The following recommendations (save for the one on Corrigan) come from progressive activist Carter Lavin. We deeply appreciate his taking the time to research these judges.
Carol Corrigan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: NO
Update: After consulting with other attorneys, we’ve found out that Corrigan is often a swing vote in the Court, sometimes siding with the liberals and sometimes with the conservatives. California would be far better off is Newsom was able to appoint a more progressive justice. We therefore recommend you vote against her.
Original write up: As a Supreme Court Justice, Corrigan wrote two dissents to the Court’s finding that the California Constitution protected the right of gay people to marry. However, Corrigan also seems to be the first lesbian to serve in the California Supreme Court. She considers herself a moderate. We need to do more research on her record.
Leondra Kruger, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: YES
Kruger worked for Obama, could go further but rules narrowly so as to not rock the boat
James Humes, Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division 1: YES
Ruled that a potential employer can be held to have violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act by deterring a pregnant woman from applying for a job through lying to her that there were no openings.
Sandra Marguiles, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division 1 : NO
Ruled to allow the state to perform warrantless blood draws on motorists in a wider variety of circumstances.
James Richman, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division 2: NO
Ruled against protecting public worker pensions
Marla Miller, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division 2 : NO
Tried to protect the Governor’s office during the CPUC corruption issue.
Also ruled against tenant protections/Ellis Act reforms in SF
Peter John Siggins, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division 3: YES
Siggins was one of the justices who ruled that California’s prisons are overcrowded to the point of human rights violations
San Leandro, like many cities in the Bay Area, is in crisis. About half of our community members are renters and skyrocketing rents are pushing them out of their homes, either displacing them out of the Bay Area or putting them on the streets. This lack of community stability is affecting neighborhoods and schools, as the challenges of facing an ever-changing student population are significant. Yet the City Council has done nothing to address this situation. This is not surprising because the Rental Owners Association and landlords have poured money into the incumbents’ campaigns.
Lack of ethics and integrity is, indeed, a generalized problem in San Leandro city government. The former City Manager, fearing that accusations of sexual harassment by the head of a local nonprofit would become public, sent out a rambling and utterly unprofessional letter to the press, in which he detailed how he’d have business meetings with his accuser in the front seat of her car and play ping-pong with a local lobbyist. In the letter, he also discussed the contents of private conversations with Council members. Rather than fire him on the spot for unprofessional behavior, the Council put him on paid leave for months while he looked for a new job and and gave him a $350K parting gift.
What San Leandro needs is progressive and ethical leadership, thus our recommendations below. Note that San Leandro has ranked choice voting (RCV) for its Mayor and City Council races.
Incumbent Pauline Cutter has been a disaster as Mayor of San Leandro. She seems to have approached her job as a money-making scheme. Early in her term, her daughter was hired by the City (with the approval of the City Manager) for a highly-paid position in the Parks and Recreation department – despite nepotism being explicitly forbidden by the Charter of the City of San Leandro. Cutter would later defend the City Manager against sex harassment accusations, resist efforts to ask for his resignation after he wrote an unprofessional and incoherent public letter, and later vote to give him a $300K farewell gift on his way out.
Cutter has spent much of her time traveling at tax-payer expense, but she can’t point to any concrete accomplishments from her tenure. The promise of San Leandro becoming a high tech center based on our fiberloop never materialized, and instead our industrial area is filled with warehouses that pay low wages. Moreover, Cutter has supported police militarization and despite her promise that the counter-attack armored vehicle she voted to buy for the police would not be used on demonstrations, it’s been deployed twice for such purposes. Cutter is a supporter of mass surveillance, including sharing this data with ICE.
Her opponent City Council member Benny Lee has basically the same record and positions. He demonstrated his lack of ethics by taking large campaign contributions from a garbage company that was bidding for a contract with the City of Oakland, and lobbied the neighboring City to award that contract to his contributor. The competitor was based on San Leandro, so his move could have cost San Leandro $2 million. Lee’s major “contribution” to San Leandro has been to propose honoring the genocidal Chinese government by flying its flag over City Council. As Tibetans burn themselves to bring attention to their plight and a million Ughyurs are imprisoned in China, Lee’s loyalty seems to be foremost with the Chinese government.
Fortunately, San Leandro has another choice: Jeromey Shafer. The co-founder of San Leandro for Bernie and leader of Our Revoution San Leandro, Shafer is intelligent, hard working, thoughtful and unapologetically progressive. He is committed to human rights and social justice. If elected, he will champion rent-control in San Leandro and will take an innovative approach to solving our other social ills. He will stop the militarization of our police forces and actually make the police department accountable to the city, not the other way around as it seems to be now. He is running a clean money campaign, rejecting all funds from corporations and developers and limiting contributions to $99. Shafer will also restore transparency and accountability and a sense of ethics to the office. Really, San Leandro can do no better than to support him.
Dan Dillman is our second choice because, whatever his faults, he cares about San Leandro.
Incumbent Deborah Cox is another white-moderate who supports police militarization and mass surveillance and opposes rent-control. She drew controversy for not returning the financial contribution of a politician who used the “N” word in a public meeting.
Eva Arce, a newcomer to politics, is a strong progressive who has seen her community fall apart by the Council’s regressive politics and wants to restore it. She is a big supporter of rent control, police accountability and fixing potholes. She is running a clean money campaign, rejecting all funds from corporations and developers and limiting contributions to $99. She is an intelligent woman, who does her homework and will tackle issues with a fresh, yet progressive perspective. She is just what we need in San Leandro.
