The California 2022 Midterm Elections were held on two separate dates. The Nonpartisan Primary for the U.S. House was held on June 7, and the General Election for U.S. House was held on November 8, 2022.
In this blog post, I will provide information about the candidates who ran for the Midterm Elections, the winners and losers, and more.
California Governor Election – 2022
March 11, 2022: The Associated Press posted an article titled: “California cakewalk? No big-name rivals for Gov. Newsom” From the article:
Six months after winning a recall election that could have ousted him from office, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is in an enviable position as he raves up a reelection campaign that could give him a second four-year term.
No top-tier competitor has emerged to stand in his way and he’s flush with campaign cash. He had roughly $25 million in his main political committee at the end of 2021.
All of the most-recognized Republicans who ran in the recall have decided not to run again. They include conservative radio talk show host Larry Elder and former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who made his announcement a day before Friday’s deadline for candidates to enter the race…
…A certified list of candidates is not due from state election officials until later this month, but Newsom’s challengers are expected to include state Sen. Brian Dahle, a little-known Republican from rural Northern California. Dahle has called it a David and Goliath matchup.
Democratic candidates hold commanding advantages in liberal-leaning California. The party holds every statewide office, and dominates the Legislature and congressional delegation. The party also holds a roughly 2-1 advantage in voter registration over Republicans…
Newsom discouraged competition with a strong showing in last year’s recall. After appearing imperiled during the depths of the pandemic, he rebounded and defeated by a landslide margin the attempt to push him out. Instead, a field of little-known rivals will take on the incumbent in a June 7 primary election…
…The Republican Party has been withering away in California for years: statewide GOP registration has slipped under 24%, compared to 46.7% for Democrats. Most of the remainder are independents who tend to lean Democratic. In the last two U.S. Senate races, the November ballot included only Democratic candidates after no GOP candidates finished second to earn a place in the general election.
The lack of competitive GOP candidates at the top of the ticket could hurt candidates down the ballot, including those in a string of competitive U.S. House races that are expected to play into the fight to control Congress…
June 8, 2022: The Associated Press posted an article titled: “Newsom wins California primary, is big favorite in November”. From the article:
In a year when Democrats across the county have been bracing for a mid-term backlash at the polls, voters in California delivered decisive victories for the party during Tuesday’s primary, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom crushing a field of 25 other candidates less than a year after voters tried to recall him from office.
Newsom got about 59% of the votes and has more than $23 million in the bank for a November general election against Brian Dahle, a largely anonymous state senator from the sparsely populated northeast corner of the state.
Dahle is best known for his quest to get a giant new reservoir built in Northern California, had about 15% of the votes and finished second. In California’s primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election…
…His first task will be to raise money necessary to compete with Newsom statewide. It won’t be easy. Many Republican voters will be loathe to back a longshot candidate when they instead might invest in a handful of congressional races in the state that could determine control of the U.S. House…
June 10, 2022: Politico posted an article titled: “Newsom recall opponents sit out 2022 California governor’s race”. From the article:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recall opponents have opted out of a second round.
Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s camp confirmed to POLITICO on Thursday that Faulconer would not contest Newsom’s reelection push this year. With that, every high-profile Republican who ran to replace Newsom in last year’s recall has bowed out of the 2022 contest.
In a statement Thursday night, Faulconer said it was “not the right time” to run for governor and that “the lingering effects of the circus that unfolded toward the end of last year’s recall make it extremely difficult to relaunch the type of campaign I would want to run.”
Conservative talk show and top replacement candidate vote-getter host Larry Elder removed himself from the running months ago, and businessperson Assemblymember Kevin Kiley is running for Congress. Former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner has not sought a second act in California politics…
…Newsom’s 2022 opponents will include Republican state Senator Brian Dahle; GOP Navy veteran Shawn Collins; and independent Michael Shellenberger, who has gained attention for his arguments that progressive governance exacerbated San Francisco’s homeless crisis.
June 24, 2022: The New York Times reported: Gov. Gavin Newsom is overwhelmingly favored to win re-election after defeating a recall drive last year. Republicans have thrown their support behind Brian Dahle, a state lawmaker, while the author Michael Shellenberger, an independent, is hoping to rely on his large social media presence to reach the general election.
- Gavin Newsom: 3,888,543 – 56.2% votes
- Brian Dahle: 1,214,317 – 17.5% votes
- Michael Shellenberger: – 284,664 – 4.1% votes
These results where posted with 95% of the votes recorded.
If you want to know more about the California Recall of Governor Gavin Newsom, here are a few articles I wrote about that:
August 23, 2022: Institute of Governmental Studies UC Berkeley posted “Release #2022-13: Newsom holds big lead in re-election bid for governor.” From the release:
Newsom holds big lead in re-election bid for governor. – His challenger Republican Brian Dahle is unfamiliar to a majority of the state’s voters –
The latest Berkeley IGS Poll finds finds Governor Newsom holding a commanding lead in his fall re-election bid against Republican challenger, state Senator Brian Dahle. The poll finds Newsom currently leading by 27 points among the state’s registered voters and 24 points among voters considered most likely to vote in the November general election.
Newsom finished first in a field of 26 candidates in the state’s June top-two primary for governor, capturing 55.9% of the vote. He will face off in the November general election against second place finisher Dahle, who received 17.7% of the primary vote.
While the incumbent Governor is nearly universally known to the electorate, a majority of voters (58%) is unable to offer an opinion of Dahle. Both candidates are viewed more positively than negatively among those offering an opinion.
The poll also finds that 53% of the state’s voters approve of the job Newsom is doing overall while 42% disapprove. This is slightly better than the last time the Berkeley IGS Poll asked voters about the Governor’s job performance in February. However, more voters continue to believe that things in the state are moving in the wrong direction than those that feel California is heading in the right direction by 52% to 40%.
Opinions about the job Newsom is doing and his re-election bid are highly partisan with Democrats offering a very positive assessment of the job performance and solidly backing his reelection. By contrast, Republicans hold a decidedly negative view of the Governor’s performance in office and overwhelmingly oppose his re-election.
Newsom holds big lead over Dahle in November gubernatorial election.
