Skip to content
Share
Explore
Oakland
Oakland
Everything on Oakland ballots: local to state to national
👨💼👩⚖️ Candidates
State-wide offices
Governor
Gavin Newsom (D)
He’s no Jerry Brown, but he’s way better than the alternative. He’s gotten more willing to spend political capital to get housing built recently, which I applaud.
Lieutenant Governor
Eleni Kounalakis (D)
Secretary Of State
Shirley N. Weber (D)
Controller
Lanhee Chen (R, yes an R!)
Tough call, but Chen is from the better side of the Republican Party. He worked in the Obama White House, and even garnered endorsement from the SF Chronicle, LA Times, and Andrew Yang. He’s a Stanford professor and Hoover Institute guy (not MAGA).
We need better fiscal oversight in California and I’m willing to take a risk on Chen (despite the “R”!) whereas Cohen seems less willing to challenge the status quo.
This is the first Republican I can remember voting for in I don’t know how long.
Treasurer
Fiona Ma (D)
While Ma is well qualified — and far more so than her Republican opponent who is likely to cause roadblocks to funding issues that the legislature and majority of Californians aim to fund — she is flawed with pending ethics and sexual harassment claims. This is another unfortunate artifact of one-party rule in California, and we’re not left with a better option in this race.
Attorney General
Rob Bonta (D)
Has been a strong advocate for pro-housing policies and the “housing element” plans. Has gone head-to-head against the NIMBYs — and won.
Insurance Commissioner
Ricardo Lara (D)
Not great, better than the alternative.
State Board Of Equalization (2nd District)
Sally Lieber (D)
US Congress
US Senate (Full-term)
Alex Padilla (D)
US Senate (Remainder-of-term)
Alex Padilla (D)
US House (District 12)
Barbara Lee (D)
California Legislature
CA Assembly (District 14)
Buffy Wicks (D)
CA Assembly (District 18)
Mia Bonta (D)
State judicial
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Presiding Justices, Court of Appeal
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Associate Justices, Court of Appeal
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Education
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tony K. Thurmond
Peralta Community College District Trustee (Area 3)
Louis Quindlen
Peralta Community College District Trustee (Area 5)
Saleem Gilmore
Peralta Community College District Trustee (Area 7)
Seth Steward
Oakland School Director (District 2)
David Kakishiba
With prior experience on the school board, seems positioned to make an impact on improving student outcomes.
Oakland School Director (District 4)
Nick Resnick
Limited info, but seems to be the one most understanding of fiscal realities of the district and focused on student outcomes
Oakland School Director (District 6)
Kyra Mungia
She understands the fiscal realities of the school district and seems to prioritize student outcomes above all else — as we should do.
Special districts
BART Director (District 4)
Robert Raburn
Uncontested
AC Transit District Director (At-large)
Alfred Twu
AC Transit District Director (Ward 3)
Sarah Syed
EBMUD Director (Ward 3)
Marguerite Young
EBMUD Director (Ward 4)
Andy Katz
Uncontested
County offices
Alameda County District Attorney
Terry Wiley
Terry Wiley and Pamela Price have quite similar policy positions. Anywhere else, both would be considered progressive prosecutors.
I suspect Price will shake things up, but while failing in similar ways as Chesa did in SF, in particular with no experience managing a large office that opposes her agenda, not bringing the community along for how and why reforms must take place, and being distracted from the reality/ data on the ground.
Wiley seems more nuanced in his beliefs, though at the risk of being more with the establishment. His vision is still quite progressive, focusing on the real causes for crime and those who are most responsible for it.
Thus, I lean Wiley.
Alameda County Board of Supervisors (District 3)
Rebecca Kaplan
Most pro-housing of the candidates. Little reporting on this race though.
City offices
Oakland Mayor
Rank choice — 1st: Loren Taylor / 2nd: Sheng Thao
The most pro-housing candidates. Let’s continue Jerry Brown’s legacy of more housing. It’s what makes Oakland and Downtown an ever-more exciting place to live and keeps it affordable. Taylor is more likely to keep that going.