Ken Pon is also a moderate, but to the left of Cox. He opposes the militarization of police and favored marijuana dispensaries when Cox was ranting against them at City Council meetings.
School Board member Victor Aguilarwas a progressive back when people didn’t want to admit to being progressive (his opponent, incumbent Lee Thomas, has never claimed himself as one). He supports rent control, police accountability, clean money (he is not taking any corporate or developer money), and free speech. As a commissioner, he refused to agree to the City Council’s demand that he forgo his first amendment rights and agree to no disparage the City Manager.
Incumbent Lee Thomas takes money from landlords and opposes rent controls while supporting police militarization.
City Council District 5: Maxine Oliver-Benson (with reservations)
Both candidates are problematic. Incumbent Corina Lopez supports police militarization and has done painfully little to bring accountability to the police and remained a supporter of the City Manager even after he showed himself to lack professionalism, but at least she may vote in favor of rent control if someone else brings it up to the table. She also was the impetus behind the sanctuary city declaration, but would not go a step further and make it an ordinance with some teeth – this allowed the Police Department to continue sharing data with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, which in turn shared it with ICE. Moreover, Lopez can be difficult to work with, she easily gets offended and needs to have her ego massaged lest she retaliate over perceived slights.
Her opponent, Maxine Oliver-Benson, is an African American woman who has spent her life in East Oakland as an activist. She is corporate free and has many strong progressive values – she favors rent control and police accountability, for example, and is rejecting all money from corporations, developers and other special interests (unlike Lopez). However, she supports increasing mass surveillance in San Leandro – which Lopez says she does not.
The Hayward City Council is one of the most lethargic and unresponsive government bodies in the Bay Area. Getting the Council to adopt new policies or look forward to the future is like pulling teeth. And forget asking them to make innovations on their own. As homelessness has skyrocketed in the City, they’ve come out with no solutions (a much touted new housing development that will serve the homeless is actually a project devised and funded by the County). As rents have increased displacing residents, they have done little to either enforce the existing rent control or expand it. They completely refuse to even look at increasing the minimum wage, which is now $2/hr lower than neighboring San Leandro’s.
Right now, four of the do-little Hayward Councilmembers are up for election/re-election. We believe Hayward would benefit from having a completely new Council.
As discussed, both Mayor Barbara Halliday and Councilmember Mark Salinas have failed to do their duty as Mayor and Councilmember. Mayor Halliday has proven to be a weak and unprofessional leader (see video below), supportive of corruption. Both candidates have received financial contributions from landlords opposed to rent-control.
Aisha Wahab is a dynamic, energetic, strong and yes, Muslim, Afghani-American candidate. I had wanted to think her religion and ethnicity wouldn’t matter, but that has not been the case in Hayward. Recently, she was asked by a constituent at a candidate forum if her campaign was funded by ISIS and she’s had her car broken into and her campaign materials stolen, in addition to receiving personal insults while canvassing.
No matter, if there is something that Aisha is, is strong and persistent (forget Elizabeth Warren, Aisha is the real deal here). She is also unapologetically progressive. Much of her campaign has been based on enforcing and expanding rent control in Hayward, addressing homelessness and bringing a living wage to Hayward. And, indeed, she has been fightingon the ground for progressive issues as an activist for many years. She has been endorsed by Our Revolution national (despite having been a Clinton supporter), the Democratic Party and the Green Party. We recommend that you vote for her solely on this race, as it would make it more likely than she be elected.
Her main opponents are incumbents Sara Lamnin and Marvin Peixoto. We supported Sara in the past, believing that her experience as a homeless advocate would lead her to bring real solutions to the issue, however she has shown no initiative on this issue or any other. Peixoto is even worse.
We were very unimpressed by the non-incumbents in the race.
Tom Ferreira doesn’t seem to have much in-depth proposals and he seems to have been absent from the campaign field. Mekia Fields, a newcomer to Hayward, seems intelligent and has potential, but she has many misconceptions about City government founded in a lack of experience. She should probably spend some time attending Council meetings and perhaps serving in a commission before running again. Didacus Ramos is seemingly unaware of the powers – and lack thereof – of the City Council. Plus his enthusiasm for small communities led him to express support for the privatization of city streets. Joe Ramos, meanwhile, is the sort of lovable character that is fun to watch but would be totally unsuitable for governing. At a candidate forum he expressed opposition for Measure T simply because Peixoto was in favor of it.
School Board (Vote for 2): McGee, Davis or Oquenda
We started this endorsement process by attending the Hayward Democratic Club’s candidate forum where we listened to (almost) all the candidates for School Board. Our conclusion was that incumbents Lisa Brunner and William McGee did not make the case for why they should be re-elected to a third four-year term, but neither did challengers Ken Rawdon, Todd Davis or April Oquenda made the case as to why they shouldn’t be.
Almost two months later and having spoken at length to most of the candidates, as well as listen to them in other fora, we are no closer to having a sold view on who should be elected. We can easily discard non-Democrat Nicholas Harvey from consideration, as he is running for five different offices. We are less inclined to vote for Ken Rawdon, a retired music teacher, as he favors dress codes and police resource offices in schools. Incumbent Lisa Brunner seems extremely dedicated and knowledgeable of the schools, but perhaps not as progressive as the rest. But it’s hard to chose between McGee, Davis and Oquenda . The disagreements over the former Superintendent does not bring any clarity to the matter. We therefore recommend you chose two of the three.
