2026 Voter Guide

Dear Friends:

The November 3, 2026 election is barreling toward us, thank God, and early voting starts soon. I got a notice from the Secretary of State that my ballot is on the way, and with 14 state ballot measures, and three important local (to me) ballot measures, under consideration, I thought I should get a jump on the chatter. The most controversial of the state measures are 40, 41, and 42, which are the billionaire tax and the “poison pill” measures to prevent Prop 40 from being implemented if it passes. I’ll discuss it more below.

Apologies to my non-California readers. You can bail now if you like.

As for candidates, I will vote for Lateefah Simon for House of Representatives and Barbara Lee for Mayor. People have asked me if I thought Barbara Lee was doing a good job and I think she is. She hasn’t been indicted for anything, and when the City Manager was found to be sending sexually explicit texts to a colleague, she made him resign immediately. She has also balanced the budget without resorting to layoffs. On the other hand, 30% of city jobs are vacant, so this was accomplished on the back of reduced services. Mayor Lee secured $9 million to fight illegal dumping. I think it’s worth giving her another shot, even if I wish we had more dynamic leadership at the moment.

I live in Oakland’s District 1, so I don’t have a city council member or school board member up for election, and I don’t know enough about the candidates who are running in those races to make any recommendations.

Okay, back to the Props.

Prop 1 – Housing bonds - YES

Prop 2 – Raise the Rainy Day Fund Limit - YES

Prop 3 – Higher Income Tax on Wealthy Earners to Fund Education - YES

Prop 4 – Allow public funding of political campaigns - YES

Prop 5 – Reform the Recall Process - YES

Prop 37 – Create low-cost mortgages for homebuyers - YES

Prop 38 – Borrow for immunology research - YES

Prop 39 – Require Voter ID - NO

Prop 40 – One-Time Billionaire Tax – YES. I’ve gone around and around on this. I’ve finally landed on this: I believe billionaires should be taxed on their wealth, which includes personal property (this is why Prop 42 is a “poison pill.”) This is a one-time tax intended to fill a specific hole in the budget for Medicare funding left by the Billionaires’ best friend Donald Trump’s Big Fugly Bill. As such, I am highly doubtful that they will leave, and if they do, it doesn’t have much of a tax impact, because billionaires do not pay income taxes on their money. You can learn about that HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. Perhaps they will take their business elsewhere, as they threaten. But recall that California is the fourth largest economy in the world (after the US, China, and Germany). I would prefer a federal wealth tax, but in the absence of that, California should be taking steps to tax wealth, just as Spain and Switzerland do (among others). I am also unpersuaded by the argument that “when they came for the billionaires (money), I said nothing.” That is, the argument that this proposition can itself be used to tax non-billionaires. It cannot. What can happen, and will continue to happen, is that other taxes can be levied or raised. That’s a fact that is undisturbed by your vote on this proposition. I was initially against it because it seemed like a novelty proposition, and perhaps it is, but we have a gaping Medicare gap and an even bigger income gap, and we need audacious ways of dealing with those problems.

Prop 41 – Tax Audits of New Programs – NO – This is a poison pill to prevent Prop 40 from being enacted. Even if you vote NO on Prop 40, you should vote NO on Prop 41. We do not need additional encumbrances when we already have measurements in place to ensure that government spending aligns with the purpose of its funding.

Prop 42 – Ban New Taxes on Personal Property – NO – Similarly, even if you vote NO on Prop 40, you should vote NO on Prop 42. We should not hem ourselves in on the kinds of taxes the state levies because it limits the state’s future revenue opportunities unnecessarily.

Prop 43 – Tax threshold – NO – this prop also limits local governments’ abilities to raise new revenue by making it nearly impossible for them to pass necessary tax measures.

Prop 44 – Require More Spending on Clinic Care – NO – This is the one that could get me in the most trouble: it’s sponsored by a former client of mine and opposed by a former employer, both of whom occasionally select me to hear cases. Admitting I will vote NO means that I may no longer be selected by one party or the other. I can live with that. Healthcare already spends close to 80% on patient care. Clinics need to flexibility to also provide IT and security to their operations, and yes, pay their non-patient care staff, including executives.

Prop 45 – Speed Up Environmental Review – Probably YES – Another hard one. I really didn’t know which way to go on this one but I took the quiz at that link and it said I weakly favored the YES vote. I think that is because I do think it should not take years or decades to build new infrastructure, and the environmental laws have been used in a number of bad faith ways to prevent housing, transit, and infrastructure we need in this state. Maybe there is a better way to tighten up the process but so far the pro-environment proponents haven’t offered solutions for this problem, so I weakly favor speeding up the environmental review.

Measure RTM – Fund Regional Transit in the Bay Area – YES – It’s hard to overstate how bad it will be for public transit in the Bay Area if this measure fails. If you think BART, Muni, and AC Transit are struggling now, you won’t believe the cuts they will need to make if NO wins. Please vote YES.

Oakland Measure EE – YES. This so-called “strong mayor” proposal does several things to give the mayor more influence and control over city policies and staffing. Right now, we have neither a strong mayor nor a strong city council and it has led to real gridlock. Clarifying these roles will be helpful for improving Oakland’s governability.

Oakland Measure FF – YES. This would add most bank foreclosures of property to pay the transfer tax, which they are currently exempt from doing. This will raise revenue for the city.