Another November, another election. This election feels momentous nationally, as the outcome of Congressional elections could either enable or thwart the ability of the Biden administration to get anything done in Congress, and the outcome of many governor and state legislature elections could wrest abortion rights away from millions who haven’t already lost them. Here in Berkeley, the stakes may feel a bit lower, but there’s still a lot to be excited about on the ballot. Lots more below, but definitely vote Pamela Price for Alameda County DA and Alfred Twu for AC Transit director.)
Here’s my cheat sheet:
| what | my vote |
|---|---|
| Governor | Gavin Newsom |
| Lieutenant Governor | Eleni Kounalakis |
| Secretary of State | Shirley Weber! |
| Controller | Malia Cohen |
| Treasurer | Fiona Ma |
| Attorney General | Rob Bonta! |
| Insurance Commissioner | Ricardo Lara |
| State Board of Equalization, D2 | Sally Lieber! |
| Senator (full term) | ALEX PADILLA |
| Senator (partial term) | ALEX PADILLA |
| US Representative, D12 | BARBARA LEE |
| State Assembly, D14 | Buffy Wicks |
| Supreme Court Judges | Yes to all |
| Court of Appeal Judges | Yes to all |
| State Superintendent of Public Instruction | TONY THURMOND |
| District Attorney | PAMELA PRICE |
| Berkeley Rent Board | Soli Alpert, Nathan Mizell, Vanessa Danielle Marrero, Ida Martinac, and Negeene Mosaed |
| Berkeley School Directors | Reichi Lee, Mike Chang, Jennifer Shanoski |
| AC Transit Director (at-large) | ALFRED TWU! |
| 1 (constitutional right to abortion and birth control) | YES!!! |
| 26 (sports betting at tribal casinos and racetracks) | No |
| 27 (online sports betting) | No |
| 28 (funding for arts in public schools) | YES |
| 29 (dialysis clinic changes, again) | No |
| 30 (tax ultra-rich to fund electric cars) | Yes |
| 31 (keep law banning flavored tobacco) | Yes |
| Alameda County D (more buildings on agricultural land) | Yes |
| Berkeley L (housing and infrastructure bonds) | Yes |
| Berkeley M (vacancy tax) | Yes |
| Berkeley N (allow more affordable housing) | Yes |
| Berkeley Auditor | Jenny Wong |
Democrats running against Republicans
- Governor: Gavin Newsom
- Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis
- Secretary of State: Shirley Weber!
- Controller: Malia Cohen
- Treasurer: Fiona Ma
- Attorney General: Rob Bonta!
- Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara
- Board of Equaliation, 2nd District: Sally Lieber!
- Senator (full term): ALEX PADILLA
- Senator (partial term): ALEX PADILLA
- US Representative, District 12: BARBARA LEE
- State Assembly, District 14: Buffy Wicks
These are all Democrats running in two-candidate races against Republicans. If you were considering voting for a Republican in 2022, then I’m not sure why you’re reading my voter guide. Some of these are folks I voted for in the primary; some aren’t. But they’re all better than the Republican running against them! Don’t forget to vote for Padilla twice.
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges: Yes to all
I haven’t done significant research here other than reading brief descriptions of each judge by the SF League of Pissed-off Voters. They recommend voting yes on all of them. (They do praise Gordon Burns for ruling in favor of Berkeley neighbors’ lawsuit against UC Berkeley in 2020, which I find to be a hypocritical lawsuit that complains about the impact on housing while simultaneously working to block student housing; but that was a 3-0 ruling.) A few names ring a bell, like Therese Stewart who was a major part of San Francisco’s legal battle for marriage equality. Following the League’s suggestions and voting yes unless I learn more.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: TONY THURMOND
This one doesn’t say “Democrat vs Republican” on the ballot, but it is. Thurmond has apparently not been as great as hoped for in office. But Christensen is a Christian supremacist who wants to bring staff-led prayer to public schools. Vote Thurmond!
District Attorney: PAMELA PRICE
Pamela Price (who I voted for four years ago for the same position as well as in this year’s primary, and who came in third for Oakland Mayor in 2018) is a civil rights attorney looking to move the DA’s office in a progressive direction. Frankly it’s been challenging to get a great read on Terry Wiley, who wasn’t the most “don’t worry cops, I’ll let you run wild” of the candidates in the primary; I don’t think he will be a disaster for the county. But I’m excited to vote for Pamela Price.
