching (R)**. June primary: Cisneros 61.1%, Ching 23.8%. [^2]\n\n## U.S. House, District 31\n### Gil Cisneros (D, incumbent)\n- Navy veteran; represented CA-39 in 2019–2021; won this seat in 2024 with 59.7%. [^2][^3]\n\n### Eric Ching (R)\n- Ballot designation: entrepreneur. [^4] I found no independent reporting on his 2026 campaign.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Senate, 2025 CD-31 district data. https://sdmg.senate.ca.gov/node/1107\n[^2]: Ballotpedia, CA-31. https://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_31st_Congressional_District\n[^3]: Wikipedia, Gil Cisneros. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Cisneros\n[^4]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-cd-33","kind":"local","title":"U.S. House, District 33 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-33","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-cd-33.md","contests":[{"id":"cd-33--u-s-house-district-33","label":"U.S. House, District 33","options":["Pete Aguilar (D, incumbent)","Stephanie M. Vargas (R)"]}],"markdown":"# U.S. House, District 33 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-33\n\n- title: U.S. House, District 33\n- office: U.S. House\n- cities: [colton, fontana, grand-terrace, highland, rancho-cucamonga, redlands, rialto, san-bernardino]\n\n## Key findings\n- Covers **all of Colton, Grand Terrace, Highland and Rialto, nearly all of San Bernardino, 85% of Redlands, and about half of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga**. [^1]\n- **Pete Aguilar (D)** chairs the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking Democratic leadership job. He faces **Stephanie M. Vargas (R)**, whose ballot designation is chief deputy clerk. Aguilar took **53.5%** in the June primary, Vargas 17.5%. Cook rating D+7. [^2][^3]\n\n## U.S. House, District 33\n### Pete Aguilar (D, incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Former Redlands mayor; in Congress since 2015; House Democratic Caucus chair. Won 2024 with 58.8%. [^2][^4]\n- As a leadership member, his votes track the Democratic caucus. His district office reports federal project funding for local roads and water, but I didn't find an independent tally for FY2026.\n\n### Stephanie M. Vargas (R)\n- Ballot designation: chief deputy clerk. She answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^3][^5] I found no independent reporting on her record.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Senate, 2025 CD-33 district data. https://sdmg.senate.ca.gov/node/1109\n[^2]: Ballotpedia, CA-33. https://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_33rd_Congressional_District\n[^3]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^4]: Wikipedia, Pete Aguilar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Aguilar\n[^5]: KVCR voter guide. https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n"},{"id":"local-cd-35","kind":"local","title":"U.S. House, District 35 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-35","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-cd-35.md","contests":[{"id":"cd-35--u-s-house-district-35","label":"U.S. House, District 35","options":["Norma Torres (D, incumbent)","Mike Cargile (R)"]}],"markdown":"# U.S. House, District 35 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/cd-35\n\n- title: U.S. House, District 35\n- office: U.S. House\n- cities: [ontario, chino-hills, fontana, upland, chino, rancho-cucamonga, montclair]\n\n## Key findings\n- **All of Ontario and Chino Hills, about half of Fontana and Upland, and small parts of Chino, Rancho Cucamonga and Montclair** are in this district under the new Prop 50 map. [^1]\n- **Norma Torres (D)** has been in Congress since 2015 and sits on Appropriations, where she secured **$10.7M for 8 local projects** in FY2026. **Mike Cargile (R)** has lost to her three times; his 2020 posts used QAnon slogans. [^2][^3][^4]\n- Cook rating D+6. Torres took 59.5% in the June primary. [^3]\n\n## U.S. House, District 35\nJob: one of 435 votes on federal law and budgets, plus constituent services.\n\n### Norma Torres (D, incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Born in Guatemala; former 911 dispatcher; Pomona council and mayor; state Assembly and Senate; in Congress since 2015. Serves on Appropriations and House Administration. [^5][^6]\n- **Record:** State law routing cell-phone 911 calls to local police; NDAA amendment requiring the State Department to list corrupt officials in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. FY2026 earmarks include **$1.09M** for IEUA's water purification demonstration plant in Rancho Cucamonga and **$3.2M** for about 13 miles of new infrastructure in Ontario. [^6][^2] The CHCI bio is a friendly source; I found no independent scoring of her legislative effectiveness.