When voters are asked their voting preferences for gubernatorial in the fall general election the poll finds Newsom holding a commanding twenty-seven-points lead over Dahle (52% to 25%) among the overall electorate and leading by twenty-four points (55% to 31%) among those considered most likely to participate in the election.
Support for Newsom’s reelection is greatest among registered voters in his home region, the San Francisco Bay Area (64%) as well as voters in the state’s Central Coast region (55%), Los Angeles County (55%) and San Diego County (54%).
Newsom’s support is broad-based across the major demographic subgroups of the state electorate. Newsom holds a huge lead over Dahle among the state’s Democratic voters, who outnumber Republicans greater than two to one. Other subgroups where Newsom receives strong backing include voters registered as No Party Preference, liberals, Blacks, and college graduates.
Early vote support for Dahle is coming primarily from fellow Republicans, who back his candidacy 71% to 7%. On a regional basis, Dahle does best among voters in the sparsely populated counties of the North Coast and Sierras, his home region…
Said IGS co-director Eric Stickler of the findings, “Newsom is in a strong position for reelection, with Republicans facing an uphill climb given the huge partisan advantage that the Democrats hold over the GOP in party registration across the state.”
September 23, 2022: Merced Sun-Star posted an article titled: “He earned trust in Sacramento, but Californians still don’t know Newsom challenger Brian Dahle”. From the article:
Less than seven weeks from the November midterm election, state Sen. Brian Dahle may be better known as the highest bidder for a slaughtered goat than as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s opponent.
A Republican candidate for governor must be either a celebrity, independently wealthy, or outlandish to have a shot – at least that’s the conventional wisdom in California politics.
Yet Dahle, a conservative farmer from the state’s rural north who didn’t go to college is sticking to his nice-guy vibe…
…Dahle’s family-run campaign is being drowned out by Newsom’s money and incumbency. The governor’s decisive defeat of last September’s recall and the more than 2-to-1 registration advantage enjoyed by Democrats in California make Dahle’s mission quixotic at best…
…The governor, who recently agreed to an October debate with Dahle, is so confident in his re-election that he spent campaign dollars to buy television spots, newspaper ads, and billboards in red states like Texas and Florda to promote California as an abortion refuge…
…Whether the candidate can reach and appeal to Independents and or even Democrats is another matter. If last year’s recall election is any indication, issues promoted by a conservative like Dahle are out of step with the state’s largely liberal electorate…
…Newsom is in a commanding position. Even before turning last year’s recall, he won the 2018 governor’s race by the largest margin in half a century.
In 2022, he has the time and wherewithal to build a national profile as a Democrat unafraid to pick a fight Republican governors like Florida’s Ron Desantis. His campaign account has $20 million, more than 11 times what Dahle has raised.
At 56, Dahle has run for office eleven times, but a statewide race is a different beast. He served on the Lassen County Board of Supervisors for 16 years before being elected to the state legislature in 2012, where he served as Assembly Republican leader with policy specialties are in water, forestry, and wildlife issues. He entered the state Senate in 2018…
…This election is the first time in almost a quarter century that the California GOP has run a gubernatorial candidate with previous experience in public office, said Dan Schnur, a political science lecturer at USC and UC Berkeley. Perhaps it’s a sign…
November 8: The Hollywood Reporter posted an article titled: “Gavin Newsom Wins Second Term as California Governor”. From the article:
Democrat Gavin Newsom easily won a second term as California’s governor on Thursday, beating a little-known Republican state senator by mostly ignoring him while campaigning against the policies of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, two leading Republicans who like Newsom may run for president.
Early returns showed Newsom with 61 percent of the votes in a state where there are nearly twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans.
It was the second decisive statewide victory for Newsom in barely a year. In September 2021, he easily beat back an attempt to kick him out of office that was fueled by anger over his pandemic policies. The failed recall solidified Newsom’s political power in California, leaving him free to focus on the future – which many expect will include a run for the White House…
…The GOP candidate, state Sen. Brian Dahle, could not raise enough money to run an effective campaign. Dahle, a farmer from the state’s rural northwest corner who also owns a trucking company, spent the final weeks of the campaign trying to draw attention by driving a semi truck around the state with a large campaign banner…
November 8: NPR (KCBXfm) posted an article titled: “Democrat Gavin Newsom sails to reelection as California Governor” From the article:
Gavin Newsom will get another term as governor of California after winning reelection Tuesday night, according to a race call by the Associated Press.
Newsom led Republican challenger Brian Dahle, a state senator from rural Northern California.
The incumbent governor was in a comfortable position after fending off a recall last year, with 62% of voters opting to keep him in office during the 2021 special election. Newsom spent much of this fall’s campaign season stumping for other Democratic candidates and causes, including a ballot proposition to add the right to an abortion to California’s constitution.
The governor has focused on his efforts to expand reproductive rights and to go after oil companies for earning record profits amid high fuel prices. But he’s faced criticism from opponents for the growing number of homeless people living on the streets and refusing to lower the state’s 54-cent-per-gallon gas tax.