Berkeley Rent Board: Soli Alpert, Nathan Mizell, Vanessa Danielle Marrero, Ida Martinac, and Negeene Mosaed
I’ve once again spent a bunch of time researching candidates and failed to find anything to sway me away from my default of voting for the slate endorsed by the Berkeley Tenant Convention. (It’s worth noting that as far as I can tell, none of the other candidates even bother to apply for the tenant union endorsement.)
Berkeley School Directors: Reichi Lee, Mike Chang, Jennifer Shanoski
My impression is that there are four solid candidates in the race:
- Ka’Dijah Brown. Incumbent, teacher. I voted for her in 2018 though it admittedly wasn’t a competitive race.
- Jennifer Shanoski. Community college chemistry professor, Malcolm X Elementary parent, union leader. Focused on science both in the classroom and for covid responses.
- Mike Chang. Education civil rights attorney.
- Reichi Lee. Attorney/educator running a very active campaign focused on equity.
(I haven’t heard much about Tatiana Guerreiro Ramos. Norma Harrison is a perennial fringe candidate.)
We get to vote for three. Honestly, all four seem like they would make good board members. They all seem to have generally the same attitudes about most topics, though their focuses certainly vary. They all have an overlapping set of endorsements. It doesn’t seem like choosing any three of the four would be a horrible choice. Some things I’ve found to differentiate:
- The people I know who are excited about Lee (including several friends) are really really excited about her. In fact, the level of passion around her campaign (given that all the candidates seem pretty good) made me concerned that maybe there’s something going on beneath the surface where people really tuned in to the race understand there’s some enormous unspoken difference between some of the candidates. To the best of my knowledge though, that’s not true.
- The teacher’s union endorsed Brown, Shanoski, and Chang (and are particularly excited about labor leader Shanoski).
- Surprisingly, covid-related policies do not appear to be a major focus of this race. That said, in the Berkeleyside interviews, Chang and Shanoski endorsed vaccine mandates (and Chang supported mask mandates during times of high transmission), whereas Brown and Lee said vaguer things about following health department recommendations. Covid is a bigger centerpiece for Shanoski than the other candidates; according to her site, she worked to develop the district’s testing strategy, and coordinated grocery deliveries for the Berkeley Public Schools Fund at the Berkeley Food Network and mask deliveries to the unhoused.
- While I felt Shanoski had decent answers about issues of equity in the Berkeleyside interviews, she barely mentions it on her own (admittedly not particularly verbose) campaign site, whereas equity is a major focus for the other three candidates.
I see attractive qualities for all four candidates. Ensuring that the school board is focused on making school work for everyone in the district is important; on the other hand, as we continue through the uncharted territory of a pandemic that has not ended, having a scientist on the board feels worthwhile as well. I’ve decided to vote for Lee, Chang, and Shanoski, but certainly not due to any negative feelings about Brown, who also seems great.
AC Transit Director (at-large): ALFRED TWU!
I’ve been impressed by Alfred Twu for years. Twu cares deeply about transit and creating a world where buses work. I’ve also really enjoyed Twu’s ability to make complex issues in local planning understandable and beautiful via urban art and graphic design.
Twu’s opponent is the incumbent, Joel Young. I don’t know much about Young, but what I do know is largely negative. He’s been credibly accused of domestic violence and was censured by the AC Transit Board for using district property for personal gain. Whenever the board has a split vote, I’ve generally seen him on the wrong side.
Twu has earned an excellent set of endorsements, including my two favorite AC Transit Directors (my own district’s Director Jovanka Beckles and my friend Jean Walsh). As a frequent AC Transit rider, I’d love to see Alfred Twu in charge.
1 (constitutional right to abortion and birth control): YES!!!
Will enshrining the right to abortion and birth control (plus the right to refuse birth control) into the California Constitution actually help protect us against a federal abortion ban? I don’t know, but it certainly won’t hurt. With forced birth now the law in half of our country, anything we can do to defend these fundamental rights is worth trying.
26 (sports betting at tribal casinos and racetracks): No
I have mixed feelings about the contents of the proposition. I generally support tribal sovereignty and often oppose prohibition-style legislation. I’m not a fan of horse tracks and don’t necessarily want to give them an extra lifeline.
But my impression is that there’s nothing in this proposition that couldn’t be done by the legislature. (I’m not positive that the legislature could pass a law like this without putting it on the ballot, but this one is completely bypassing the legislature.) A complex proposal like this should go through our representative democracy. So I’m voting no.
27 (online sports betting): No
This one is a pure attempt at regulatory capture by online gambling companies, who want to write rules for themselves that would tax their products far lower than other states and set up a commission that would prevent competitors from arising. Absolutely no.