\n- **Concerns:** In 2019 she called anti-abortion Republican colleagues \"sex-starved males\" on the House floor and withdrew the remark. El Salvador's President Bukele attacked her over her anti-corruption work. [^7][^5]\n\n### Mike Cargile (R)\n- **Key findings:** Army veteran (1990–91); filmmaker (Big Event Pictures), school crossing guard, youth coach. No elected office. [^8]\n- **Fourth run against Torres:** 30.7% (2020), 42.6% (2022), 41.6% (2024); 40.4% in the June 2026 primary. [^8]\n- Platform: calls election integrity \"the paramount issue of our time\"; one-time citizenship path after a border wall; more school resource officers; nuclear over wind and solar. [^8]\n- **Concerns:** In 2020 his social media used the QAnon slogan \"#WWG1WGA\" and called COVID a \"Scamdemic\"; the state GOP removed its endorsement from its website after the coverage. [^4]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Senate, 2025 CD-35 district data. https://sdmg.senate.ca.gov/node/1111\n[^2]: Torres press release, FY26 projects (Jan 9, 2026). https://torres.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congresswoman-torres-secures-107-million-in-community-projects-for-the-inland-empire-in-fy26-appropriations-package\n[^3]: Ballotpedia, CA-35. https://ballotpedia.org/CA-35\n[^4]: LA Magazine, Cargile and QAnon (July 1, 2020). https://lamag.com/politics/mike-cargile-qanon\n[^5]: Wikipedia, Norma Torres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_Torres\n[^6]: CHCI, Rep. Norma Torres bio. https://chci.org/staff-and-leadership/rep-norma-j-torres\n[^7]: Roll Call, \"sex-starved males\" remark (June 12, 2019). https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/sex-starved-males-comment-sets-off-house-floor-kerfuffle\n[^8]: Ballotpedia, Mike Cargile. https://ballotpedia.org/Mike_Cargile\n"},{"id":"local-sd-18","kind":"local","title":"State Senate, District 18 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sd-18","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-sd-18.md","contests":[{"id":"sd-18--state-senate-district-18","label":"State Senate, District 18","options":["Steve Padilla (D, incumbent)","Art Hodges (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Senate, District 18 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sd-18\n\n- title: State Senate, District 18\n- office: State Senate\n- cities: [needles]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly Imperial County and the eastern Coachella Valley, including Needles. [^1]\n- **Steve Padilla (D, incumbent)** faces **Art Hodges (R)**. Neither answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^2]\n\n## State Senate, District 18\nJob: one of 40 Senate votes on state laws, the budget and governor's appointments. Four-year term.\n\n### Steve Padilla (D, incumbent)\n- Former Chula Vista mayor; in the Senate since 2022. [^3]\n\n### Art Hodges (R)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^2]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^3]: Wikipedia, Steve Padilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Padilla\n"},{"id":"local-sd-22","kind":"local","title":"State Senate, District 22 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sd-22","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-sd-22.md","contests":[{"id":"sd-22--state-senate-district-22","label":"State Senate, District 22","options":["Susan Rubio (D, incumbent)","Mike Netter (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Senate, District 22 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sd-22\n\n- title: State Senate, District 22\n- office: State Senate\n- cities: [montclair, chino, ontario]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly the San Gabriel Valley, reaching into **Montclair, Chino and Ontario**. [^1]\n- **Susan Rubio (D, incumbent)** faces **Mike Netter (R)**. [^1]\n\n## State Senate, District 22\n### Susan Rubio (D, incumbent)\n- Former Baldwin Park councilmember; in the Senate since 2018. [^2]\n\n### Mike Netter (R)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^2]: Wikipedia, Susan Rubio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rubio\n[^3]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n"},{"id":"local-sd-32","kind":"local","title":"State Senate, District 32 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sd-32","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-sd-32.md","contests":[{"id":"sd-32--state-senate-district-32","label":"State Senate, District 32","options":["Kelly Seyarto (R, incumbent)","Tiffanie Tate (D)"]}],"markdown":"# State Senate, District 32 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/sd-32\n\n- title: State Senate, District 32\n- office: State Senate\n- cities: [chino-hills]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly western Riverside County, with **Chino Hills**. [^1][^2]\n- **Kelly Seyarto (R, incumbent)** faces **Tiffanie Tate (D)**. Seyarto answered KVCR's questionnaire; Tate didn't. [^1]\n\n## State Senate, District 32\n### Kelly Seyarto (R, incumbent)\n- Former Murrieta mayor and retired fire battalion chief; in the Senate since 2022. [^3]\n\n### Tiffanie Tate (D)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^2]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^3]: Wikipedia, Kelly Seyarto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Seyarto\n"},{"id":"local-ad-34","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 34 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-34","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-34.