I'm incredibly grateful for all the support we're getting in our campaign for Hayward School Board. We're out talking to voters and doing all we can to engage our community. Please help spread our message! Thanks to the Creative Lab at MIMA LLC and @Dillon Wall. #oquenda4opportunity
Dublin and Pleasanton are two of the most conservative cities in Alameda County, they both have Republican Mayors and are represented by rather conservative state officials. Still, progressives in these cities can find good candidates to vote for. Here are our recommendations:
We recommendedJulie Testa when she ran for Mayor two years ago against the Republican incumbent, and are happy to recommend her again in her race for City Council. Back then, Julie filled out our questionnaire, showing that she is an intelligent and thoughtful progressive. She is particularly concerned about smart growth, making sure that Pleasanton remains a community able to provide services to its residents, and on providing services to the disabled.
None of her opponents deserve your vote. Republican incumbent Kathy Narum asks good questions, but then proceeds to vote in whichever way city staff recommends – plus anyone who remains a Republican in this day and age is, by definition, not a progressive. Joe Streng is the chamber of commerce candidate, more concerned about businesses than residents. Finally, Joseph Ledoux, a newcomer to Pleasanton, is an active police officer, a problem in a city with a history of police brutality.
We recommend that you only vote for Julie Testa, which will increase her chances of winning a spot in the Council.
We supported challenger Arun Goel when he ran for City Council in 2016. His smart growth platform made more sense in a city suffering for serious traffic problems, and where luxury housing has been built at the expense of affordable one. Moreover, Goel claimed to be a progressive. That facade is now gone that he is running for Mayor. He is using scaremongering tactics about crime and promises to increase police numbers. We’re sorry to say, we were completely mistaken in believing he had any integrity. We recommend you write in your favorite cartoon character.
Shawn Kumagai is a former naval intelligence officer and a gay man. He holds solid progressive values and has been a leader in the (very unpopular) fight to make Dublin a sanctuary city. He stands for smart development – recognizing that what Dublin needs is housing for working class families and for community building. And he supports police accountability, somethign key in Dublin which doesn’t have its own police force. He has been endorsed by Our Revolution Tri-Valley.
Bobby Khullar is another smart growth progressive, who came to prominence in Dublin when he led the recall of a city council and a school board member over their support of high-density housing without addressing school overcrowding. Khullar appears to be a common sense progressive but the group he led, Dubliners United, includes members who cross the line into racism-based NIMBYism. Moreover, he is running in a slate with Jing Firmeza, a “law and order” Republican. This concerns us enough to not recommend a vote for him.
Jean Josey is even more problematic. She has been endorsed by Angela Ramirez-Holmes, which means she is likely to be a rubberstamp for developers. Even worse, she proudly lists the endorsement of Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahern, an anti-immigrant Republican who works closely with ICE to deport immigrants. Josey called out Mayor Haubert for attending an Oathkeepers meeting, which shows she recognizes that so publicly associating with racists and anti-immigrant folks implies an endorsement of their positions. Finally, Shawn Costello is a perennial candidate.
Dublin School Board, Area 2: Megan Rouse
Erin Herrera, who was challenging incumbent Megan Rouse, has withdrawn from the race.
Member, Board Of Directors, Dublin San Ramon Services District (vote for 2): No Recommendation
The candidates are incumbent Democrat Georgean Vonheeder-Leopold, Charles “Chuck” Haupt, Ann Marie Johnson, James Brady and Richard Jesse. We do not have the bandwidth or expertise to make a recommendation on this race.
It’s election time in the US, so it’s time for candidates in towns throughout America to take to social media to complain about their campaign signs being stolen. You can’t really blame them, in particular new candidates who haven’t experienced this phenomena before. They drive around town and they see that some of the signs they put up are now gone, or they get a call from a supporter saying that the sign they put on their lawn is no longer there. The first conclusion that comes to mind is that their opponent took them. Indeed, perhaps the candidates themselves had been tempted to remove their opponent’s signs, but had exercised self control and not done so. It’s easy to believe their opponents were weaker.
In reality, the disappearing of candidate lawn signs is so ubiquitous, it happens so often and in so many campaigns that you can’t just blame opponents for it – unless you believe everyone who runs for office is unethical and a would-be-thief. Indeed, I’ve worked in the campaigns of candidates whose opponents complained their signs had been removed, and I know for a fact my candidates’ campaigns hadn’t taken them – so clearly it has to have been someone else.
Here are my theories as to what happens to the signs:
– If left in public spaces, they are often removed by Public Works or even by neighbors that find them offensive.
– If left in private commercial property, they may be removed by the owner or an employee – unaware of whether the candidate was given permission to put it up (many candidates don’t even ask).
– If placed in the actual lawn of a home:
The homeowners may actually have not wanted the sign or they thought better of it and they removed it themselves, but don’t want to let the candidate know this.
Another member of the household may have removed it without letting the homeowner know (my own daughter has been doing this for the last couple of elections!).
Landscapers may have removed it to work on the lawn and not put it back
People passing by or neighbors who dislike the candidate or the sign itself may have removed it.
The sign may have been damaged by children or pets and quietly removed and thrown away by their keepers.
The sign may have been vandalized or stolen by the sort of people who vandalize public property.
And yes, occasionally it may be that a member of an opponent’s campaigns has taken them down. Though in general, I would suspect a supporter of the opponent rather than someone actually working in the campaign. It’s just too risky for the latter to be caught.
So if you are a candidate running and you are having your signs disappear (as you are likely to), please consider all of these possibilities before you start blaming your opponent and planning revenge!
Election season means one other thing: endorsement drama. There is always a candidate ready to cry foul over their opponent claiming an endorsement that they supposedly did not get. I’m sure that this happens occasionally, but most of the time there is a better explanation:
The named endorser actually endorsed the candidate and forgot about it! (This happened to Congressman Mark DeSaulnier who denied he had endorsed Senator Ellen Corbett in her race to challenge Eric Swalwell, only to be presented by an endorsement slip he had signed a year before).
