Skip to content
Share
Explore
Oakland
Everything on Oakland ballots: local to state to national
Get future voting guides
Submit
👨💼👩⚖️ Candidates
President
US President & Vice President
Kamala Harris & Tim Walz (D)
US Congress
US Senate (Full-term, thru Jan 2031)
Adam Schiff (D)
Opposition is a MAGA Republican — choice is clear.
US Senate (Remainder-of-term, thru Jan 2025)
Adam Schiff (D)
(Same as above)
US House (District 12)
Lateefah Simon (D)
Simon has worked through her career to make the criminal justice system work to actually reduce criminal behavior by reducing recidivism and still ensure public safety, even today as a BART board member. She’s been a strong advocate for public transit and has a strong vision for what she can do as a freshman congressperson.
Separate from less formed policy views, her opponent has ties to the current corruption scandal engulfing Mayor Thao. Not good.
California Legislature
CA Senate (District 7)
Jesse Arreguín (D)
Has been a strong voice on issues like housing, homelessness, and public safety as mayor of Berkeley. He’s likely to continue that track record in the CA Senate.
CA Assembly (District 14)
Buffy Wicks (D)
Wicks (the incumbent) appears to be the strongest voice amongst the three for housing policies that have been shown to work, amongst other issues.
CA Assembly (District 18)
Mia Bonta (D)
Bonta has been on the right side of most major issues (and is also the only Democrat in the race). Some potential ties to the California Waste Solutions corruption scandal, but still likely our best choice.
County offices
Alameda County Supervisor (5th District)
John Bauters
Bauters and Emeryville have been strong voices for housing and Bauters seems poised to do the same work as a City Councilor as a Supervisor, improving homelessness and public safety as well.
In contrast, his opponent Bas has been ineffective, even damaging to Oakland — e.g. focused on rhetoric over useful public safety measure— and is closely allied to Mayor Thao and her corrupt apparatus. I’ve met her and talked to her about the issues. I wasn’t impressed.
District Attorney Recall
Yes
I generally don’t support recalls (for example, the SF DA recall from 2022), but this one’s different.
If she did what she said she would do, I wouldn’t be pro-recall even if I didn’t support her to start. I also am far from supporting the “lock everyone up” mentality; I think prosecution alternatives are strong and find some aspects of her purported agenda quite interesting. However, she’s found a way to somehow continually alienate so many communities in Alameda County, engaged in at best shady dealings (e.g. hiring her boyfriend, waiving charges for political allies, unethically blocking reporters from covering her office), while having no plan to make clear that crime has consequences. Alameda County deserves — and needs — better.
Special districts
AC Transit District Director (Ward 2)
Jean Walsh
I've worked with Jean and know her to be a hard worker who is smart on the issues. She'll be great to keep on the board.
BART Director (District 7)
Victor Flores
Seems most likely of candidates to focus on BART’s fiscal issues in a sustainable way.
EBMUD Director (Ward 5)
Alex Spehr
Limited information on this race, but seems to have the right experience to be an effective overseer of EBMUD, e.g. better tying rates to usage.
EBMUD Director (Ward 6)
Valerie Lewis
Limited information on this race, but Lewis seems to have deep connections to the community and experience to be effective, e.g. on the board of other large county organizations.
East Bay Regional Park District Director (Ward 2)
Casey Farmer
Limited information on this race. Farmer seems likely to be a strong advocate for Oakland to make the system usable and sustainable.
East Bay Regional Park District Director (Ward 4)
Luana Espana
Limited information on this race. Espana has experience working with the Parks board and other related open-space organization. She seems like a strong candidate to keep our Parks strong.
City offices
Oakland Mayor Recall
Yes
I generally don’t support recalls, but this one’s different. Thao has shown at best she’s not up for the task of being mayor. At worst, she’s potentially corrupt. Her issues are long: failing to effectively manage public safety issues and homelessness, failing to provide leadership so the city could meet basic deadlines for public safety grants (funny, she for submitting a candidate statement), failing to provide a pathway to a sustainable budget for the city, and of course, being raided by the FBI likely for corrupt dealings... we need better leadership. Her likely replacement is Loren Taylor, who’s well qualified and ready to go day 1 while being sensible on the issues.
