Since there is again one ballot measure for this primary, I am combining the posts.

Propositions

Proposition 1- NO. It would cut county funding for mental health services, and current interest rates make bonds more expensive than normal.

Candidates

US Senate, Full and Partial Term- Barbara Lee. She has been fighting for us for decades, and has had the courage to fight for peace when nobody else dared.

President of the United States- Joseph R Biden Jr. While I disagree with how he’s handled the Gaza conflict, I think the work he has done fighting inflation, covid, and working to fix long-lasting problems in our society and infrastructure has earned my vote.

United States Representative, District 8- John Garamendi. He’s been an effective voice for the region in congress and has done good work with his newsletters.

State Senator, District 7- Jovanka Beckles. She’s done good work in Contra Costa County both in her time on Richmond City Council and as a transit director for AC transit. Her ties should balance the default tendency of the District to focus on Oakland and Berkeley.

Member of the State Assembly- Buffy Wicks. She’s done good work as an assemblymember.

Democratic County Central Committee District 1- Cameron Sasai, Devin Murphy, Jamin Pursell, Floy Elizabeth Andrews, Maria Alegria. I know all of them have fought for progressive values and will support younger candidates in the county.

Federal

Senate (short and regular term)- Alex Padilla. He’s done fine as a Senator, and the policies he’s pushed for on abortion, climate change and preserving Democracy are a closer fit to my values than his opponent.

US Representative, District 8- John Garamendi. He’s done a good job as a congressmember and directed resources to Pinole in particular. The laws he has pushed for on abortion and voting rights earn him my support.

State

Governor- Gavin Newsom. I would prefer that he more strongly back single-payer healthcare, but he’s done a good job taking the state through Covid-19 so far.

Lieutenant Governor- Eleni Kounalakis. As her statement notes, she’s fought to block new oil development, which is critical to fight climate change. Her desired policies (in the event of Newsom’s retirement or election to another office) are closer to what I would prefer than Jacobs’.

Secretary of State- Shirley Weber. She’s done a good job at expanding and maintaining ballot access, given the limitations of our county-based elections systems. For example, Contra Costa County is not a part of the Voter’s Choice Act system, but that’s a county-level decision, not a state-level one.

Controller- Malia Cohen. She has experience doing statewide auditing work through her current role as head of the Board of Equalization, and explicitly promises to ensure that tax credits claimed by major corporations are actually used for their intended purpose (her platform, page 2- PDF), and to push for effective, audited climate action (pages 4 and 5, ibid).

Treasurer- Fiona Ma. Seems to have managed the state’s funds well, has the right background experience for the job by her statement.

Attorney General- Rob Bonta. He’s done a good job as Attorney General, fighting for the issues I care about- voting rights in particular, as seen here. His priorities- fighting ghost guns, for Roe V Wade, and against polluters and pharma companies by his statement seem worthwhile.

Insurance Commissioner- None. My objections to Ricardo Lara from the primary remain- he’s still under investigation by the FPPC to the best of my ability to determine for redirecting funds from insurance companies he regulates into independent action groups working to support his re-election. I don’t see how being a cybersecurity equipment manufacturer qualifies Robert Howell to be Insurance Commissioner. Therefore, I will be leaving this portion of the ballot blank.

Superintendent of Public Instruction- Tony Thurmond. He’s had to deal with incredibly challenging conditions with Covid-19, and in my opinion has earned another term.

Board of Equalization, District 2- Sally J. Lieber. She worked at the state and local levels to fight for equity, and wants to make sure that property tax burdens aren’t shifted off of the major corporations and on to the rest of us by her statement.

State Assembly, District 14- Buffy Wicks. She’s continued to impress in her work fighting for equity in housing, workplaces and welfare.

Judicial- in my opinion, we should vote to retain unless there is clear evidence of failure to perform their duties by the justices. I haven’t seen any evidence of such, so I will vote yes for all.

Local

Clerk-Recorder: Kristen Connelly. She hasn’t taken down her opponent’s signs, and her opponent has. It’s important that the clerk-recorder of all local officials conduct their campaign with integrity.

Pinole City Council: Rafael Menis, Anthony Tave, Cameron Sasai. I’ve been fighting for a more sustainable and just Pinole for years, but there’s limits to what I can do as a citizen, or even as a planning commissioner. I ask for your vote to build a more transparent, engaged and resilient Pinole.