The named endorsers had endorsed the candidate but changed their mind and did not communicate this clearly to the candidate.
The named endorser had endorsed the candidate but were challenged on it, and are now pretending the endorsement never happened at all (this can be done with or without the agreement of the candidate).
The named endorsers had endorsed the candidate but withdrew their endorsement and the candidate failed to update their literature or website.
In cases where a name has been removed, the named endorsers had endorsed the candidate but withdrew their endorsement and the candidate does not want to draw attention to this fact
The named endorser communicated support for the candidate which the candidate incorrectly interpreted to be an endorsement.
So, again, before jumping to the conclusion that your opponent is making up endorsements, consider one of the more likely possibilities outlined above.
The City of Fremont, California, has recently changed from electing four at-large members to the City Council, to dividing the city in six districts and electing one from each. The districts were gerrymandered to make it easier for incumbents to get re-elected. This year, four of these districts are having elections, two of them with an incumbent at the helm.
These are our recommendations for the most progressive and best prepared candidates for the job.
José Oropeza is a young engineer married to a school teacher. He is completely new to politics and does not have links to any of the different players in the Fremont political scene, which makes him a breath of fresh air. He is progressive: voted for Bernie, supports a higher minimum wage, rent control, police accountability and smart growth. He is not taking money from corporations and developers. If elected, we believe he’ll be a free thinker and act with integrity rather than political calculation. Oropeza was endorsed by the Fremont-Union City-Newark (FUN) Progressives, the local chapter of Our Revolution.
His opponents are far more problematic. Neither seem particularly well informed or thoughtful about the issues facing Fremont. Chandrakala Siramdas seems committed to turning Fremont into a police state, her platform is all about increasing mass surveillance and police activity in the city – rather worrisome given allegations that the Fremont Police Department has been targeting the Sikh temple in town. Teresa Keng was registered as a Republican until recently and her policies – to the degree she has any – reflect this. Like Siramdas, she opposes rent control not just in Fremont but anywhere in the state and is likely to be a voice for the chamber of commerce.
Cullen Tiernan is at the heart of the progressive movement in California. After spending almost a decade in the Marine Corps, Tiernan became an anti-war activist and a volunteer and delegate for the Bernie Sanders campaign. As the chair of the Veterans Caucus of the California Democratic Party, he has led missions to Mexico to assist deported veterans. In Fremont, he serves as a member of the Human Services Commission. His agenda is uncompromisingly progressive, he favors rent control, stopping the development of luxury housing which strains on Fremont’s streets, schools and infrastructure, increasing the minimum wage and holding the police accountable. He is running a corporate free/developer free campaign. He has been endorsed by the FUN Progressives.
His opponent incumbent Rick Jones is a racist, right-wing former police officer who believes that the lives of African Americans and Latinos do not matter: when asked directly whether they did, his answer was “All Lives Matter”. He also condoned the murder by Fremont police of an unarmed Latina teenager, and of other people of color. In the Council, he has voted against civil liberties and opposes a higher minimum wage, rent control and anything that would make the lives of ordinary people better in Fremont. He is also a big friend of developers. Marshall Overlander, the other candidate on the ballot, seems MIA from the campaign trail.
Cullen Tiernan for Fremont City Council clean money pledge and campaign update.
Jenny Kassan is another uncompromising progressive. A lawyer who helps women starts socially responsible businesses, Kassan is a fierce advocate of rent control, police accountability, civil rights and liberties and environmental justice. She refuses developers money and firmly stands against allowing more luxury developments in Fremont. She has been endorsed by the FUN Progressives.
Her opponent, incumbent David Bonaccorsi is an attorney who represents developers with business with Fremont City Hall. Unlike other politicians, Bonaccorsi actually knows right from wrong – that’s clear in private conversations with him -, but he often lacks the backbone to do the right thing, opting instead for what is expedient. For example, he understands the problems of allowing the Fremont Police to dictate City policy, yet he considers their endorsement so important that he will do practically everything they tell him. Bonaccorsi has also stood against rent control and increasing the minimum wage to a paltry $15 in Fremont, even though teenage babysitters charge at least that much in this part of the Bay Area.
The third candidate on the ballot, Joseph Valenti, has also been MIA from the campaign trail.
This race for an empty seat includes three progressives, a moderate and a right-wing homophobe, creating the very real risk of a split on the vote that will have the latter win. Unfortunately, without polling, we have no way of knowing which progressive candidate is the most popular so we can only suggest that you vote for the most progressive candidate that is ready for the job.
Robert Daulton is a designer who has lived in Fremont for many years. He’s a father of a teenager attending Fremont public schools. As a community member, he organized his neighbors in opposition to environmentally-problematic developments, even to the point of hiring a lawyer to sue and stop one. He frequently attends council and other community meetings. He supports rent control, a police review board, clamping down on mass surveillance and is running a clean money campaign. He has been endorsed by the FUN Progressives.
Debbie Watanuki is a lawyer and long time resident of Fremont. She’s the former Chair of the Human Relations Commission and was on the board of the Fremont Education foundation in the past. She is an intelligent, capable and compassionate person with strong progressive values and policies very similar to Robert Daulton’s. Neither is an experienced politician and either would make a good City Councilmember. There is no compelling reason to recommend one versus the other.