NPR posted the following results (with 63% of votes in):
- Gavin Newsom (Dem) – 58.26%
- Brian Dahle (GOP) – 41.74%
Ballotpedia provide the results of the Nonpartisan primary for Governor of California:
- Gavin Newsom (D): 55.9% – 3,945,748 votes
- Brian Dahle (R): 17.7% – 1,252,800 votes
- Michael Shellenberger (Independent): 4.1% – 290,286 votes
- Jenny Rae Le Roux (R): 3.5% – 246,665 votes
- Anthony Trimino (R): 3.5% – 246,322 votes
- Shawn Collins (R) 2.5% – 173,083 votes
- Luis Rodriguez (Green Party): 1.8% – 124,672 votes
- Leo Zack (R): 1.3% – 94,521 votes
- Major Williams (R): 1.3% – 92,580 votes
- Robert Newman (R): 1.2% – 82,849 votes
- Joel Ventresca (D): 0.9% – 66,885 votes
- David Lozano (R): 0.9% – 66,542 votes
- Ronald Anderson (R): 0.8% – 53,554 votes
- Reinette Senum (Independent) 0.8% – 53,015 votes
- Armando Perez-Serrato (D): 0.6% – 45,474 votes
- Ron Jones (R): 0.5% – 38,337 votes
- Daniel Mercuri (R): 0.5% – 36,396 votes
- Heather Collins (Green Party): 0.4% – 29,690 votes
- Anthony Fanara (D): 0.4% – 25,086 votes
- Christian Morales (R): 0.3% – 22,305 votes
- Lonnie Sortor (R): 0.3% – 21,044 votes
- Frederic Schultz (Independent): 0.2% – 17,502 votes
- Woodrow Sanders III (Independent): 0.2% – 16,204 votes
- James Hanink (Independent): 0.1% – 10,110 votes
- Serge Fiankan (Independent): 0.1% – 6,201 votes
- Bradley Zink (Independent): 0.1% – 5,997 votes
- Jeff Scott (American Independent Party) (Write-In): 0.0% – 13 votes
- Guinder Bhangoo (R) (Write-In) 0.0% – 8 votes
November 8: KRCA 3 (via Yahoo! News) posted an article titled: “Republican Brian Dahle speaks after losing governor race” From the article:
Democrat Gavin Newsom easily won a second term as California’s governor on Tuesday, beating a little-known Republican state senator by mostly ignoring him while campaigning against the policies of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, two leading Republicans who like Newsom may run for president…
November 10: The Sacramento Bee posted an article titled: “Californians fear the economic words + Newsom gets new second-term staff + Dahle concedes” From the article:
…DAHLE CONCEDES GUBERNATORIAL RACE
Newsom’s gubernatorial opponent conceded the race on Wednesday after news organizations announced the governor’s victory on Election Night.
Results early Wednesday showed Newsom with 58% of the vote after 41% of ballots had been counted.
In his statement, Dahle thanked his volunteers, his three children and his wife, Assemblywoman Meghan Dahle, R-Bieber.
“Thank you, California!” Dahle said. “Thank you for your incredible support, and I’m honored to have earned the trust and vote of so many Californians. Our grassroots campaign across the state was an opportunity to give a voice to so many who have felt left behind.”…
November 12: Politico posted information about the California Election Results. Here is what Politico had to say about the California Governor’s race:
Gavin Newsom (D) won the race for California Governor.
“As expected, Gov. Gavin Newsom has easily won a second term. Any potential drama evaporated when Newsom crushed last year’s recall – the Democratic governor was confident enough to divert re-election funds to ads in red states. A convincing win certainly won’t mute presidential chatter”. – Jeremy B. White, California politics reporter.
November 14: ABC7 News posted an article titled: “2022 Midterm California Election Results: Who won governor race, propositions”. From the article:
…ABC News project Gavin Newsom has been re-elected as governor of California defeating Republican challenger State Senator Brian Dahle.
It was the second decisive statewide victory for Newsom in barely a year. In September 2021, he easily beat back an attempt to kick him out of office that was fueled by anger over his pandemic policies. The failed recall solidified Newsom’s political power in California, leaving him free to focus on the future – which many expect may include a run for the White House.
Newsom and Dahle agreed to just one debate…
Ballotpedia provided the results of the General election for Governor of California:
- Gavin Newsom (D): 59.2% – 6,470,104 votes
- Brian Dahle (R): 40.8% – 4,462,914 votes
California Lt. Governor Election
Ballotpedia wrote the following about Eleni Kounalakis (Democratic Party). She is the Lieutenant Governor of California. She assumed office in 2019. Her current term ends on January 2, 2023.
Kounalakis ran for re-election for Lieutenant Governor of California. She won in the general election on November 8, 2022.
Kounalakis is a former ambassador to Hungary and a senior advisor for the Albright Stonebridge Group. During the 2016 election cycle, she was a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of Clinton’s foreign policy advisory team…
Ballotpedia also wrote the following about Angela Underwood Jacobs (Republican Party). She ran for election for Lieutenant Governor of California. She lost in the general election on November 8, 2022.
Underwood Jacobs was a district-level delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention from California. All 172 delegates from California were bound by state party to support Donald Trump at the convention. The winner of the Republican nomination needed approximately 1,542 delegates. The winner of the Republican nomination needed the support of 1,237 delegates. Trump formally won the nomination on July 19, 2016.
September 23: LA Times posted an article titled: “California Politics: Q&A with Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis” from the article:
…The lieutenant governorship may be elusive to the average voter, but there is good reason to pay attention to Kounalakis: Both Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Gov. Gray Davis served as lieutenant governor before being elected to the top spot.
Mackenzie Mays sat down with Eleni Kounalakis, a Democrat who previously served as a U.S. ambassador to Hungary under President Obama, to talk about her reelection campaign, her relationship with Newsom, and her gubernatorial aspirations…
…So what’s it like to be governor right now?
Kounalakis: I believe [Newsom] has a lot of bills on his desk, but he has plenty of time to sign them when he gets back. So it isn’t as though there’s anything that needs to be done in that space. I’m sure he would appreciate it if I didn’t go dip my pen in ink and start signing away.
During COVID, for 2 1/2 years, he barely left the state. He really had to be here most of the time. So in some ways, it’s kind of a new experience…
…It’s interesting, you know, the California Constitution does provide that when the governor is out of state, all the powers fall to the lieutenant governor. But the governor and I have a very positive working relationship. I would argue it’s one of the most positive in generations…
…Will you run for governor? And when?
I’m acting governor of California right now. That experience that I am getting in this job is the kind of experience that does prepare you to be governor.
We have never had a woman governor of the state of California. If I don’t try to organize a campaign to be the first, who will?
I’m on the ballot in November. I hope I will be reelected. And I hope that I will continue to show the people of California that if they want a woman governor, that four years from now, that I’m a good candidate for that…
November 3: (Updated November 7): San Diego Union Tribune posted an article titled: “Voter guide to the California lieutenant governor’s Underwood Jacobs vs Kounalakis”. From the article:
Incumbent Democrat Eleni Kounalakis and Republican Angela Underwood Jacobs are vying for the seat of lieutenant governor, a position that sits on a range of state boards and commissions and steps in when the governor is out of state.
The lieutenant governor also acts as the president of the state Senate, casting a legislative vote in the case of a tie, and can be influential on higher education policy, with a role overseeing the University of California, California State University, and community college systems.
While the elected office is often under-the-radar and ceremonial, governors of the past have used it as a steppingstone, including Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Who are the candidates?