Anthony Tave is a great guy who has done important work with integrity on the council. Cameron Sasai’s passion and vision for Pinole is an inspiration.

All proposition quotes are to the complete voter guide pdf, linked here.

Proposition 1- Yes. Incredibly simple, and abortion and contraception rights should be codified in the state constitution. Could still be overridden by a federal ban, but that’s the Supremacy clause for you.

Proposition 26- No. If it’s just about permitting online gaming on tribal lands, why are roulette and dice games explicitly added to the permitted games list (page 79, section 19f)? Why only permit civil lawsuits the state doesn’t deem it worthwhile to pursue (page 81, section 19990 b2)?

Proposition 27- No. 10% (page 94, section 19775 a) is an excessively low rate (as you’d expect for a measure funded by gambling companies), as you can see in the rate comparison chart from the tax foundation here. Section 19776 somehow tries to enforce a 15% tax on the individuals who gamble illegally (not the providers) (page 95), except on tribal lands (page 96, subsection e). This would seem to heavily incentivize illegal gambling on tribal lands, even while other portions of the proposition require tribes to surrender their sovereign immunity except for that case (pages 92 and 93, section 19770). Finally, the amendment threshold is absurdly high (5/6ths majority) and likely to be struck down for that reason alone (page 99, section 19790 b).

Proposition 28- Yes. We’ve been gutting arts education in schools for years, and requiring funding for that with mandatory online reporting on uses (pages 106-7, section 8820 g4) is a start to fixing it.

Proposition 29- Yes. Aside from the core issue of expertise, required reporting to the state on infection rates to be posted online would be a significant public health benefit (page 109, section 1226.8 b).

Proposition 30- Yes. While I dislike that a significant portion of the revenues (about 23% between page 117, section 80219 and page 113, section 80205) set aside by the tax would go to reimbursing purchases of new ZEVs (rather than used, or the numerous other worthwhile areas set aside elsewhere in the proposition) (page 117, section 80221 c1), there are still substantial portions set aside for fighting wildfires (page 118, sections 80224-6); funding single and multi-family EV charger installations (page 115, sections 80213-4), and getting more ZEV mass transit (page 117, section 80220).

Proposition 31- Yes. Remove the incentive for companies to target minority communities with flavored tobacco advertising and they’ll stop doing it, naturally decreasing demand over time. With regards to medical devices, I think that the way the proposition references section 104495 (link here) excludes nicotine replacement products registered with the FDA because of subsection 8B, but I could be wrong on that.

Since there’s only one ballot measure for this primary, I’ve combined the two posts.

Measure G- YES. It is about as minimal a tax as can be (one dollar per vehicle), and generates revenue to help the county with removing abandoned and wrecked vehicles. Of note, nobody formally filed an argument against it- which is practically unheard of for any tax measure. Since the county’s website won’t create a reproducible link for the text of the measure, you can find it at ballotpedia here.

State Candidates

Governor- Gavin Newsom. I would prefer that he more strongly back single-payer healthcare, but he’s done a good job taking the state through Covid-19 so far.

Lieutenant Governor- Eleni Kounalakis. As her statement notes, she’s fought to block new oil development, which is critical to fight climate change.

Secretary of State- Shirley N. Weber. She’s done a good job at expanding and maintaining ballot access, given the limitations of our county-based elections systems. For example, Contra Costa County is not a part of the Voter’s Choice Act system, but that’s a county-level decision, not a state-level one.

Controller- Malia Cohen. She has experience doing statewide auditing work through her current role as head of the Board of Equalization, and explicitly promises to ensure that tax credits claimed by major corporations are actually used for their intended purpose (her platform, page 2- PDF), and to push for effective, audited climate action (pages 4 and 5, ibid).

Treasurer- Fiona Ma. Seems to have managed the state’s funds well, has the right background experience for the job by her statement.

Attorney General- Rob Bonta. His priorities- fighting ghost guns, for Roe V Wade, and against polluters and pharma companies by his statement seem worthwhile.

Insurance Commissioner- Marc Levine. He’s acted to create better insurance systems and won’t take money from the insurers he regulates by his statement. By contrast, Ricardo Lara is under investigation by the FPPC, per the San Diego Tribune, for funds from insurance companies being effectively laundered into an independent expenditure committee supporting his campaign. While it’s only an allegation at this point, I’d rather support the candidate who doesn’t have those allegations against them.