City Council (At Large)
Rank choice: 1. Charlene Wang / 2. Shawn Danino / 3. LeRonne Armstrong
Wang has the strongest balance of focusing on public safety with building housing, along with strong experience to complement it. Danino is even more housing oriented but seems to have less understanding of public safety issues and the other key priorities for the city. Armstrong is Oakland’s former police chief, who seemed to be on the right track before Thao emerged and could get running day 1. Other candidates seem generally even less ready for the job.
City Council (District 1)
Zac Unger
Seems like the most likely to keep prioritizing building more housing while addressing public safety. His strong support from certain groups can be a double edged sword — ideally he’s not vested to them — but he seems like the best of the lot.
City Council (District 3)
Rank choice: 1. Warren Logan / 2. Michelle Hailey / 3. Baba Afolabi
I’ve met Warren a number of times have have immense respect for him. He’s a thought policy thinker, clearly understands the needs of the district and the challenges it faces, and is disconnected from the Thao scandal. I’m very excited to have him on the board.
His competitors have both less experience and understanding of the issues. In particular, our current council member, Fife has an utter disregard for her district east of I-980 and rhetoric-based policy views (e.g. defund the police). Hailey doesn’t focus enough on housing to make long-term fixes, for example. However, the alternatives are all better than Fife.
City Council (District 5)
Rank choice: 1. Erin Armstrong / 2. Noel Gallo
Armstrong seems like like the most likely to take creative, analytical approaches to look at policing while ensuring the city can balance its budget. She doesn’t have the same long history as Gallo, the incumbent, but I think the change is worthwhile at this juncture. That said, Gallo seems like a reasonable alternative.
Councilmember (District 7)
Ken Houston
Seems like the most likely to focus on making Oakland shine again and lacks the ties some competitors have to the Thao/CWS corruption saga.
City Attorney
Ryan Richardson
Experienced hand who seems to be capable of being effective quickly in the job. Harbin-Forte doesn’t have clear experience working in a large organization given her past and seems to be more of a political player.
School Director (District 1)
Benjamin Salop
Seems likely to focus on the budget and is a recent graduate of the district.
School Director (District 3)
Dwayne Aikens Jr.
Seems likely to focus on right issues while being effective at working with the others on the board, a known issue with the incumbent.
School Director (District 5)
Patrice Berry
Has experience and policy perspective aligned to what the district seems to need.
School Director (District 7)
Clifford Thompson
Has had strong focus on academic outcomes, seems worth keeping.
Education
Peralta Community College District Trustee (Area 2)
Paulina Gonzales
Couldn’t find any reporting. The incumbent Gonzales was selected by the current board after vetting, while the challenger hasn’t articulated a clear difference they’re fighting for that I could find. Thus, seems worth keeping the incumbent.
Peralta Community College District Trustee (Area 6)
No candidates running
📰 Propositions
California-wide
2: Borrow $10 billion to build schools, colleges
Yes: This measure funds school infrastructure and maintenance across the state. It offers mechanisms to ensure smaller districts can access these funds that otherwise would be hard to apply for. It’s a normal and reasonable investment in the physical infrastructure for California education.
3: Reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry
Yes: This measure effectively repeals Prop 8 from 2008, which banned gay marriage in California. While the Supreme Court has since legalized gay marriage nation-wide, this updates the CA constitution to remove the archaic language.
4: Borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change
Yes: This measure funds climate resiliency infrastructure by allowing the state to issue bonds, servicing them out of the state’s budget. This won’t raise new taxes. The package seems like a reasonable set of proposals that will help the state save money down the line via prevention (e.g. around wildfires). Experts believe its costs to be reasonable given the state’s overall debt load.
5: Lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure
Yes: This proposals reduces the % vote needed to pass bond measures from 2/3rds to 55%, aligning it to the passing threshold for education bonds. It includes some restrictions on how funds are used (e.g. buying single family homes for low income housing), but because bonds tend to bring in a lot of matching $ from private sector and state/national government, it’s not really a big deal. Instead, cities are strapped for cash because of Prop 13, a measure from the 1970s that means your neighbor who moved in 20 years ago pays a fraction of the property tax you would as a young person (i.e. subsidizing the old and wealthy). This offers a reasonable balance to ensure essential city services from housing to public safety to city infrastructure can be funded without tax increases.
6: Limit forced labor in state prisons
Yes: This measure bans forced labor in California prisons — basically, legalized slavery. Today, prisons can discipline prisoners who refuse to work without pay, making California one of the last states that allows this. This proposal bans this, still allowing prison labor but for pay.