28 (funding for arts in public schools): YES
We are fortunate that our public school has a thriving arts program, though it is highly supplemented by by PTA donations. Every kid in public school in California should have that opportunity. While ballot-box budgeting is not my favorite approach, underfunded schools can make good use of dedicated arts funding. Excited to vote yes.
29 (dialysis clinic changes, again): No
I ended up voting no on a very similar proposition in 2020, despite a lot of sympathy for the union behind these measures. I suppose I’m voting no again.
30 (tax ultra-rich to fund electric cars): Yes
A tricky one which I’ve spent a lot of time scratching my head over. Taxing folks making over $2 million is fine and dandy. Are electric vehicles the the best use for that revenue? Especially since a lot of this will be used to save Lyft (the proposition’s main supporter) a lot of money that they’ll need to hit their environmental requirements? I don’t know. But I suspect if this one fails, it’ll be harder to get the next ultra-rich tax on the ballot. And while better cars alone won’t save us from climate change, EVs are at least an important part of the solution. (Prop 30 does also allow some of the money to be used for e-bikes, transit passes, and other non-car approaches to reducing emissions, but it’s unclear how much of that will end up heading in that direction.) I am still pretty bitter about Lyft buying a terrible proposition two years ago, but I’m more interested in taxing the ultra-rich than holding a grudge against Lyft. I’m voting yes, though not excitedly.
31 (keep law banning flavored tobacco): Yes
This is one of those “veto referenda”: a special proposition that takes a law passed by the legislature and asks us to vote on it instead. Unless I have particular knowledge and passion about the law in question, my default is generally to support representative document by allowing the legislature’s law to go into effect by voting “yes”.
I’m not a big fan of prohibition, but generally consider the addictiveness and health impacts of tobacco to be well worth regulating. I’m not an expert on flavored tobacco specifically, and were this a normal proposition I might vote no on the basis of “eh, this seems like the sort of thing the legislature should deal with”. But in this case, that’s what “yes” means!
Alameda County D (more buildings on agricultural land): Yes
Apparently, in 2000 Alameda County passed a proposition requiring lots of land in eastern Alameda County to remain undeveloped (to be used as agricultural and park land). This is an update to that proposition which allows a bit more development on that land, specifically for agricultural and equestrian buildings. It was placed on the ballot by the County Supervisors. My Supervisor (Keith Carson) did vote earlier this summer and abstained from the final vote, but that seems to have been primarily due to wanting input from the Sierra Club (major proponents of the 2000 proposition), who appear to have not taken a position on this proposition. The Supervisors representing the relevant part of the county support this, and in general I think it’s reasonable for elected government to make small changes like this. “Yes” seems reasonable.
Berkeley L (housing and infrastructure bonds): Yes
This is a relatively large bond for not-yet-specified affordable housing and infrastructure programs, placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of City Council. The main objection is that it is not very specific about what projects it will be used for. Frankly, the amount of ballot box budgeting we are asked to do (tying revenue strictly to projects in a direct-democracy proposition) is unnecessary. While bonds aren’t the cheapest way to bring in revenue, there aren’t that many options (for example, we can’t just raise the normal assessed-value-based property tax because it’s already at its Prop 13 limit), and I’m OK generally bringing more funding to the city’s budget without the need to be personally consulted on exactly what precise projects it needs to be used for.
Berkeley M (vacancy tax): Yes
This levies a tax on residential units that are vacant for six months or more, with various exceptions including for units in the process of a permitted repair and units in properties of four or fewer units where one is owner-occupied. I’m not actually clear on how much of Berkeley’s housing crisis is caused by properties left intentionally vacant in lieu of lowering rental rates, but this seems like a reasonable approach toward that problem if it really is one.
Berkeley N (allow more affordable housing): Yes
Six years ago I said the following about Prop Z1: This is a relatively technical ballot measure that’s required by yet another stupid clause in the CA constitution to raise a cap on the amount of affordable housing the City can work on. It doesn’t commit any funds. No real downside or argument against.
Well, we have to do it again for the same reason. I’m happy to see that we’re raising the cap by a larger amount this time, so that we won’t need another one of these propositions for a longer time. This time there is an argument against it, but it’s completely ridiculous: it claims that the 3000 units will cost us too much, but this proposition doesn’t require the city build 3000 units of affordable housing; it merely allows it by lifting a cap that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Berkeley Auditor: Jenny Wong
I guess they put the ranked-choice races at the back. Anyway, I’ve only heard good things about Wong, and she’s unopposed.