Board of Equalization, District 2- Sally J. Lieber. She worked at the state and local levels to fight for equity, and wants to make sure that property tax burdens aren’t shifted off of the major corporations and on to the rest of us by her statement.

Superintendent of Public Instruction- Tony K. Thurmond. Working to have more mental health counselors, teachers and food for children by his statement seems worthwhile. While I appreciate Marco Amaral’s ambition, I’m not at all sure that most of his goals could be accomplished in the role.

Member of the State Assembly, District 14- Buffy Wicks. She’s worked to improve vaccine access and for equity, as per her statement (which is not on the county’s website).

Federal Candidates

US Senate, Full and Partial Term- Alex Padilla. He’s fought for Medicare for All, and to build the infrastructure we need for renewable energy like heat pumps in the US.

US House, District 8- John Garamendi. He’s fighting for Medicare for All, voting rights and to stop climate change per his statement (which, thanks to the inadequacy of the county’s elections website, I can’t link). Cheryl Sudduth’s arguments for equity are also impressive, but I haven’t seen her campaigning in Pinole. I have seen Garamendi.

County Candidates

Supervisor, District 1- John Gioia. He’s done a great job fighting for our interests and progressive values- equity, sustainability, and re-opening fire stations. Even public speakers who oppose him at Board of Supervisors meetings praise his effectiveness at serving our area. He deserves another term.

County Assessor- Floy Andrews. She’s qualified, has integrity- a literal master’s degree in Ethics, and would be a far superior assessor to her opponent. He’s engaged in several unethical acts and faced suits over a hostile workplace environment.

Clerk-Recorder- Devin T. Murphy. As I’ve noted several times, I have issues with how the county election’s office has their website set up to limit online access to candidate statements. Devin Murphy would work to make information more accessible, fight for expanded voter access, and make sure our elections are safe and secure.

District Attorney- Diana Becton. She held a violent cop accountable, against significant pushback from her own office and the Sheriff’s department. Her opponent would not have. She’s also worked to establish cold case units, eliminate rape test kit backlogs, and remedy unjust sentences.

County Sheriff- Benjamin Therriault. He supports establishing community policing, and his opponent advocates for convicted, violent cops.

County Treasurer- None. At best, I can find limited, decade-old information about incumbent Russell V Watts. Without a candidate statement, website or current biography I don’t have enough information to evaluate him.

County Superintendent of Schools- Lynn V Mackey. She has a lengthy background on both the educational and administrative sides of the system, and prioritizes accountability while keeping students sane.

County Auditor-Controller- Robert Campbell. There’s not very much current information I can find for him, but there is some, which notes his experience and background. He’s also had to argue for his work in multiple recent contested elections.

Prop 14- YES. Funding future cures is precisely the sort of thing bonds are appropriate for, by spreading the cost between present and future, as the benefit is heavily future-weighted.

Prop 15- YES. Commercial properties should not be able to remain effectively indefinitely at the same assessed value through tricks of transfer. Regular reassessment will help fund community needs and schools, the same as any other property tax revenue. Entities (like your average small business) that own commercial property less than $3 million in value won’t be affected.

Prop 16- YES. In the interest of equity, the state should be able to conduct affirmative action to aid those that were discriminated against.

Prop 17- YES. We want to reintegrate people on parole into society, and voting is one of the most fundamental ways to do that.

Prop 18- YES. I don’t see any good reason that someone shouldn’t be able to vote in a primary election for a general election that they would be 18 for.

Prop 19- YES. This future-shifts property tax gains to communities, by increasing present exemptions (allowing for more transfers of property without reassessment within someone’s lifetime) and reducing future ones (by reassessing properties on death, except when the heir takes residence or the property’s value is less than $1 million). Far too often we’ve gone for present benefits and future costs- this is the other way around, and should be supported for that alone.

Prop 20- NO. We shouldn’t require DNA collection for any misdemeanors.

Prop 21- YES. Local governments should have the power to set rent controls relevant for their conditions. This doesn’t require anyone to create rent controls- it merely makes the option available.

Prop 22- NO. No paying for exemptions from the law. An industrial sector buying an initiative to buy exemption from a general law for that sector alone is an abomination.

Prop 23- YES. Most of the time a doctor won’t be needed- but when one is, time will be critical. Also, prevents mass closures to get around intent of law.