The third progressive, Justin Sha, is a millennial who has recently graduated from law school. A Chinese-American gay man, Sha felt compelled to run to stand in opposition to Yang Shao’s conservative homophobic agenda. He is a strong progressive and shows a lot of promise, but he lacks seasoning and presents too much of the arrogance of youth. Still, his is an important voice and we hope to see him run again in the future.
At the other end of the political spectrum lies Yang Shao, a member of the Fremont School Board most recently universally condemned for voting against allowing sex education to be taught in Fremont elementary schools. Shao belongs to a popular Christian fundamentalist church on whose support he’s counting, and his opposition to gay marriage was even noted in the New York Times.
Finally, there is Craig Steckler, a former police Chief, who fashions himself a progressive because he has a medical marijuana card. He has remained silent in the multiple killings of people of color by Fremont police, however.
Dianne Jones is an intelligent and progressive woman, an involved parent of Fremont Unified District students. She’s served in lots of volunteer capacities with the schools, from PTA to school committees and works as a substitute teacher, which gives her personal insight into the schools. She has very progressive views on education and restorative justice at the school level. And, of course, she supports sex ed starting in elementary school – as anyone who is aware that menarche can start as young as 9 or 10 would. She has been endorsed by the FUN Progressives.
Fahria Khan is also an involved parent, with five children who are either attending or have graduated from Fremont public schools. She has also served in numerous PTAs and school committees, including the Fremont Education Foundation and two Alameda County commissions. Her work in the district’s equity commission has made her be particularly sensitive to issues of unconscious bias against students of color and she’s committed to creating more oversight over SROs at the schools. Beyond that, she holds common-sense liberal positions on teaching sex education in schools and allowing teachers to choose their curriculum. She will be a breath of fresh air in the Fremont School Board. She has also been endorsed by the FUN Progressives.
Norman Howell, a former AP Biology teacher and teacher’s union representative, would also make an acceptable choice. He has strong progressive values and he cares strongly about the schools. However, without children in the schools, he has a less in-depth understanding of the issues facing them and less personal experience with issues of equity.
None of the other candidates responded to our requests to speak. Silvia Wong is a parent who seems to be running to make sure to keep sex ed from being taught in schools. Hua Li had two children graduate from Fremont schools but does not report having volunteered in schools or school organizations. Hiu Ng is a retiree with a long history of involvement in the schools, who is running for the fifth time.
The City of Oakland has some of the most exciting races in Alameda County (and perhaps even in California) this election season – and here are our very progressive recommendations. We have yet to decide on a couple of races, so please leave us your input.
The two best alternatives to her are civil rights attorney Pamela Price and activist Cat Brooks. Price ran for District Attorney in the spring, and while she lost in the white areas of the county, she comfortably won in Oakland. She is brilliant, dedicated, and has lived in Oakland for decades – she knows the city inside and out. She has a sound plan for dealing with homelessness, and the toughness to deal with a police department that has shown little respect to civilian authorities. Cat Brooks shares Price’s progressive values, and has been an important figure in the anti-police brutality movement. She is just as dedicated to deal with homelessness, and the problems that rapid gentrification are bringing to Oakland. Brooks, moreover, is an exciting and inspiring candidate that promises to mobilize young and leftist citizens that often don’t bother to vote. Either would be a great choice for Mayor, and ranked choice voting means voters don’t really have to chose between them. Select whichever of the two excites you most as your #1 choice, and the other one as your #2. Both have been endorsed by Our Revolution East Bay.
We have not been overly impressed by any of the other candidates challenging Schaaf, and as all of them will likely be eliminated before Price and Brooks are, we don’t offer a third choice.
The coalition of labor and social justice groups that backed Guillen when he first ran, turned around and recruited Nikki Fortunateo Bas to run against him. Nikki is a social justice warrior, who has worked to empower and organize disenfranchised communities for decades. She got her start by working with Sweatshop Watch and organizing workers in Oakland Chinatown to fight for unpaid wages. In the years since, she has worked to raise the minimum wage in Oakland, to make sure that the Oakland base redevelopment instituted a local hire policy and to reduce diesel emissions on trucks coming from the Port of Oakland. She has the right progressive values, a lot of experience working with Oakland city government and the right combination of even-temper and passion to get along with Council colleagues while advocating for sound and humane policies. Nikki has been endorsed by Our Revolution East Bay.
Kenzie Donte Smith, the third candidate in the race, was one of the African American people targeted by “BBQ Becky”. He doesn’t seem to be running much of a campaign, we couldn’t even find a webpage for him.
We need leaders who will fight for the Oakland we love. As a community organizer, I will prioritize the people of Oakland over developers and corporate interests. ✊🏾As I said Thursday at the Alameda County Dems forum, I will champion 100% affordable homes on city-owned public land. I support Prop 10 and I will champion rent control in Oakland. I will fight for fair cleanup services so that every neighborhood is clean, beautiful, and safe. And I will budget according to our values, so that safety means safety for everyone in Oakland, no matter what you look like or where you live. Read my full platform at nikki4oakland.com and join our campaign!
Matt Hummel has the prettiest lawn signs in town. We don’t imagine they will be very effective – can you even read them while driving by? -, but they are cute and artistic and even feature a bee that sort of looks like Matt. And why not? Matt is, per no lesser authority than the New Yorker, a “leading figure in the city’s artistic scene.” Beyond that, Matt is a community activist working on issues as diverse as cannabis, rent control and creating safe conditions for artists living in warehouses (particularly on the wake of the Ghost Ship fire). He is also an all around Bernie Sanders style progressive, only more so. He supports civil liberties and social justice and he is part of the progressive movement. Predictably, he is not taking any corporate money for his campaign. We recommended Matt as our #1 choice when he ran for the at-large seat in 2016, and we do so again. You can read his answers to our 2016 questionnaire here.
