Emeryville Measure BB (Business License Tax Reform): YES.

I strongly support Measure BB to update Emeryville’s business license framework. Currently, a multinational corporation in Emeryville pays the exact same tax rate (0.1% of gross receipts) as a local artist or hairstylist. Measure BB raises the tax cap for major corporate entities to $800,000 and eliminates the gross receipts tax entirely for small businesses earning under $100,000. Emeryville can generate up to $6 million annually in new revenue—cutting our budget deficit in half while giving small businesses real relief.

Measure RTM (Connect Bay Area): YES.

Public transit is critical for so many reasons. In addition to reducing emissions by getting cars off the road, it provides the only viable option for people with disabilities who cannot drive, lower income people who cannot afford cars, and our elders who no longer feel safe operating a personal vehicle. Allowing steep cuts to transit services due to funding shortages would not only roll back environmental progress and create more gridlock on our roads, but also significantly limit mobility for some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

Prop 1 (Housing Bond): YES.

This doesn’t require the state to issue housing bonds, it just allows us to. The argument that “we have money now so we don’t need bonds” is spurious. We won’t have record revenue forever, so why cut off the ability to issue bonds?

Prop 2 (Rainy Day Fund): YES.

When the economy is good and the stock market is up, we generate more tax revenue. When it’s down, we run deficits. Prop 2 lets the state save when times are good so we can spend when they aren’t.

Prop 3 (Education Funding): YES.

Allowing what is essentially a tax cut for California’s top earners would trigger a devastating multi-billion-dollar drop in state revenue, siphoning off up to $15 billion annually from local K-12 classrooms and community colleges. Prop 3 secures long-term budget stability for our local school districts, prevents severe classroom layoffs, and protects the state General Fund so we don’t have to cut transit, housing, or public safety programs to cover state-mandated education funding.

Prop 4 (Campaign Finance Reform): YES.

We need to get private money out of politics so that candidates and officeholders can be the objective decision makers we need without pressure from corporate interests.

Prop 5 (Recall Reform): YES.

The recall system in California has been abused recently and needs to be reformed. Prop 5 is a step in the right direction. Recalls are designed for abuses of power or dereliction of duty, not politics. If you don’t like how an elected official is doing their job, vote them out next time. Special interests should not have such an easy time targeting elected officials for political reasons. Additionally, simultaneous replacement elections run the risk of a repeat of the infamous “No on recall; Yes on Bustamante” that simply confuses voters rather than letting them decide separately if an official should be recalled and then who should replace that person.

Prop 38 (Medical Research Bond): NO.

Medical research is essential but the structure of this bond is bogus. The measure is written so that half of the bond money is set aside for one nonprofit research center that just so happens to be co-founded and chaired by a billionaire. That same person has given $120 million to the organization during the last four years and has already spent more than $12 million to get this measure passed. The state shouldn’t be underwriting bonds for billionaire-directed research with no public oversight.

Prop 39 (Voter Suppression): NO.

Ballot fraud in California elections is virtually nonexistent, and voter impersonation is even rarer. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, you’re more likely to be struck by lightning multiple times than encounter a case of in-person voter fraud. Measures like Prop 39 are thinly veiled right-wing attempts at voter suppression targeting people who overwhelmingly vote Democrat – young people, Black and brown people, differently abled people, and trans people.

Prop 40 (Billionaire Tax): YES.

While I would prefer a long-term, structural tax increase on the ultra-rich that covers a broader range of essential social services, I support Prop 40. It will provide a necessary infusion of money into Medi-Cal and other state-funded health programs at a time when the federal government is slashing funding to the bone.

Prop 41 (Negating Prop 40): NO.

This proposition exists only to trick voters. If this gets more votes than Prop 40, the billionaire tax would be invalidated even if a majority of voters approved it. It forces wasteful and unnecessary reviews by the State Auditor and sets arbitrary goals for cuts to programs funded by increased tax revenue.

Prop 42 (Banning Billionaire Taxes): NO.

This one isn’t a trick; this proposition permanently handcuffs the state. It would not only invalidate Prop 40 even if it passed, but it would prohibit the state from ever establishing a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. This proposition is funded by the same people who oppose Prop 40; they’re doing everything they can to make sure billionaires don’t have to pay their fair share.

Prop 43 (Overriding Majority Rules): NO.

Surprise, surprise. Another initiative funded by the ultra-rich to exert more power over our elections. “Majority rules” is a key principle of American democracy – if most people vote for a law to pass, it should (with a few key exceptions). It might seem like a good idea to increase the threshold for raising taxes to ⅔ just to make really sure that people want it, but in reality, that just allows a vocal, well-funded minority to have outsized impact.

Prop 44 (Community Health Clinics): YES.

I support the core principle behind Prop 44 – that public health dollars should be spent on public health outcomes rather than inflated executive salaries. The safeguards built into the measure ensure we enforce fiscal accountability for clinic executives while fully protecting the financial solvency of safety-net clinics and the working-class families who rely on them.

Prop 45 (CEQA Streamlining): NO.

I’ve become a bit of an expert on the CEQA process if I do say so myself. Public involvement in the development of major projects is critical, and the CEQA process is the primary, legally binding way people can voice their concerns. In the past, bad faith actors have used lawsuits under CEQA to delay or stop dense infill housing projects. Prop 45 limits this sort of frivolous litigation, but it also steamrolls city planning departments, environmental groups, and the general public’s ability to raise legitimate concerns and places a huge burden on state courts that already have full dockets. Proponents say that the CEQA process is flawed, so rather than fix it, they just want to make it faster? That doesn’t make sense.