Prop 24- NO. I’m nowhere near confident enough in any improvements this initiative makes to support a 7/8^th majority requirement in the legislature to change it. That’s absurdly high.

Prop 25- YES. The algorithms are imperfect- but better than cash bail.

Proposition X- YES. The overwhelming majority of Contra Costa County’s tax revenue is from property tax, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in the property market. Increasing the county’s sales tax will mitigate that vulnerability.

President: Joe Biden/Kamala Harris. He’s not perfect, but he’s been willing to adopt better policies as the world changes, which earns him points in my book.

US Representative: Mike Thompson. He’s done a good job communicating about attempts to get Covid relief through congress, and just as importantly voted for that relief.

State Senator: Nancy Skinner. My opinion of her hasn’t changed- she continues to do good work in Sacramento.

Member of the State Assembly District 15: Buffy Wicks. I’m changing my position from the primary here because her opponent has conceded on her own campaign webpage. While I may not agree with Buffy on every issue, I admire her dedication towards equity for child care.

Contra Costa County Board of Education District 1: Consuelo Lara. She’s done good work on the WCCUSD board, and is against charter schools.

West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) District 1: Jamela Smith-Folds. She’s a good person, a long-time teacher and someone who has clearly been dedicated to the district.

Supervisor District 5: Federal Glover. Gus Kramer continues to be just as unacceptable to me as he was in the primary. We should not reward questionable conduct in an official role by electing that person to another official role.

Pinole City Councilmember: Maureen Toms and Devin Murphy. Maureen brings years of experience working with the county, as well as her prior work on the city council. Her intellect and knowledge will make her an asset to the council.

Devin is a small business owner who is going to bring his experience there and on the planning commission to help everyone thrive in Pinole. I like his commitment to participatory budgeting and focusing on youth engagement in Pinole in particular.

Pinole City Treasurer: Rafael Menis. I have the skills and experience to make the city’s budget and investments clear to everyone. Vote for me to be your eyes on your money.

East Bay Regional Park District Ward 1: Elizabeth Echols. She’s done a fine job expanding access to the parks while maintaining the environment- not an easy balance to keep.

BART District 7: Lateefah Simon. She’s gone out of her way to communicate with Pinole much more than past directors, and actively uses transit so she has skin in the game.

National

President: Bernie Sanders. Bernie is the only candidate who both recognizes the critical issues facing our nation and is building a movement to combat it. From climate change to health care, war to education, Bernie has and has always had the right positions. But those positions are meaningless without a popular movement to back them. Bernie is building that movement. Finally, his personal character is above reproach.

Regional

US Representative, District 5: Jason Kishineff. I like his core priorities (criminal justice reform, dealing with climate change, removing corporate money from politics), and more broadly he’s pushing for the same platform as Sanders is.

State Senator, District 9: Nancy Skinner. She’s the only candidate on the ballot, and well-qualified for it.

State Assembly-member, District 15: Sara Brink. I like Sara Brink’s focus on returning power to the community.

Judge of the Superior Court: Susanne M. Fenstermacher. She hasn’t done anything wrong as a judge, and I would rather not vote to remove a judge without that.

County Supervisor, District 5: Sean Trambley. He supports affordable housing, and has taken the time to campaign in Pinole and ask for our opinions. Federal Glover (or possibly a PAC supporting him, it’s been a few years) ran ads against his opponent in the last election, attacking her for calling for more housing. And Gus Kramer is notorious for his creating a hostile workplace environment as assessor, and for engaging in self-dealing in his role as assessor and as a private party.

Democratic County Central Committee: Ryan H. Apperson, Anamarie Avila Farias, Nadine Grace Peyrucain, John Stevens. They all have good platforms. Courtney Masella-O’Brien’s core priorities list is inadequate. Richard Verrilli doesn’t even have one on votersedge.

There are 2 local propositions on the ballot in Pinole this primary- Measure R from the West Contra Costa Unified School District, a bond measure to fund school renovations in WCCUSD; and Measure J from Contra Costa county, a sales tax increase of 1/2 cent for 30 years to fund various transportation projects.

I support Measure R and Measure J.