Kounalakis’ campaign for reelection includes a focus on climate justice and women’s rights, while Underwood Jacobs is pushing for lower taxes and improving public safety as part of her platform.
After being sworn in as the first woman lieutenant governor of California in 2019, Kounalakis went on to become the first woman in state history to sign a bill into law to extend renter protections, stepping in for Newsom while he was traveling out of state earlier this year.
Having previously served as U.S. ambassador to Hungary under President Obama, Kounalakis’ focus in her first term has centered on the state’s international relations.
If reelected, she said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that she would focus on making college in California “more accessible and affordable” and would continue to promote legislation regarding equity issues.
Kounalakis is favored in the race: She has outraged Underwood Jacobs by more than $4.6 million; led in the primary with 53% of the vote and has the endorsement of top Democratic officials in a state where a Republican has not been elected statewide since 2006.
Underwood Jacobs is a deputy mayor for the city of Lancaster, where she previously served as a City Council member.
She declined to respond to requests for an interview with The Times, but according to her website, if elected, her primary focus would include being “tough on crime” and boosting police support.
She has also voiced to reduce taxes in California and act as a “counter” to Newsom and the Democratic-ruled state Legislature…
Where they stand on homelessness
Kounalakis said if reelected, creating more affordable housing would be a priority, calling a current shortage of options the No. 1 contributing factor to the state’s homelessness crisis.
Infrastructure would also be a priority, she said, adding that first responders and teachers need to be able to afford to live near the places they work in order for communities to thrive…
…Underwood Jacobs lists “reforms to truly solve homelessness” as a priority on her campaign website. She has called homelessness in California “out of control.”
“Providing help to those in need is necessary; however, if individuals are unwilling to take the help offered, we cannot let them ruin parks, sensitive ecological areas, and public areas like streets,” she said…
Where they stand on abortion
Kounalakis was a co-sponsor of Proposition 1, a measure on the November ballot that will let voters decide whether to guarantee access to abortions after the overturning of federal protections.
“California will continue to lead the nation to ensure that Californians, and those who come here to seek care, are able to access safe and legal abortions,” she said. “Abortion is a decision that should be between a woman or pregnant person, and their healthcare provider.”
Underwood Jacobs said in a Q&A survey administered by the San Diego Union Tribune that she supports letting voters decide on what the state should do about abortion…
Ballotpedia provided the results of the Nonpartisan primary for Lieutenant Governor of California:
- Eleni Kounalakis (D): 52.7% – 3,617,121 votes
- Angela Underwood Jacobs (R): 19.9% – 1,365,468 votes
- David Fennell (R): 13.4% – 922,483 votes
- Clint Saunders (R): 4.5% – 306,216 votes
- Jeffery Higher Morgan (D): 3.3% – 229,216 votes
- Mohammad Arif (Peace and Freedom Party): 2.7% – 183,150 votes
- William Saacke (D): 2.5% – 171,800 votes
- David Hillberg (Independent): 1.1% – 74,289 votes
- James Orlando Ogle III (No party preference) (Write-In): 0.0% – 25 votes
November 9: KSWB-TV San Diego (Via MSN) posted an article titled: “Eleni Kounalakis re-elected as Lieutenant Governor” From the article:
California Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis has been elected for another term, defeating Republican challenger Angela Underwood Jacobs. Kounalakis was sworn in as the Golden State’s 50th lieutenant governor by Gov. Gavin Newsom in January of 2019…
…With 42% of the vote reported, Kounalakis is at 57.82% compared to Underwood Jacobs at 42.19%. Kounalakis’ win followed news of Newsom’s re-election. The governor easily cruised to a second term with AP projecting him as the winner within minutes of the polls closing Tuesday…
Ballotpedia provided the results of the General election for Lieutenant Governor of California:
- Eleni Kounalakis (D): 59.7% – 6,418,119 votes
- Angela Underwood Jacobs (R): 40.3% – 4,332,602 votes
California Attorney General Election
Ballotpedia provided information about the Attorney General Primary election:
- Rob Bonta (D): 54.3% – 3,756,486 votes
- Nathan Hochman (R): 18.2% – 1,256,465 votes
- Eric Early (R): 16.5% – 1,142,747 votes
- Anne Marie Schubert (Independent): 7.7% – 539,746 votes
- Daniel Kapelovitz (G): 3.2% – 219,912 votes
April 19: Cal Matters posted an article titled: “What would Nathan Hochman do as California attorney general?” From the article:
What does California’s attorney general actually do? According to Republican Nathan Hochman, who wants to be the next one, the job description is simple: Enforce the law.
That’s why during his 70-minute sit-down interview with CalMatters reporters, the longtime Los Angeles lawyer was quick to emphasize the depth of his experience as a federal prosecutor, defense attorney and tax law expert. It’s also why he was happy to speak at length about crime across the state and to lay the blame at the feet of current Attorney General Rob Bonta.
But on nearly all questions of policy preference and political point of view, he took the proverbial Fifth.
“If I want to go ahead and legislate California policy, I’d run of the state Assembly or the state Senate or maybe even for the governor,” he said. “I view the job of California attorney general as enforcing the laws on the books of the state of California, full stop.”
Hochman was also mum when he was asked for his views on the death penalty. “I’m signing up for a job that’s enforcing the law, not making the law.”
And ditto on gun control measures and additional support for out-of-state women seeking abortions in California, both under consideration by the Legislature. “That’s for the California Legislature to decide,” he said.
Did the self-described “pragmatic” Republican vote for Trump? “I’m not willing to answer that question.”
Hochman’s “just the facts, ma’am” approach could reflect his earnest belief in the nonpartisan nature of the position. But steering clear of controversy could also be his best shot at winning over a general left-of-center electorate that hasn’t put a Republican in statewide office since 2006.
Either way, he has his work cut out for him if he wants to become California’s next attorney general.
First, Hochman, who has never held elected office, will have to introduce himself to the states roughly 22 million voters. Then he’ll have to persuade the Democratic-voting majority to overlook his party affiliation and pick him over Bonta, a Democrat; Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert who is running without a political party label; or anyone else vying for the job of California’s top cop.