Oakland Auditor
Courtney Ruby
Uncontested, so 🤷♂️
Oakland City Council (District 2)
Harold Lowe
Chosen based on my sense of who’ll prioritize housing production.
Oakland City Council (District 4)
Janani Ramachandran
Chosen based on my sense of who’ll prioritize housing production.
Oakland City Council (District 6)
Rank choice — 1st: Yakpasua Zazaboi / 2nd: Kevin Jenkins
Not great coverage of this race, housing isn’t the top issue on the minds of candidates in this district. This seems roughly the order of who’ll invest in housing the most.
📰 Propositions
California-wide
1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom
Yes: Guarantees reproductive rights in the state constitution.
While these rights are already guaranteed in state law, this further protects those rights.
26: Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands
No: Enshrines in the state constitution a right for tribal gambling and the taxes taken from the proceeds.
Same reasoning as Prop 27: Can be done through the legislature — which would preserve the flexibility to amend this as needed. In particular an issue with how the revenue is spent. This proposition is instead written by the interested parties i.e. the existing tribal gambling lobby — usurping citizens ability for oversight.
27: Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands
No: Enshrines in the state constitution a right for online gambling with revenue allocated in part to tribes and some social services.
Same reasoning as Prop 26: Can be done through the legislature — which would preserve the flexibility to amend this as needed. In particular an issue with how the revenue is spent. This proposition is instead written by the interested parties i.e. the existing tribal gambling lobby — usurping citizens ability for oversight.
28: Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools
No: Requires 1% of school budgets go to arts programs, mainly around teacher salaries.
While I support the underlying aims, this should happen through the legislative process, not hard-to-fix propositions. Not going to lose sleep if it passes (and would be happy to see this happen through the legislature).
29: Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements
No: Requires dialysis clinics to submit to more strict staffing rules.
This isn’t about healthcare — this is about a labor dispute that’s dragging voters into the mix. Total waste of money and voters time. Vote no for the I’ve-lost-count-how-many-times-you’ve-voted-no time.
30: Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million
No: This proposition would tax those earning >$2M/yr to fund EVs, related infrastructure, and wildfire programs.
While I think the carbon reduction goals of this are admirable, it’s focusing (yet again) too much on cars vs transit. If we’re generating $100 billion in revenue as is estimated, this isn’t the highest impact way to reduce carbon emissions.
31: Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products
Yes: Bans the sale of tobacco products that are especially enticing to kids.
We’ve seen these bans be successful at achieving those goals. Let’s not undo decades of public health work to keep kids safe and ensure dangerous products stay out of the hands of children.
Alameda County
D: Agricultural land use preservation
No: There isn’t great information on the implications of this, but it seems designed to preserve land use for equestrian and winery interests. Smells like anti-housing drivers — I’d rather have flexibility to use land for housing even if I’d prefer denser housing in the city.
Oakland School District
H: Fund schools via parcel tax
Yes
City of Oakland
Q: 13k low income housing units
Yes
R: Replace gender-specific language
Yes
S: Voting by non-citizens for school board
Yes: I support the idea behind this. There are questions as to the constitutionality of this that’s being actively resolved in the courts, but there’s enough promise that it’s worth passing despite the potential litigation costs.
T: Progressive business tax
No: Not great to raise taxes on already burdened businesses, but does it in a way that preserves more family-run business’ needs while making a small increase to our largest businesses (e.g. Whole Foods).
That said, not convinced for need for new taxes — I think we have better ways to balance the books.
U: Affordable housing and transportation bonds
Yes
V: Change grounds for eviction
Yes: Still allows for just cause evictions, which I think strikes the right balance between tenant protections and landlord’s incentives to build.
W: Public campaign financing and ethics reform
Yes
X: Councilmember term limits, elected official pay, and Ballot measure reform
Yes
Y: Oakland Zoo funding via parcel tax
No
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.