The reason why I support Measure R is simple. Pinole has benefited disproportionately from the last school bond measure to pass- it funded the construction of the new Pinole Valley High School,at double the expected cost. Those funds were not available to go to the last projects on the reconstruction list, which just happened to be concentrated in Richmond, in historically disadvantaged areas. Without Measure R, those projects will continue to not be completed, and if Proposition 13 passes, WCCUSD will be less able to access funds from it. As a resident of Pinole, we owe the rest of the district the chance to do better than we did.

Measure J has a good balance of transit measures across the county. While I would like to see a BART extension towards Hercules prioritized, failing that the measures taken in Measure J are a good mitigation step. It would increase funding for roadway repairs across the county (which Pinole certainly needs). It would also dedicate a significant amount of money ($250 million) to improving bus service frequency and lowering cost of use in West County, which is key to having buses be accepted as a transit alternative (https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CCTA_TEP_Draft24_final3_102319.pdf, the 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan, page 22).

Proposition 13- School rebuilding bonds. Yes.

One of the core problems in California’s post Proposition 13 (1978) system is that some local school systems can raise bonds to rebuild their schools much more easily than others. This Proposition 13 grants an increased share of cost to the state for worse-off districts, and prioritizes those projects higher than they currently are through linked legislation. (see https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/primary/pdf/prop13-title-summ-analysis.pdf, page 14). In addition, the state is running out of money to fund any new school bond projects (ibid, page 12), and those projects are of substantial, long-term importance.

I have agreed to abide by the city of Pinole’s Local Campaign Contribution Limits, and California’s Code of Fair Campaign Practices.

The Local Campaign Contribution Limits caps the amount I can raise from any single person at $500 dollars, from any political committee at $1000 dollars, and the overall amount I can raise at $12,000 dollars.

The Code of Fair Campaign Practices is worth quoting in full. It says-

CODE OF FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES

There are basic principles of decency, honesty, and fair play which every candidate for public office in the State of California has a moral obligation to observe and uphold in order that, after vigorously contested but fairly conducted campaigns, our citizens may exercise their constitutional right to a free and untrammeled choice and the will of the people may be fully and clearly expressed on the issues.

THEREFORE:

(1) I SHALL CONDUCT my campaign openly and publicly, discussing the issues as I see them, presenting my record and policies with sincerity and frankness, and criticizing without fear or favor the record and policies of my opponents or political parties that merit this criticism.

(2) I SHALL NOT USE OR PERMIT the use of character defamation, whispering campaigns, libel, slander, or scurrilous attacks on any candidate or his or her personal or family life.

(3) I SHALL NOT USE OR PERMIT any appeal to negative prejudice based on a candidate’s actual or perceived race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, sexual orientation, sex, including gender identity, or any other characteristic set forth in Section 12940 of the Government Code, or association with another person who has any of the actual or perceived characteristics set forth in Section 12940 of the Government Code.

(4) I SHALL NOT USE OR PERMIT any dishonest or unethical practice that tends to corrupt or undermine our American system of free elections, or that hampers or prevents the full and free expression of the will of the voters including acts intended to hinder or prevent any eligible person from registering to vote, enrolling to vote, or voting.

(5) I SHALL NOT coerce election help or campaign contributions for myself or for any other candidate from my employees.

(6) I SHALL IMMEDIATELY AND PUBLICLY REPUDIATE support deriving from any individual or group that resorts, on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of my opponent, to the methods and tactics that I condemn. I shall accept responsibility to take firm action against any subordinate who violates any provision of this code or the laws governing elections.

(7) I SHALL DEFEND AND UPHOLD the right of every qualified American voter to full and equal participation in the electoral process.

I, the undersigned, candidate for election to public office in the State of California or treasurer or chairperson of a committee making any independent expenditures, hereby voluntarily endorse, subscribe to, and solemnly pledge myself to conduct my campaign in accordance with the above principles and practices.

That means I will be honest about what I see as the issues facing Pinole, that I will criticize policies that deserve criticism without fear or favor. I will not use attacks on other candidate’s character by any means, and I will repudiate any support or endorsement I have received from anyone else if they do so. I will not appeal to prejudice or bigotry (which I would never do in any case- I abhor bigotry of all kinds). I will not undertake any dishonest or unethical practice to corrupt the elections or stop people from voting (unlike many actions of the Republican party over the last decade). I won’t coerce contributions or help from anyone, not just my employees (since I don’t have any). I will repudiate any support I have received from a person or group if they do any of those things. And I will fight to make sure that everyone who is allowed to vote can vote.