It’s that time again. And I’m late. The election is in just a few days and I haven’t started thinking about this yet. So, I write.

Statewide Positions

Governor: Xavier Becerra

His name is so cool. Who doesn’t want a governor named Xavier? Way better than Steve.

The problem is he’s boring. He made it to the top of a very crowded pool because of Eric Swalwell’s dark demons. He spent most of his career in public service: 24 years in Congress, four as California’s attorney general, and then Biden’s secretary of Health and Human Services. He grew up in Sacramento and earned his undergraduate and law degrees at Stanford. Certainly qualified, but dull and boring.

Still, he’s better than Steve Hilton. Steve Hilton advised a British prime minister and hosted a Fox News show. He’s never held elected office. Now he wants his first elected job to be running America’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy. I hate that hubris.

I’m much more “No on Steve” than “Yes on Xavier.”

Lt. Governor: Fiona Ma

As I wrote in June, this position is a nothing-burger. It doesn’t matter. I’d be inclined to vote Republican here, just to mix it up, but I happen to have followed Fiona Ma throughout her career and believe she is smart, legit, sincere, and probably would make a great governor.

That’s the only reason to care about this position. You know they’re going to run for governor next. I picked Josh Fryday in June because he’s a peer and I liked the idea of having a younger person in office, and a Cal guy to boot.

Short of that, I pick Fiona.

Secretary of State: Shirley Weber

The fact that I’ve not read or heard her name since she became Secretary of State five years ago is the best reason to vote for her again.

FWIW, since I barely knew this, the job here is to make sure elections are secure and accessible, business filings work efficiently, and political spending is easy to scrutinize. Important to do right, and we don’t want a wannabe celebrity in this post.

Controller: Malia M. Cohen

She’s been the Controller already and is running for re-election. Similar to Shirley, I like that she’s not been in the news. That’s good enough for me.

Her opponent sat on a city board 15 years ago but has never held public office.

Treasurer: Eleni Kounalakis

Eleni is currently our Lt. Governor and has had enough, so she’s running for Treasurer. I think she’ll do a good job and has proven herself to be a competent and non-controversial public servant. Like the last two positions, that’s good enough for me.

Her opponent has never held public office. No thanks.

Insurance Commissioner: Ben Allen

This position actually matters, and it’s too bad it’s not listed higher in the ballot. I think it’s more consequential than all the elected positions besides governor.

Here’s why: home insurance is the backbone of financial security. In a state prone to wildfires, earthquakes, and floods, we need a functional insurance market to protect our livelihoods. The commissioner is like our ambassador to the insurance industry. They’re supposed to be our advocate. Our current commissioner, Ricardo Lara, has been a joke.

I think Ben Allen and Jane Kim are both strong candidates. The major newspapers endorse Ben Allen for his experience, so I do too.

State Board of Equalization, District 2: John Pimentel

This one was hard. I picked John Pimentel because he wants to get rid of this board. I agree. Most of the Board of Equalization’s responsibilities were transferred to other agencies in 2017 after an audit exposed serious problems. Pimentel is pushing to eliminate the board and move its remaining duties elsewhere. I like a candidate who is willing to question whether his own office should exist.

Statewide Propositions

I got some help here from my AI friends. There’s a lot on the ballot and I needed to see how all the endorsements landed before choosing my own.

Here’s how I’m thinking about it in general:

• More revenue is good but we have to think long-term. No shortcuts (yes, I’m looking at you, Prop 40)!
• More debt is bad, especially when the debt is used to fund programs that already exist in the private sector (Prop 1, 37, 38)
• More red tape is bad (Props 39, 41, 42, 43, 44)
• Removing red tape is good (Prop 45)

Checked October 31, 2026. “Not verified” means a position could not be confirmed, not that the paper is neutral. East Bay Times and Mercury News share one editorial perspective.

Prop 40: Hell No

More revenue is good, but we have to think long-term. Prop 40 would collect a one-time 5% wealth tax from billionaires, with most of the money going to health care. I understand the appeal but it’s a terrible piece of legislation that makes no sense.

My main beef: What the heck do billionaires have to do with healthcare?? Put an asset tax on tobacco companies, breweries, wineries, fast food, tribal casinos, something that actually has an impact on peoples’ health. Billionaires are not the villain.

I like gas taxes that pay for roads. I like tobacco taxes that pay for addiction prevention. That makes sense. Prop 40 does not.

Second beef: Health care costs don’t go away when the one-time money runs out. Worse, the assumption that billionaires won’t leave is a pre-COVID mentality that is already proven false. California was the global HQ for both Chevron and Tesla. We lost both, and now we’re kicking out the rest. I don’t understand it and I really, really don’t like it.

I’m a yes on extending the high-income tax in Prop 3. I’m willing to ask wealthy people to pay more. But I want California to have a reliable tax base over time, and I don’t think this is how we get there. No shortcuts. I’m a hell no.

Prop 45: Yes

This one is actually more nuanced than just “removing red tape is good.” I’m still in favor.

I’m voting against the housing bonds because I want California to do more to address why housing is so expensive before borrowing more money to help people afford it. If that’s my position, I should also be willing to support changes that make building easier.

Through Shovels, I spend a lot of time thinking about permits and construction. Delay is not free. Projects carry financing costs while they wait, and uncertainty makes them harder to finance in the first place. That doesn’t mean every delay is caused by CEQA, or that every environmental review is unnecessary. It means the process itself has costs, and we should take those costs seriously.

I like that Prop 45 puts deadlines on environmental review and litigation. It also goes further, limiting parts of the review process and when courts can stop projects. That’s where I get uncomfortable. This covers more than housing, and critics have legitimate concerns about freeway expansion and development in fire-prone areas.

I still like open space. I haven’t suddenly decided that every hillside needs a subdivision. But I’m willing to accept some overcorrection here. California has spent years making construction expensive and unpredictable, then asking taxpayers to help finance the result. I’d rather do more to remove the costs we impose in the first place.

Bgahargh. I have to make a call. It’s not perfect, but I’m a yes.

Local Initiatives

Finally, we’re coming to the end!

RTM: No

Going back to my point about debt, BART (and other transportation systems that rely on commuters) needs to get its own act together before we bail it out. Reduce the number of trains, shut stations down, make the public feel it and react. Operating like it’s business as usual, when the truth is the opposite, is not the right strategy.

In short, these programs need to reduce ongoing expenses to reflect lower ridership before seeking more taxes.

Acalanes Measure W: Yes

It’s an increase and extension of an existing parcel tax. I believe our schools are underfunded and I know our teachers are underpaid. We need a broader reform post-Prop 13 but punishing my local high school district for something voters decided 50 years ago is not a cure.

This is an easy yes.