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-34--state-assembly-district-34","label":"State Assembly, District 34","options":["Randall Putz (D)","Charles Hughes (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 34 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-34\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 34\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [barstow, big-bear-lake, apple-valley, hesperia, victorville, adelanto, needles, yucca-valley, twentynine-palms]\n- areas: [Lucerne Valley, Phelan, Newberry Springs, Baker]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- **Open seat:** Republican Tom Lackey is termed out. The district covers most of the county's rural areas plus parts of Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County. [^1]\n- **Randall Putz (D)**, a departing Big Bear Lake councilman whose ballot designation is mayor and business owner, faces **Charles Hughes (R)**. [^2][^3]\n\n## State Assembly, District 34\n### Randall Putz (D)\n- Leaving the Big Bear Lake council this year. Answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^3][^4]\n\n### Charles Hughes (R)\n- Didn't answer KVCR's questionnaire. I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, California's 34th State Assembly district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_34th_State_Assembly_district\n[^2]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^3]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^4]: SB County Sentinel, mayoral and council match-ups (Aug 7, 2026). https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/08/more-clarity-on-november-mayoral-and-city-council-match-ups/\n"},{"id":"local-ad-36","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 36 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-36","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-36.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-36--state-assembly-district-36","label":"State Assembly, District 36","options":["Jeff Gonzalez (R, incumbent)","Ida Obeso-Martinez (D)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 36 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-36\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 36\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [needles, twentynine-palms]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly Imperial County and the eastern Coachella Valley, with part of eastern San Bernardino County. [^1][^2]\n- **Jeff Gonzalez (R, incumbent)** faces **Ida Obeso-Martinez (D)**, whose ballot designation is mayor and nurse. Neither answered KVCR's questionnaire in time. [^3][^2]\n\n## State Assembly, District 36\n### Jeff Gonzalez (R, incumbent)\n- Won the seat in 2024. I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n### Ida Obeso-Martinez (D)\n- Ballot designation: mayor and nurse. [^3]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, California's 36th State Assembly district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_36th_State_Assembly_district\n[^2]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^3]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-ad-39","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 39 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-39","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-39.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-39--state-assembly-district-39","label":"State Assembly, District 39","options":["Juan Carrillo (D, incumbent)","Paul Marsh (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 39 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-39\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 39\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [adelanto, victorville, hesperia]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly Lancaster and Palmdale, plus **parts of Adelanto, Victorville and Hesperia**. [^1]\n- **Juan Carrillo (D, incumbent)** faces **Paul Marsh (R)**. Carrillo answered KVCR's questionnaire; Marsh didn't. [^2]\n\n## State Assembly, District 39\n### Juan Carrillo (D, incumbent)\n- Former Palmdale councilmember; in the Assembly since 2022. [^1]\n\n### Paul Marsh (R)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, California's 39th State Assembly district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_39th_State_Assembly_district\n[^2]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^3]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-ad-41","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 41 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-41","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-41.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-41--state-assembly-district-41","label":"State Assembly, District 41","options":["John Harabedian (D, incumbent)","Adam Vena (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 41 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-41\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 41\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [upland, rancho-cucamonga]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly the San Gabriel Valley foothills (Pasadena to Claremont), reaching into **north Upland and north Rancho Cucamonga**.