Finally, he’ll need to convince voters that legal experience really does matter more than partisan affiliation – and to forgive him for his silence on most of the hot-button issues of the day…
…Only the top two vote-getters in the June 7 primary will move on to the November ballot. And with most rank-and-file Democrats likely to back Bonta, Hochman will be competing most directly with Schubert…
October 12: Los Angeles Times (via Yahoo! News) posted an article titled: “Your guide to the California attorney general election: Rob Bonta vs. Nathan Hochman” From the article:
Democratic incumbent Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta will face Republican Nathan Hochman in the contest for California’s top cop, a position responsible not only for increasing public safety but also defending state laws on gun control and abortion access.
Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Bonta, a former state lawmaker from Alameda, as California’s first Filipino American attorney general last year. Hochman is a former U.S. assistant attorney general and assistant U.S. attorney with an array of experience in the courtroom.
As California’s top law enforcement officer, the attorney general oversees investigations into deadly police shootings and organized crime rings and runs the state’s forensic crime labs. The office is also charged with helping the state meet its climate and housing goals by enforcing environmental regulations and holding local governments accountable to production requirements.
The state attorney general is one of the most important statewide offices in California. The role has become even more prominent in the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions this summer that rolled back broad access to abortion and strict gun control policies, key issues that are likely to be top of mind for California voters as they had to the polls Nov. 8.
Who are the candidates?
Before he was elected to the state Assembly in 2012, Bonta served as a deputy city attorney in San Francisco and vice mayor for the city of Alameda. As a state lawmaker, Bonta earned a reputation for his left-leaning legislative record and support for criminal justice reform policies, which include bills to phase out private prisons and detention facilities in California and to eliminate cash bail.
Since taking the helm of the state Department of Justice, Bonta has focused on prosecuting hate crimes, launched a program last year to apprehend human traffickers and cracked down on organized retail theft.
Bonta says that public safety is “priority and job number one, two and three,” but he’s faced pushback for laws he supported that his critics blame for an increase in certain crimes and the drug addiction crisis.
Hochman said his message appeals to Democrats and independents who want an attorney general in the “hard middle” of the political spectrum and who’ve grown weary of California’s commitment to criminal justice reform efforts that he said have jeopardized public safety.
His résumé includes experience as both a federal prosecutor and defense attorney, skills he said would serve him well as California’s top law enforcement officer. Hochman has blasted Bonta’s lack of experience as a prosecutor as evidence that he’s the better fit for the job…
October 13: Cal Matters posted an article titled: “What would Rob Bonta do next as California attorney general?” From the article:
California’s attorney general is often described as the state’s top prosecutor, but that shorthand doesn’t do the position justice. At least not according to Rob Bonta, the current holder of that office.
Since Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed him to the role in March 2021, Bonta has broadened the scope and emphasis of the Department of Justice into areas of the law once considered the principal domain of local prosecutors, elected officials and private litigants.
Taking on the role of housing enforcer, Bonta has threatened lawsuits against apartment-averse cities, while issuing guidance to locals on where they can permit new construction.
With new bureaus and empowered by new laws, his office now serves as an investigative unit for discriminatory law enforcement and police shootings of unarmed civilians.
Just last month, Bonta announced the creation of a new office tasked with researching and disseminating gun violence prevention tactics. The office still only exists on paper, but the proposal itself says a lot about Bonta’s view of his office’s expansive domain. For a department known for its gun-toting officers, academic research is a unusual pivot.
And as Los Angeles weathers scandal after scandal, Bonta has stepped in in lieu of local prosecutors, announcing that his office will investigate potential voting rights violations during the local redistricting process, a subject at the center of racist conversations that forced the city council president to resign Wednesday…
…Early in his political career, he said he was told to “focus on a handful of things – maybe one, two or three – make those your signature issues, get known for those and make a difference there,” he said. “I’ve never, ever followed that advice.”
It’s a contrast with Bonta’s opponent in the Nov. 8 race for attorney general, former federal prosecutor and longtime defense attorney Nathan Hochman. A Republican from Los Angeles, Hochman has spent the campaign stressing his apolitical instincts and his emphasis on criminal enforcement.
October 18: ABC 10 News posted an article titled: “Who is Nathan Hotchman? The candidate vying for California Attorney General” From the article:
California Attorney General candidate Nathan Hochman is rolling through the state this week on a bus tour hoping to win votes.
The bus tour is called ‘Experience Matters’ because Hotchman says that’s what he’s got compared to current Attorney General Rob Bonta.
“I have 30 years of experience in criminal justice issues from being a federal prosecutor, a U.S. assistant attorney general, and a defense attorney,” Hochman says.
What’s Hotchman’s plan?
Hochman wants to eradicate the list of prohibited persons in California who are convicted of crime, but are still in possession of a gun or guns.
“On that list are people were subjected to domestic violence orders, mental health orders, who are not allowed to have guns,” Hochman said. “There’s over 26,000 people right now on that list, a list that has only grown under the last year of Rob Bonta’s stewardship than actually shrink.”
Hochman vowed to clear the list and remove guns from people who aren’t supposed to have them within 18 months of taking office.
He also wants to work with lawmakers to reform Proposition 47, which voters passed in 2014 to make anything stolen valued at under $950 a misdemeanor instead of a felony…
…Hochman said he takes issue with the cash-bail reform Bonta efforts during his time in the legislature.
“You got to look at each individual criminal history, what crime they committed, and the often overlooked impact on the victim to determine who are the true public safety threats and need to be behind bars, and who are not a first-time nonviolent offenders who can serve their debt to society in some other way.”
The Public Policy Institute of California said from 2019 to 2021, gun-related homicides and aggravated assaults surged by 52% and 64%…
…Hochman said he is a moderate Republican. He said he’s always been pro-choice, believes in climate change and has never voted for former President Donald Trump…
October 18: ABC 30 Fresno (via MSN) posted an article titled: “Nathan Hotchman challenges Rob Bonta on race for California Attorney General” From the article:
Election day is just a few weeks away and candidates are making their final push for your vote.
Democratic Incumbent Attorney General Rob Bonta is facing Republican Nathan Hochman in the race for California’s attorney general.
Tuesday, Hochman made a stop in Fresno to campaign as part of his nine-day statewide bus tour.