We are not particular on the order in which you rank the next two candidates, but we recommend that you chose them as your remaining two choices.
Pam Harris is a force to be reckoned with. A former Fulbright fellow, and current financial guru for nonprofits, Harris is a brilliant thinker and a brilliant speaker. She is moving and inspiring and will no doubt go far in politics – if that’s what she wants one day. For the time being, as the mother of two young children, what she wants is to make Oakland a place where her kids can grow up in a community they can still belong to once they grow up – something which is becoming rarer and rarer in this age of skyrocketing home prices and rents.
Pamela has the right progressive values, is committed to social justice and equity, and is absolutely fearless. This is a woman who knows her mind and knows her worth and won’t let anyone walk all over her. And yet she’s charming, disarming and friendly. It remains to be seen whether District 4 residents can vote for an LGBTQ African American candidate, but progressives in the district definitely should.
Sheng Thao is a progressive powerhouse. A daughter of persecuted Hmong immigrants and a single mom, Sheng has experienced homelessness and has yet to achieve the American dream of owning a home – so she understands the plight of Oakland’s poor and working families personally. She is also committed to address it. She is passionate about the need to curtail mass surveillance and clean up the Oakland Police Department and opposes its militarization. She voted for Bernie Sanders and is now helping progressive darling and Our Revolution/Barbara Lee endorsed cadidate Jovanka Beckles be elected to the Assembly. She is a woman who is not afraid to be loud and clear about her progressive values, even in a district that may not share them.
Thao works as the Chief of Staff for Oakland Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan. This means she knows the workings of the city inside and out, so she’ll be able to hit the ground running. While we were initially concerned that these relationship might color Thao’s actions, after talking to her at length we are convinced she will be an independent voice and might even sway Kaplan to be more assertive in support of progressive police.
Please vote for Pam Harris and Sheng Thao in whichever order you prefer.
We are not recommending votes for the other candidates. While Nayeli Maxson is a progressive Berniecrats who seems to have the right values, she endorsed Jovanka Beckles’ corporate opponent, which suggests that Maxson would compromise these values if she finds it politically expedient. Charlie Michelson projects as an arrogant white male, and has definite moderate/pro-business/pro-police leanings. He also has a lot of money. Joseph Tanios is a fan of and has been endorsed by anti-immigrant, racist Sheriff Greg Ahern. Joseph Simons, meanwhile, is a working pastor of a major Oakland church – which brings potential conflicts of interests and issues of separation of church state that we don’t need to deal with given the preponderance of better qualified candidates.
Mya Whittaker is a great political talent on the making. And her greatness comes from her realness. Born and raise in District 6, Mya is a girl from East Oakland, in touch with her community and a new generation of people growing up disillusioned by the political system. She knows better. You need to be in the inside to make write the policies that affect their lives.
There is no artifice to Mya. She is a progressive because she lives the consequence of non-progressive policies, she knows first hand that poverty and lack of opportunities breed crime and that restorative justice is the way to lower it and to heal communities. She has experienced and in effective and at times out of control police department, and has been lobbying to recruit more police officers from Oakland. She opposes surveillance because she knows OPD cannot be trusted. As a member of the committee who hired the current police chief, she wants to hold her accountable. A member of the former police commission, she understands that the problem is with the laws that shelter abusive cops and OPD’s policies. And, of course, Mya is for rent control, increasing the minimum wage, bringing real solutions to homelessness, etc. But she is mostly for engaging the community in finding solutions the problems that plague them.
You probably need to meet or hear Mya to see how exciting she is as a candidate, but if you can’t and live in the district trust me and give her your #1 vote.
Desley Brooks has represented District 6 in Oakland for sixteen years. She keeps getting re-elected because, in general, she has done well for her district. She has also been a strong vote in favor of civil liberties, privacy and police accountability. While her personality can be problematic – she is a very strong woman who doesn’t take anything from anyone and can appear rude at times -, her policies are sound. She has been fighting and will continue to fight to make sure that Oakland continues to offer a home to people of color, the working class and the poor. While the capitalist/gentrifying forces behind Libby Schaaf are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat Desley, she maintains the support of the civil rights and civil liberties community. Please give her your #2 vote.
Marlo Rodriguez is angry. She is angry at Desley Brooks for what she perceives are failings in bringing a supermarket to Oakland and for for Brooks’ inability to get along and work with people. A nurse and newcomer to politics, she has strong progressive views as far as rent control. homelessness, police accountability, mass surveillance and minimum wage goes. Her values are our values. But we recommend Rodriguez as the third choice because she has very little experience in the Oakland city government. Some of her proposals go beyond what the Council is able to do and could be best achieve through community activism. While we think she’d have a steep learning curve, she is a better choice than the remaining two candidates.
Loren Taylor and Natasha Middleton appear to be “puppet” candidates of different forces in Oakland politics, who simply want to get rid of Desley Brooks. Taylor is backed by Libby Schaaf and given the general ignorance and apathy towards the issues he’s manifested in candidate fora, he’s likely to be her representative in the Council if elected. Middleton is the candidate of those who don’t think a man living in the hills can beat Desley Brooks. She is also supported by Schaaf and many of the same people who support Taylor and she also has sounded painfully ignorant and frazzled at candidate fora. We believe that voters deserve Council members that are not mere puppets for other political actors.
Former Oakland auditor Courtney Ruby, who exited the job to run – unsuccessfully – for Mayor four years ago, is back on the running. And while she wasn’t a stellar auditor when she had the job, she was certainly better than incumbent Brenda Roberts who has been an unmitigated disaster. We recommend a lesser-of-two-evils vote for Ruby.