\n- **John Harabedian (D, incumbent)** faces **Adam Vena (R)**. Neither answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^1]\n\n## State Assembly, District 41\n### John Harabedian (D, incumbent)\n- Former Sierra Madre mayor; won the seat in 2024. [^2]\n\n### Adam Vena (R)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^2]: Wikipedia, John Harabedian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harabedian\n[^3]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-ad-45","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 45 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-45","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-45.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-45--state-assembly-district-45","label":"State Assembly, District 45","options":["James Ramos (D, incumbent)","Greg Abdouch (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 45 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-45\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 45\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [highland, redlands, san-bernardino, rialto, fontana, rancho-cucamonga]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Covers **parts of Highland, Redlands and San Bernardino** and the foothills along I-210 toward Rancho Cucamonga. [^1]\n- **James Ramos (D, incumbent)**, the first California Native American in the Legislature, faces **Greg Abdouch (R)**. Abdouch answered KVCR's questionnaire; Ramos didn't. [^1][^2]\n\n## State Assembly, District 45\n### James Ramos (D, incumbent)\n- Former San Manuel Band of Mission Indians chairman and county supervisor; in the Assembly since 2018. [^1]\n\n### Greg Abdouch (R)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, California's 45th State Assembly district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_45th_State_Assembly_district\n[^2]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^3]: Wikipedia, James Ramos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ramos\n[^4]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-ad-47","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 47 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-47","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-47.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-47--state-assembly-district-47","label":"State Assembly, District 47","options":["Greg Wallis (R, incumbent)","Leila Namvar (D)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 47 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-47\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 47\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [yucaipa, yucca-valley, twentynine-palms]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Centered on the Coachella Valley, with part of the county's high desert and Yucaipa. [^1]\n- **Greg Wallis (R, incumbent)** faces **Leila Namvar (D)**. Namvar answered KVCR's questionnaire; Wallis didn't. [^2]\n\n## State Assembly, District 47\n### Greg Wallis (R, incumbent)\n- Won the seat in 2022. [^1]\n\n### Leila Namvar (D)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, California's 47th State Assembly district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_47th_State_Assembly_district\n[^2]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^3]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-ad-50","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 50 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-50","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-50.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-50--state-assembly-district-50","label":"State Assembly, District 50","options":["Robert Garcia (D, incumbent)","Victoria Viveros Mageno (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 50 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-50\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 50\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [rancho-cucamonga, fontana, ontario, rialto, colton, loma-linda, san-bernardino, redlands]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- **Robert Garcia (D)** has served less than 2 years. I found **no bill of his signed into law** in public sources. He took **58.2%** in the June primary. [^1][^2]\n- **Victoria Viveros Mageno (R)** is a Cucamonga School District trustee running on \"stop the tax hikes\" and \"election integrity.\" She took **38.7%**. [^2]\n\n## State Assembly, District 50\nJob: one of 80 Assembly votes on state laws and the budget.\n\n### Robert Garcia (D, incumbent)\n- **Key findings:** Rancho Cucamonga resident. Etiwanda School District trustee 2016–2024. Won the seat in 2024 with 56.4% over fellow Democrat Adam Perez; in office since Dec 2024. [^1][^2]\n- Committees: Education; Housing and Community Development; Natural Resources; Public Employment and Retirement; Rules. [^2]\n- Short record: under two years in office, and I found no signed bill of note in the sources available.\n\n### Victoria Viveros Mageno (R)\n- **Key findings:** Elected to the Cucamonga School District board in 2020; has served as president and vice president. 20+ years in women's ministry leadership at Victory Outreach Chino. [^2]\n- Priorities: \"Stop the tax hikes,\" \"Restore election integrity,\" \"Keep communities safe.\" [^2]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, Robert Garcia (California assemblymember). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Garcia_(California_assemblymember)\n[^2]: The Ballot Brief, Assembly District 50. https://theballotbrief.com/state/california/san-bernardino-county/california-assembly-district-50\n[^3]: Wikipedia, California's 50th State Assembly district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_50th_State_Assembly_district\n"},{"id":"local-ad-53","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 53 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-53","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-53.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-53--state-assembly-district-53","label":"State Assembly, District 53","options":["Michelle Rodriguez (D, incumbent)","Rafaela Romero (R)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 53 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-53\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 53\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [montclair, chino, ontario, upland]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Covers **Montclair and much of Chino, Ontario and Upland**, plus Pomona in Los Angeles County. [^1]\n- **Michelle Rodriguez (D, incumbent)** faces **Rafaela Romero (R)**. Neither answered KVCR's questionnaire in time. [^2]\n\n## State Assembly, District 53\n### Michelle Rodriguez (D, incumbent)\n- Won the seat in 2024. [^1]\n\n### Rafaela Romero (R)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: Wikipedia, California's 53rd State Assembly district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_53rd_State_Assembly_district\n[^2]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^3]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-ad-58","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 58 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-58","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-58.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-58--state-assembly-district-58","label":"State Assembly, District 58","options":["Leticia Castillo (R, incumbent)","Clarissa Cervantes (D)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 58 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-58\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 58\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [chino]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly western Riverside County (Corona, Eastvale, Norco, Jurupa Valley), with a small part of San Bernardino County.\n- **Leticia Castillo (R, incumbent)** faces **Clarissa Cervantes (D)**. Cervantes answered KVCR's questionnaire; Castillo didn't. [^1]\n\n## State Assembly, District 58\n### Leticia Castillo (R, incumbent)\n- Won the seat in 2024. I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n### Clarissa Cervantes (D)\n- Answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^2]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n"},{"id":"local-ad-59","kind":"local","title":"State Assembly, District 59 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-59","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-ad-59.md","contests":[{"id":"ad-59--state-assembly-district-59","label":"State Assembly, District 59","options":["Phillip Chen (R, incumbent)","Victor Hernandez (Green)"]}],"markdown":"# State Assembly, District 59 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/ad-59\n\n- title: State Assembly, District 59\n- office: State Assembly\n- cities: [chino-hills]\n\n**Check your district:** state legislative lines split many cities, and public descriptions of the 2021 maps are incomplete. The cities listed here are the ones at least partly in this district based on the best available descriptions. Your sample ballot, or the county's [My Districts lookup](https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voterregistration/districtlookuptools/addresslookup/), shows which district you are actually in.\n\n## Key findings\n- Mostly north Orange County (Yorba Linda, Brea), with Chino Hills.\n- **Phillip Chen (R, incumbent)** faces **Victor Hernandez (Green)**. No Democrat advanced. Neither answered KVCR's questionnaire. [^1][^2]\n\n## State Assembly, District 59\n### Phillip Chen (R, incumbent)\n- In the Assembly since 2016. [^3]\n\n### Victor Hernandez (Green)\n- I found little independent reporting on this race. The KVCR voter guide has questionnaire answers from candidates who replied.\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: KVCR voter guide (candidate questionnaires). https://kvcr.org/voter-guide/san-bernardino\n[^2]: CA Secretary of State, certified candidate list (2026 general). https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-general/cert-list-candidates.pdf\n[^3]: Wikipedia, Phillip Chen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Chen\n"},{"id":"local-boe-1","kind":"local","title":"Board of Equalization, District 1 (local, San Bernardino County)","url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/local/boe-1","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/local-boe-1.md","contests":[{"id":"boe-1--board-of-equalization-district-1","label":"Board of Equalization, District 1","options":["Shannon Grove (R)","Nelson Esparza (D)"]}],"markdown":"# Board of Equalization, District 1 (local, San Bernardino County)\n\nURL: https://www.californiapeople.org/local/boe-1\n\n- title: Board of Equalization, District 1\n- office: Board of Equalization\n- cities: [adelanto, apple-valley, barstow, big-bear-lake, chino, chino-hills, colton, fontana, grand-terrace, hesperia, highland, loma-linda, montclair, needles, ontario, rancho-cucamonga, redlands, rialto, san-bernardino, twentynine-palms, upland, victorville, yucaipa, yucca-valley]\n\n## Key findings\n- The BOE **lost most of its power in 2017** after a state audit found \"misspending at the agency that appeared intended to promote its elected members.