He’s going after Rob Bonta’s spot at [sic] as the state’s attorney general, saying he’s better qualified for the job.
In the primary election, Bonta received 54% of the vote compared to Hochman’s 18%.
But at that time, he was the only democrat in a five-way field. Now, they’re going one-on-one…
…Hochman says he’s focused on bringing back a sense of safety and security to people by combatting crime.
If elected, he wants stricter punishments for thieves and smash-and-grab robbers who are arrested multiple times within a certain time period.
“The goal is not to be putting as many people as possible in jail. The goal is to deter people from committing [sic] in the first place,” Hochman said.
For homelessness, he wants to bring back an option for judges to require mandatory substance abuse and mental health treatment instead of jail time.
To get fentanyl off the streets, Hochman says he plans to organize a federal state and local taskforce.
He wants harsher punishment if someone dies from a fentanyl overdose…
Hochman will face off against incumbent Bonta.
The Democrat was appointed by Gov. Newsom last year to fulfill Xavier Becerra’s term after Becerra was confirmed as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Bonta has also put a focus on preventing fentanyl deaths, announcing just last week more than 4 million fentanyl pills had been seized across California since April of last year.
“Every one of those represents a potential injury or death, but we are seeing a crisis and what do you do in a crisis? All hands on deck,” Bonta said.
Bonta says he’ll continue to protect civil rights and take on big polluters.
In an effort to prevent crime, in September, Bonta announced the creation of the “Office of Gun Violence Prevention”.
It brings together local, state and federal partners to reduce and prevent gun violence, firearm injury and the trauma that comes with it.
“When is the violence going to end? We’re here to help answer that question. We are in a full crisis. A full-on state of emergency and in order to fight this epidemic, it’s going to take new efforts, creative approaches and new action,” Bonta said…
November 8: NBC Bay Area posted an article titled: “Rob Bonta Wins California Attorney General Race” From the article:
Rob Bonta won the re-election as California attorney general, NBC News projected Tuesday night.
Bonta had a big lead in early ballot returns Tuesday in his race to win a full four-year term after Gov. Gavin Newsom last year picked him to fill an unexpired term as the most populous state’s top lawman.
Bonta was outpolling Republican challenger Nathan Hochman with 61% of the votes, as expected in a state dominated by Democrats.
Because Bonta, 50, was appointed more than midway through his predecessor’s four-year-term, he’s eligible to run for two additional terms, which could allow him to serve nearly 10 years in an office that already has given him a national stage on issues as diverse as abortion, climate change, gay rights and gun control…
…Bonta took over when Xavier Becerra left to become the Biden administration’s health secretary, and Becerra succeeded Kamala Harris, who went on to the U.S. Senate and now is vice president…
…The state’s first Filipino-American attorney general is a particularly hot draw at events featuring the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, which makes up about 16% of California’s nearly 40 million residents.
Hotchman, a former federal prosecutor, tried to tap into voter anger over rising crime and homelessness, decrying what he called the state’s “spiral of lawlessness.” He had more campaign cash than all but one other GOP statewide candidate, but concentrated his TV advertising in the Los Angeles area with one commercial trying to tie Bonta to progressive LA County District Attorney George Gascón and another featuring an endorsement by a co-founder of Death Row Records.
Bonta released a single online ad two weeks before Election Day that never mentioned Hotchman but emphasized Bonta’s defense of reproductive rights. He also announced forming a California Reproductive Rights Task Force along with 14 local law enforcement officers to confront abortion restrictions in other states and protect access and privacy in California.
November 9: Omaha World Herald posted an article titled: “California Attorney General Bonta leading in early returns”. From the article:
California Attorney General Rob Bonta had a big lead in early ballot returns Tuesday to win a full four-year term after Gov. Gavin Newsom last year picked him to fill an unexpired term as the most populous state’s top lawman.
Bonta was outpolling Republican challenger Nathan Hochman with 60% of the votes after about a third of votes were counted, as expected in a state dominated by Democrats.
Bonta thanked voters for their “vote of confidence” and said he is readying to battle potentially renewed Republican influence at the federal level, much as when his predecessor filed dozens of lawsuits challenging initiatives by then-president Donald Trump…
Bonta released a single online ad two weeks before Election Day that never mentioned Hochman but emphasized Bonta’s defense of reproductive rights. He also announced forming a California Reproductive Rights Task Force along with 14 local law enforcement officials to confront abortion restrictions in other states and protect access and privacy in California.
Yet Hochman said he too favors abortion rights and supported the measure on Tuesday’s ballot that would enshrine them in California’s constitution…
November 12: Los Angeles Times (Via MSN) posted an article titled: “Democratic incumbent Rob Bonta beats Republican Nathan Hochman in California attorney general race” From the article:
Incumbent Democratic Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta won by a wide margin over Republican defense attorney Nathan Hochman in California’s race for top cop – a position that rose in importance and relevance after two U.S. Supreme Court decisions this summer rolled back laws on gun control and abortion access.
The Associated Press called the race, though official results will take longer to finalize. Bonta was leading with more than 57% of the votes counted.
Bonta, a former San Francisco Bay Area state lawmaker known for his progressive views on criminal justice, campaigned on the promise to defend California’s robust abortion laws and continue his work to end gun violence and illegal firearm ownership…
…Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Bonta last year after Xavier Becerra resigned to become U.S. Health and Human Services secretary. This was Bonta’s first run for statewide office.
During his tenure, Bonta prioritized ending an “epidemic of hate” against communities of color and other vulnerable groups and has used a new “housing strike force” within the California Department of Justice to pressure local governments into compliance with state laws.
Ballotpedia reported the results for the Attorney General of California:
- Rob Bonta (D): 59.1% – 6,339,441 votes
- Nathan Hochman (R): 40.9% – 4,390,428 votes
California State Controller Race
Ballotpedia reported the following information about the California Controller election:
The Controller serves on the Board of Equalization and the Franchise Tax Board. The areas of government audited and reviewed by the controller include school districts, the California State Lottery, oil and gas lease royalties, state agencies, and a multitude of local governments.