32: Raise the state minimum wage to $18
No: This proposal raises the state minimum wage from $16 to $18 over the next few years. I think programs to reduce inequality, including raising the minimum wage, can be positive. However, this is something the legislature can (and has) legislated, there are better alternatives to achieve in addition for the same goals, and it won’t affect the workers in (many many) cities and industries with higher legislated minimum wages. The minimum wage will continue to rise tracking inflation absent this measure. This analysis track with the traditional advocates for this measure offering only lukewarm support.
33: Allow local governments to impose rent controls
No: This proposal would repeal a law that constrains the rent control laws cities can implement. While on the surface, it seems like a way to avoid the challenges of our housing crisis — keep housing prices steady! — it will only worsen our housing crisis, raising housing costs for all. The biggest single issue is that cities who don’t want to build housing can use it to make any new housing uneconomical for developers; the wealthy city of Huntington Beach’s officials are already salivating at doing so according to recent Council transcriptions. The supporters list is revealing: the NIMBYs are unified in backing it. Housing price controls can be a useful measure and voters expanded them last cycle. This give the NIMBYs too potent a weapon.
34: Require certain providers to use prescription drug revenue for patients
Yes: Ostensibly, this is about ensuring certain healthcare companies use their revenue for healthcare expenses. Really, this is about a single non-profit — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) — that has chosen to use their vast profits to fund NIMBY propositions, lobbyists in Sacramento, and more to block housing production. I’m hesitant about weaponizing the proposition system, yet the real world harms AHF has caused to increase homelessness in CA are worth the compromise.
35: Make permanent a tax on managed health care plans
No: This proposal extends an existing tax on certain healthcare plans to fund certain healthcare programs. Ostensibly, it’s to ensure Medi-Cal (CA’s Medicaid program) is fully funded but actually it locks in funding for certain programs while defunding others like Medi-Cal for young children, community health workers. This tax should continue to exist and likely will via the legislative process — but while ensuring the state has the flexibility to continue to support the programs that matter and keep funding them even if the US Govt stops granting the permissions for certain uses of the tax revenue, a not-so-unlikely problem to emerge. Instead, this proposal constrains our legislature and picks winners/losers, likely tied to the organizations putting the measure on the ballot.
36: Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking
Yes: This measure repeals parts of Prop 47 from 2014, which raised the threshold to charge a felony vs a misdemeanor to $950 for theft and similarly for certain drug crimes. This year’s measure also creates a felony category that would waive charges if participants successfully completes a drug treatment program.
I’m quite conflicted on this measure. I think the perception, but also too often the reality, is that there are few consequences for certain crimes, especially shoplifting and drug-related ones. This raises costs for consumers, hollows out commercial districts, and contributes to homelessness. Equally, the data for decades doesn’t show locking up many people who have an underlying medical condition as an effectively way to combat criminal behavior once they depart prison; in fact, Prop 47 is estimated to have saved the state $1 billion, which instead was used for the very programs we need to reduce recidivism and homelessness.
The opposition to this measure is notable, as it’s not just the traditional left: it includes Gov. Newsom (someone not known for his political courage) and fairly mainstream newspapers.
On balance, I think this measure is worth supporting. I think enough theft is happening due to organized crime — crimes of opportunity, not just crimes of desperation — that we need to raise the consequences for bad behavior.
Oakland Wildfire Protection Zone
MM: Wildfire Protection Zone Parcel Tax
Yes: In 1991, Oakland faced a major fire in the hills destroying nearly 3,000 homes. The threat has only grown since. This proposal imposes a relatively small parcel tax, applied only applies to those in the wildfire zone, to fund net new vegetation management programs. Seems like a sensible balance of cost vs benefit.
City of Oakland
NN: Citywide Violence Reduction Services
Yes: This program expands a parcel tax that was expiring to cover violence reduction programs and other public safety program (e.g. fire, 911). Oakland relies too heavily on parcel taxes — this should come from the general fund. There should be better performance monitoring on these programs. However, the cost of not continuing this funding given our public safety criss is also massive, hence the “yes.”
OO: Public Ethics Commission
Yes: Today’s ethics office is overburdened, and this measure expands the ethics office by one investigator and imposes additional restrictions on lobbying. Needless to say, corruption is a major issues in the area (see recalls). This prevents the Council from being able to subvert the ethics office to ensure continued oversight of the city.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.