\" It now \"advises county assessors,\" values utility and railroad property, and hears some appeals. It has \"long been a launching pad\" for politicians. [^1][^2]\n- Open seat: **State Sen. Shannon Grove (R)**, termed out, vs. **Fresno Councilmember Nelson Esparza (D)**.\n- District 1 is one of four statewide; check your sample ballot to confirm it's on yours.\n\n## Board of Equalization, District 1\n### Shannon Grove (R)\n- **Key findings:** Army veteran; co-founded Continental Labor and Staffing Resources; Assembly 2010–2016 and Senate 2018–2026 (Bakersfield). Endorsed by outgoing BOE member Ted Gaines, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California. Priority: no tax increases, protect Prop 13. [^3][^4][^1][^2]\n\n### Nelson Esparza (D)\n- **Key findings:** Fresno City Council member. Endorsed by the California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation and CSEA. [^1]\n\n## Sources\n[^1]: CalMatters, 2026 voter guide, Board of Equalization. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/board-of-equalization/\n[^2]: LAist, BOE candidates (May 25, 2026). https://laist.com/news/education/lawmakers-stripped-the-board-of-equalization-of-power-now-theyre-fighting-to-join-it\n[^3]: Digital Democracy (CalMatters), Shannon Grove. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/legislators/shannon-grove-77\n[^4]: Bakersfield Californian, Grove seeks seat on Board of Equalization (Aug 27, 2025). https://www.bakersfield.com/news/grove-seeks-seat-on-board-of-equalization/article_5f79f318-a68f-477b-afb0-3563641718b4.amp.html\n"},{"url":"https://www.californiapeople.org","id":"voting-basics","kind":"info","title":"How to vote in San Bernardino County","markdown":"# How to vote in San Bernardino County (Nov 3, 2026)\n\n## Key dates\n- **Oct 5:** Mail ballots went out to every active registered voter. Early voting opened at the Registrar of Voters office. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n- **Oct 19:** Regular registration deadline (passed). You can still register and vote the same day; see below. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n- **Oct 27:** Last day to request a replacement mail ballot (passed). If you lost yours, vote in person. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n- **Sat, Oct 31:** Registrar of Voters office open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n- **Tue, Nov 3, Election Day:** Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. [Secretary of State, Quick Facts] Drop boxes close at 8 p.m. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n- **Nov 25:** Last day to fix a mail ballot flagged for a missing or mismatched signature. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n\n## Three ways to vote\n- **Mail it back.** No stamp needed. It must be postmarked by Nov 3 and arrive within seven days. If you mail it close to Election Day, ask a post office clerk to hand-postmark it. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n- **Drop it off.** Any county drop box, polling place, or early voting location, by 8 p.m. on Nov 3. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n- **Vote in person.** At your assigned polling place on Election Day, or early at the Registrar of Voters office or an early voting location. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n\n## Not registered, or moved?\nYou can still register and vote the same day (conditional voter registration) at the Registrar's office or an early voting location through Election Day, or at a polling place on Election Day. [San Bernardino County ROV]\n\n## Useful links\n- Find your polling place: https://elections.sbcounty.gov/voting/ppl/2026/1103/\n- Track your mail ballot: https://elections.sbcounty.gov/VoterRegistration/MyElectionGatewayInfo/MyElectionsGateway/?target=MailBallotStatus\n- Your county voter guide and sample ballot (PDF): https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/VIG.pdf\n- Ballot drop box locations (PDF): https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/News/2026/1103/PublicNotice_MailBallot_DropOffLocations.pdf\n- Early voting locations: https://elections.sbcounty.gov/Voting/Early/\n- State Official Voter Information Guide: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/\n- Registrar of Voters phone: 909-387-8300\n\n## Sources\n- San Bernardino County ROV, Key Dates and Deadlines: https://elections.sbcounty.gov/elections/2026/1103/\n- Secretary of State, Quick Facts for the Nov 3, 2026 election: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/voter-info/quick-facts.htm\n","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/voting-basics.md","contests":[]},{"url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/methodology","id":"methodology","kind":"info","title":"Methodology and source standards","markdown":"\n# How this guide was built\n\n**Goal:** give one voter the context missing from the official voter guide: verifiable track records for candidates and the real-world mechanics, money and beneficiaries behind each proposition.