Cohen was elected to the California State Board of Equalization in 2018, representing District 2. Her professional experience included working for Power Forward Consulting and the Corporate Strategy and Communications team for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco…
Chen’s career experience included working as a Stanford University professor and researcher at the Hoover institute. Chen was nominated by President Barack Obama (D) and confirmed by the United States Senate in 2013 to serve as a member of the Social Security Board…
…As of September 24, 2022, Chen led in fundraising, having received $4.1 million in contributions to Cohen’s $2.4 million. According to The Los Angeles Times, “Most of Chen’s funds have gone toward campaign consultants and campaign workers’ salaries,” while the “vast majority of Cohen’s spending, more than $1.1 million, has been on TV or cable airtime and production.”
Malia Cohen (D) defeated Lanhee Chen (R) in the race for California controller on November 8, 2022. Incumbent Betty Yee (D) was not able to file for re-election due to term limits.
Ballotpedia stated that both candidates filled out the Candidate Connection survey:
Malia Cohen answered the following questions:
Q: Who are you? Tell us about yourself.
A: I was born and raised in San Francisco and attended public schools in the City. I earned a BA from Fisk University and a Master’s in Public Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon University. In 2010, I was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors where I served on the Budget and Finance Committee. I was elected to the State Board of Equalization in 2018 and serve as Chair overseeing over $80 billion in property taxes. I’ve served as President of the San Francisco Police Commission and as President of the San Francisco Employee Retirement System. I’m currently running for Controller to build a fairer, more equitable California for all.
Q: Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?
- I plan to be a watchdog over California’s tax dollars to ensure that communities across the state are getting the funding they deserve. I have the experience needed to do this job having served as the Budget and Finance Chair for the San Francisco Employees Retirement System, Chair of the San Francisco Board of Supervisor’s Budget and Finance Committee, and Chair of the State Board of Equalization. I want to work to reduce fraud and waste in the system while also modernizing our state’s technological infrastructure.
- I want to bring equity and justice to the State Controller’s office to reduce historic inequalities. The Controller has the ability to spotlight issues and can produce data to inform policymakers on important decisions. I have done this throughout my career. While on the Board of Supervisors, I passed legislation requiring the San Francisco Police Department to produce quarterly reports on the use of force. I’ve also worked to make the San Francisco budgeting process more transparent to end political payouts that hinder the process. I am committed to transparency and making decisions that help build a California where everyone thrives.
- I have the values to do this job. While overseeing the San Francisco Employees Retirement System, I divested the City’s pension fund from fossil fuels to reaffirm our commitment to fighting climate change. While on the board of supervisors, I cracked down on fake health center spreading false information relating to women’s reproductive health. While on the Board of Equalization, I have emphasized affordable housing and tax incentives that help minority homeowners. I am the only candidate in the race that has the values that reflect California voters.
Q: What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?
A: I am passionate about issues involving justice and equity. I want to create a fair and transparent financial system in the state that delivers on its promise to building a California where everyone thrives. This means holding corporations accountable for paying their fair share and improving state technological infrastructure to create a system that everyone can use. I have done this throughout my career and will continue to do so as the next Controller.
Lanhee Chen answered the following questions:
Q: Who are you? Tell us about yourself.
A: I am a leader, problem-solver and educator. I’ve built my career on tackling some of California and America’s biggest fiscal policy challenges. I was raised in Southern California and am the son of immigrants from Taiwan. After earning four degrees from Harvard University, including a law degree and doctorate in political science, I served in senior roles in both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
Today, I teach at Stanford University, where I also conduct research at the Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank. I have helped leaders in California and around the country develop policies to address some of our society’s most pressing problems – like improving our health care system, saving Social Security, and growing our economy. My writings have appeared in America’s biggest newspapers and I have frequently shared my ideas on television news programs across America.
I built my own small business, which provides advice on fiscal and other policy issues to leaders in the public and private sectors. I am an investor who works with entrepreneurs to help them grow their businesses and create jobs. I am currently the Chair of the Board of Directors of El Camino Health, a health care system in my community.
Q: Please list below 3 messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?
- The Controller is California’s independent fiscal watchdog. That means that I won’t need the legislature or governor’s permission to audit state and local agencies and programs. As Controller, I will use my audit authority aggressively and frequently, particularly in examining state programs that may be ripe for fraud and abuse. Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, is just one example. The number of Californians enrolled in the program has increased by about 50 percent since 2014, but the Controller’s Office has only periodically reviewed its operations. And that’s just one example. There are many others from high-speed rail to California’s fraud-ridden unemployment insurance program, that taxpayers deserve to know more about.
- As Controller, I will hold policy makers accountable for keeping the promises they make. For too long, the one-party monopoly in Sacramento has resulted in politicians protecting one another rather than being accountable taxpayers. This is particularly important as we consider the challenges that we faced during the recent pandemic. California taxpayers deserve answers to questions like how tens of billions of dollars in federal assistance during the pandemic were spent. And whether school districts are actually using the funding they’ve received to help get our kids back into the classroom safely. These are the sorts of questions that, as Controller, I will answer on behalf of taxpayers.
- The Controller’s Office was unable to disclose to the public where each one of the roughly 50 million payments it made – totaling over $300 billion in 2018 alone – went. The state’s comprehensive financial reporting system, Fi$Cal, was supposed to be finished already, but is over-budget, late, and expected to lack some functions that were originally promised. As Controller, I will put an end to the Sacramento excuses and produce results. I will leverage the innovation and technology we have in our state to insure that taxpayers have access to a best-in-class system to see these payments and understand exactly how their money is being spent.
Q: What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?
A: I have a deep passion for fiscal responsibility, transparency, and government accountability. I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and if we give Californians true and full transparency into how their tax dollars are spent, they will demand a more accountable and efficient state government. As Controller, I will put an end to the Sacramento excuses and produce results. I will use my audit authority to carefully examine all state and relevant local spending and leverage the innovation we have in our state to ensure that taxpayers have access to a best-in-class system to see details about all outgoing state payments.
Lanhee Chen also answered several more questions, which you can find on Ballotpedia.