Berkeley has the reputation of being the most progressive city in the US, but impressions are not always reality. Berkeley has particularly struggled with issues of homelessness and police militarization and brutality, which its City Council has not always been able to address adequately.
It’s a new election and a chance to install a fully progressive City Council. Here are the best progressive choices.
There are three progressives running on this race. They all support rent control, holding the police accountable and ending police militarization, humane solutions to homelessness and smart growth. I am ranking them in terms of their preparation for this office.
Igor Tregub is an engineer and long time community activist, currently in the Berkeley Rent Board. I’ve known him for many years, as he is also a member of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee. He is a strong progressive, with the right values, who is committed to making Berkeley a better city. He can be a little timid at times, but will vote the right way. He has the #1 endorsement from Our Revolution East Bay.
Margo Schueler has impressed me with her “can do” attitude, her willingness to take on sexist establishments and her straightforwardness. However, her expertise seem more limited than Igor’s so I’m recommending her as a #2 choice, as has Our Revolution East Bay.
Mary Behm-Steinberg seems to mostly be a protest candidate, aiming to bring attention to disability issues. She has overall progressive values, so I’m recommending her as number 3.
Rashi Kesarwani, the fourth candidate, is your run-of-the-mill elitist candidate, running to make it easier for developers to build luxury housing and to keep the status quo.
My amazing partner Maritessa has been with me through every step of this journey – from the moment I announced my candidacy, to attending community meetings and house parties, to knocking on doors to listen to the concerns of our neighbors. We care so deeply about this district. This is our home. This is where we will start a family. There is no one else I trust to tell my story than her. This election, I ask you to vote Igor #1 for Berkeley City Council District 1.
Incumbent Kate Harrison is the epitome of a progressive politician, the sort we wish we could clone and put one of in every city council. She is firm in her convictions that a city must be run for its citizens, she supports human rights and social/racial/gender/environmental justice. She is well informed and has clear and intelligent solutions to the problems facing Berkeley. She is not easily intimidated and is not afraid to stand up to the Berkeley police. And she is a pleasant human being, without an ego and the ability to get along with everyone. She was endorsed by Our Revolution East Bay.
Her opponents are two pro-development guys in vanity campaigns. Neither is worth a second choice vote.
City Council District 7 was created as a student district – with the express purpose of having student representation in the Berkeley City Council. The current officeholder, Kriss Worthington. promised he’d step aside when a suitable student would step up to run for this seat. Rigel Robinson, who graduated last spring from Cal, took that challenge. Rigel is an extremely mature, intelligent and well spoken young man. At Cal, he participated in student government and was a leader in the campus campaign for Bernie Sanders. He has strong progressive values, including opposing the militarization of Berkeley police. He is overall very impressive and will add a needed young voice to the Council. Rigel has been endorsed by Our Revolution East Bay.
Aidan Hill, our second choice, is currently a student at UC Berkeley. A young gender non-binary person of color, he has struggled with discrimination and homelessness and is running to bring attention to those issues as well as push for an overall progressive agenda (one that seems less local than Rigel’s).
The last candidate in the race, Ces Rosales, is an older woman who seeks to represent the interests of the non-student residents and small businesses in the district. She’s ran for City Council before and while she supported the creation of a student district, she harbors a lot of resentment to supports of Bernie Sanders. She is also a supporter of police militarization. We cannot recommend her.
Alfred Twu is an artist and designer, with brilliant innovative ideas on how to solve the housing crisis. They are a passionate progressive, a volunteer for Bernie Sanders and many other progressive candidates and a key member of the progressive movement. They are intelligent, capable, willing to stand up for what they believe and would be an amazing addition to the Berkeley City Council. They have been endorsed by Our Revolution East Bay.
We are still awaiting more information on the other two challenger before making our second and third choices. Incumbent Lori Droste, however, clearly does not represent Progressive values. She has voted in favor of police militarization and is lukewarm on rent control.
School Board (vote for 3): TBD
We are still working out this race. Please leave us your comments below.
Jenny Wong is a professional auditor who is running to take the place of the present one, who is retiring. She has the support of basically everyone in Berkeley City government for what should not be a political position. Her opponent seems both unqualified and unable to do the job – he would not even answer my questions. She was endorsed by Our Revolution East Bay.
Measure O: Yes
This is a $135 bond measure to fund affordable housing.
Measure P: Yes
This would race the property transfer tax from 1.5% to 2.5% for properties that sell for over $1.5 million, with the proceeds going to to help homeless people. It’s exactly the type of common-sense progressive taxation that we should get behind.
Measure Q: No
This measure was put in the ballot through the pressure of landlords who are afraid that if Prop 10 passes and Costa Hawkins is repealed, their units will fall under rent control. It exempts accessory dwelling units from both rent control and just cause – allowing landlords to not only raise the rent as high as they want, but evict tenants for any reason.
Measure R: Yes
This measure advises the Mayor in the development of a 30-year infrastructure plan for Berkeley. The Mayor supports it.
Prop 3 would authorize an $8.877 billion bond for water projects. While there are some good projects in the mix, most of the funding is earmarked for projects benefiting those that helped pay to get this massive barrel of pork on the ballot, including big ag and dam interests. The Sierra Club recommends a No vote. We just passed a water bond in June 2018 – let’s reject Prop 3 and come back in 2020 with a better plan. The California Democratic Party did not take a position on Prop 3. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_3,_Water_Infrastructure_and_Watershed_Conservation_Bond_Initiative_(2018
Currently, property taxes in California are based on price at time of purchase, with a below-inflation annual increase. However, when people move and buy a new home, usually they will have to pay full taxes. Currently, there are exemptions for people over 55. Realtors put Prop 5 on the ballot to expand the number of exemptions.