\n\n## Source hierarchy\n1. **Primary and nonpartisan official sources:** Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) ballot analyses; California Secretary of State certified candidate lists and campaign contribution totals; county impartial analyses; court rulings; government press releases (used for what an office *did*, not for claims of success).\n2. **Reputable nonpartisan reporting:** CalMatters, KQED, EdSource, AP, local newspapers.\n3. **Secondary references:** Wikipedia and Ballotpedia, used for résumé dates and pointers, and labeled when used.\n4. **Not used as evidence:** campaign websites (except to state a candidate's own priorities, labeled as such), AI-generated \"fact\" sites, partisan opinion outlets (except where labeled).\n\n## What each entry covers\n- **Candidates:** résumé; track record that supports their pitch; track record that cuts against it; positions; endorsements; a short \"job-applicant read\" that summarizes the evidence.\n- **Propositions:** what it actually does; nonpartisan fiscal estimate; who sponsored it, who is funding each side, who benefits; whether it addresses a lasting problem; the strongest arguments on each side.\n- **If you vote yes: accountability (each prop):** which agency spends or enforces it and the officials who answer for it; who receives the money and where those records live; audits, lawsuits and fraud cases already on record; who to press and what to ask for; and ready-to-send California Public Records Act requests. These sections name offices and public officials only.\n\n## Limits\n- Money figures are as of Oct 22, 2026, the last statewide filing before the election.\n- Some local races have little independent reporting; those entries say so.\n- Districts were looked up for one address in Rancho Cucamonga using Census and county/city GIS layers. Your official sample ballot is the final word.\n\n## Vetting pass (Oct 28, 2026)\nA second review checked every page for single-source claims, Wikipedia-only claims, vague wording and missing third-party checks.\n\n**Fixed in this pass**\n- Prop 4 money: the page said no committees had registered; KQED (citing the Secretary of State) shows $984.6K raised in support and $0 against. Corrected.\n- Fiona Ma: the claim that she \"initiated\" the Board of Equalization audits came only from Wikipedia. Replaced with what the LA Times and KQED actually report: she requested investigations and welcomed the governor's action after a Finance Department audit. The \"improper gifts\" line was replaced with the specific Sacramento Bee allegation (a caviar seller on work trips) and a note that no wrongdoing finding was found.\n- Gloria Romero's party switch and Trump vote now cite Spectrum News (Sept 4, 2024) instead of Wikipedia.\n- Prop 40: the 2% compromise offer now cites AP (June 18, 2026), and the claim that \"Newsom refused\" was softened to what is documented (no deal was made). Added CalMatters' fact check of the opponents' \"Trojan horse\" ad (rated partially true).\n- Prop 3: noted that Ballotpedia reports $74.8M for Yes while the Secretary of State shows $81.1M, because they count different committees.\n- Local page: replaced the \"likely\" districts with the districts for your address (Congress District 35, not 33), removed the BOE District 4 race, and added County Board of Education Area B and Council District 2 detail.\n\n**Third-party checks used**\n- Nonpartisan fiscal analysis: LAO for all 14 props.\n- Money: Secretary of State totals (through Oct 22), cross-checked against Ballotpedia News (Oct 26) and KQED.\n- Fact-checkers: CalMatters fact checks (Prop 40), CapRadio's governor-debate fact check, PolitiFact (governor's race). PolitiFact California had no 2026 checks on these propositions or other statewide candidates as of Oct 28.\n\n**Still thin or unverified (read these entries with more caution)**\n- Résumé dates for Becerra, Hilton, Ma, Romero, Aguilar and Torres come from Wikipedia. They are low-risk facts but not checked against official bios.\n- Norma Torres's legislative accomplishments come from a friendly source (the CHCI bio, which repeats her office's account) and her own press releases. No independent effectiveness scoring was found.\n- Treasurer and Controller entries rest mostly on CalMatters. No second independent source yet on Kounalakis's or Morgan's business records.\n- Local races: David VanGorden, Connie Velazquez, Marjorie Hamada, Jaskirat Sondh, Michael Perez and Oliver King have almost no independent coverage. Kimberly Watson and Rita Fernandez-Loof (County Board of Education) have none.\n- The Chaffey High School District Area 2 seat appears uncontested based only on a teachers' union endorsement list.\n- Prop 39 money: the Secretary of State figures here ($36.6M Yes / $33.6M No) differ slightly from Ballotpedia's ($39.5M / $33.3M), again because of committee counting.\n- Polls are single snapshots and are labeled with dates.\n\nResearch compiled Oct 28, 2026.\n","markdown_url":"https://www.californiapeople.org/md/methodology.md","contests":[]}]}