California Democratic Party and unions oppose Prop 5, as nearly all the benefit would go to the rich, and schools and local governments would lose up to $1 billion a year each. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Property_Tax_Transfer_Initiative_(2018)
Prop 9 is a *****ing dumpster fire that a billionaire paid to get on the ballot, only to have the courts declare it unconstitutional. Please don’t sign any more of his ballot measures to divide California into multiple states.
Prop 10 would repeal Costa-Hawkins, allowing cities to pass stronger forms of rent control, such as vacancy control (no rent increases between tenants), rent control on single family houses, and rent control on buildings built after 1995.
The California Democratic Party, tenant and community groups, and unions endorse Prop 10. East Bay for Everyone also endorses Prop 10, YIMBY Action was divided among Yes and No and did not reach a consensus. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_10,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2018)
These are our recommendations for statewide offices (including Board of Equalization). Unfortunately, no true progressive is running for any office. Our choices in most of these races are between a corrupt self-dealing politician and a more corrupt self-dealing politician. We indicate “lesser evil” choices by the use of italics. Note that because all of these races had a top-two primary, it’s not possible to do a write-in vote. So it’s either vote for one of the two candidates in each race or not vote at all. Please feel free to comment below with your views and choices.
We consider De Leon to be an establishment pay-to-play politician, with lots of skeletons in his closet, from potential me-too allegations, to involvement in shady and even corrupt political dealings. As a Senator, he took lots of telecom money which he paid back by killing a bill that would prohibit telecoms from sharing customers’ data. Moreover, he is completely ignorant of foreign policy.
There is much to dislike about Gavin Newsom. He has no moral compass, he is dishonest, he is opportunistic, he makes promises (like supporting single payer) that he has no intentions to fulfill, he is an elitist which little concern for the common man, he is willing to sell out immigrants and children for political points. The list goes on and on. Still, he is better than his Trump-endorsed Republican opponent John Cox. Please hold your nose and vote for Gavin.
Lieutenant Governor: Undecided
In this election we have a choice between a rich white woman with no qualifications and a history of supporting corrupt politicians or a corrupt politician. We spoke with Eleni Kounalakis at length and she is a nice woman, with a measure of noblesse oblige that would have her support social justice issues, but only as long as these don’t interfere with the real financial interests of the oligarchy. She was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, she bought herself an ambassadorship and if she’s elected now, it’ll be on the basis of her wealth and connections (made by her wealth).
Her opponent, Ed Hernandez, is a Latino optometrist-turned-politician who has risen by playing the old pay-to-play game (what you do when you can’t resort to a family fortune to fund your campaigns). He earned the support of the California Nurses Association by supporting SB 562, the single payer bill, and letting it passed through committee – but it’s not clear he’d have done this if he wasn’t running for Lt Governor and wanted the nurses on his side.
In all, we’re not sure which one is the worse choice.
There are no good candidates in this race. Incumbent Alex Padilla made a mockery of the office, one which requires integrity and a perception of neutrality, by openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton during the primary. Then, when thousands of voters throughout the state complained about voter irregularities, from having their party registration changed to having their names disappear altogether from the voter rolls, Padilla did nothing to investigate and fix whatever the problem was. He definitely needs to go.
Unfortunately, his opponent, Republican Mark Meuser, is an alt-right conspiracy theorist who should not be elected to dog catcher. As unlikely as it may seem that he could win, we can’t risk it and we must vote for Padilla.
Ricardo Lara is a problematic candidate. While he was one of the authors of the single payer bill introduced in the State Senate last year, he did little to make sure that the bill was actually passed. His seemingly corrupt pastactivities and his reliance on corporate donations also worry us. Moreover, he does not seem to have any relevant experience that would prepare him for this job.
However, his opponent is Steve Poizner, a former Republican now running as No Party Preference, who was Insurance Commissioner from 2008-2012. Poizner quit the job to run for governor in a far-right platform that denounced immigration (which he now, conveniently, claims he regrets). He is now running on a platform of opposing single-payer healthcare.
Marshal Tuck is a charter school executive, seemingly aiming to privatize our educational system even more. Tony Thurmond seems more interested in political climbing that he is in on the well being of students. Alas, we can’t risk having Tuck be elected.
Board of Equalization District 1: Tom Hallinan
Tom Hallinan correctly states that the Board of Equalization is no longer necessary and he’ll work to shut it down.
Board of Equalization District 2: None
San Francisco supervisor Malia Cohen is a moderate Democrat who has taken developer and AirBnb money and voted against measures that would maintain and increase affordable housing in SF. Her opponent, Mark Burns, is your run-of-the-mill right winger. Malia is the lesser of two evils, though as she’s a shoe-in to win, this is a race one can just skip voting on.
Vazquez is a progressive and supported Bernie Sanders but has been involved in shady self-dealing deals. His opponent, G. Rick Marshall, is an anti-tax Republican. While this is a safe Democratic district, Vazquez neglected to include a ballot statement which will depress the vote for him. We thus recommend that you vote for him.
Board of Equalization District 2: None
Here we have a situation where it’s not easy to discern who is the better of two evils. The Democratic candidate, 80-year old Mike Schaefer, is a perennial candidate that was once disbarred for dishonesty, deceit and fraud.
His opponent is another typical no-tax, defend Prop 13 protections of commercial property type.