Ballotpedia provided the results of the Nonpartisan primary for California Controller:
- Lanhee Chen (R): 37.2% – 2,533,305 votes
- Malia Cohen (D): 22.7% – 1,542397 votes
- Yvonne Yiu (D): 15.1% – 1,024,707 votes
- Steve Glazer (D): 11.1% – 756,518 votes
- Ron Galperin (D): 10.1% – 690,484 votes
- Laura Wells (Green Party): 3.8% – 258,053 votes
October 20: Associated Press posted an article titled: “Candidate hopes to break GOP’s California losing streak”. From the article:
In their quest to win back statewide office in deep-blue California, Republicans have set their sights – and money – on controller candidate Lanhee Chen.
The race usually attracts little attention compared to other statewide offices, but this year, without an incumbent in the running, contributions to Chen and Democratic candidate Malia Cohen have far outpaced the last election cycle.
Chen, a former policy adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has crafted himself as an independent manager who can bring order to the state’s finances. Cohen, who serves on a state tax board, says her past role leading the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ budget and finance committee makes her uniquely qualified for the job.
Chen has defied the path of recent Republican candidates in the heavily Democratic state. He’s raised more money than Cohen and his fellow Republicans seeking state office. He won the June primary against four Democrats who split their party’s vote…
Ballotpedia provided the results of the General election for California Controller:
- Malia Cohen (D): 55.3% – 5,936,856 votes
- Lanhee Chen (R): 44.7% – 4,789,345 votes
November 15: CBS News Sacramento posted an article titled: “‘I’m excited to get started”: Democrat Malia Cohen wins California state controller race”. From the article:
Democrat Malia Cohen has won the race for California controller, beating out a Republican who gave his party its best shot in years to end its losing streak in statewide elections.
Cohen will become the state’s first Black controller, a role that involves disbursing state funds, auditing government agencies and serving on more than 70 boards and commissions. She says her past role leading the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ budget and finance committee makes her uniquely qualified for the job.
“As your controller, I will make sure our tax dollars address the homelessness crisis, protect our environment, and provide access to healthcare and reproductive freedom. Let’s build a California where everyone thrives,” Cohen said in a statement. “We have work to do, and I’m excited to get started.”
Cohen declared victory on election night, but the Associated Press did not call the race until the following Tuesday. Cohen was leading with 55% of the vote after more than 8 million ballots were counted…
Alameda County Municipal Elections
Ballotpedia provided information about the Alameda County District Attorney Race:
Alameda County, California, held primary elections for assessor, auditor/controller, district attorney, sheriff/coroner, treasurer/tax collector, superintendent of schools, board of supervisors, county board of election, Union Sanitary District, and superior court judges on June 7, 2022.
Candidates could win outright with a majority of the vote in the primary. If no candidate received a majority, the top two vote-getters advanced to the general election scheduled for November 8, 2022. The Alameda County Flood Board of Directors Zone 7 also held an election on June 7, 2022.
The county also held general elections for AC Transit District board of directors, water, district board, BART board, part district board, municipal utility district, healthcare district board, and community college district boards on November 8, 2022. Elections could be canceled if only one candidate filed.
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County Assessor:
- Phong La (Nonpartisan): 100.0% – 207,562 votes
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda Auditor-Controller:
- Melissa Wilk (Nonpartisan): 100.0% – 204,908 votes
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County District Attorney:
- Pamala Price (Nonpartisan): 43.2% – 117,280 votes – winner
- Terry Wiley (Nonpartisan): 27.1% – 73,595 votes
- Jimmie Wilson (Nonpartisan): 19.6% – 53,094 votes
- Seth Steward (Nonpartisan): 10.1% – 27,313 votes
General election for Alameda County District Attorney:
- Pamala Price (Nonpartisan): 53.1%.- 228,954 votes – winner
- Terry Wiley (Nonpartisan): 46.9% – 201,827 votes
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County Sheriff-Coroner:
- Yesenia Sanchez (Nonpartisan): 52.8% – 141,763 votes – winner
- Gregory Ahern (Nonpartisan): 31.2% – 83,777 votes
- Joann Walker (Nonpartisan): 15.9% – 42,762 votes
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County Superintendent of Schools:
- Alysee Castro (Nonpartisan): 53.2% – 130,558 votes – winner
- Karen Monroe (Nonpartisan): 46.9% – 114,976 votes
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector:
- Henry Levy (Nonpartisan): 100.0% – 205,044 votes
Board of Supervisors:
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 2:
- Richard Valle (Nonpartisan): 100.0% – 32,313 votes
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3:
- Rebecca Kaplan (Nonpartisan): 41.0% – 20,150 votes – winner
- Lena Tam (Nonpartisan): 28.1% – 13,823 votes
- David Kakishiba (Nonpartisan): 18.3% – 8,970 votes
- Surlene Grant (Nonpartisan): 12.5% – 6,194 votes
General election for Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3:
- Lena Tam (Nonpartisan): 52.1% – 40,232 votes
- Rebecca Kaplan (Nonpartisan): 47.9% – 36,978 votes
County Board of Education:
District 1 Nonpartisan primary election: The primary election was canceled. Joaquin Rivera (Nonpartisan) won the election without appearing on the ballot.
District 4 Nonpartisan primary election: The primary election was canceled. Aisha Knowles (Nonpartisan) won the election without appearing on the ballot.
Nonpartisan primary for Alameda County Board of Education Trustee Area 7:
- Cheryl Cook-Kallio (Nonpartisan): 53.2% – 21,761 votes – winner
- Diemha Dao (Nonpartisan): 26.3% – 10,755 votes
- Eric Dillie (Nonpartisan) 20.6% – 8,418 votes
General election for Alameda County Flood Control Board of Directors Zone 7 (4 seats):
- Dennis Gambs (Nonpartisan): 27.0% – 29,311 votes -winner
- Sarah Palmer (Nonpartisan): 22.6% – 24,513 votes – winner
- Olivia Sanwong (Nonpartisan): 22.5% – 24,428 votes – winner
- Dawn Benson (Nonpartisan): 21.8% – 23,677 votes – winner
- Todd Shinohara (Nonpartisan): 6.2% – 6,768 votes
Union Sanitary District Nonpartisan primary election: The primary was canceled. Tom Handley (Nonpartisan) and Jennifer Toy (Nonpartisan) won the election without appearing on the ballot.
AC Transit District general election 2022:
- Joel Young (Incumbent) – winner
- Alfred Twu
- Stewart Chen
- Sarah Syed – winner
- Murphy McCalley (Incumbent) – winner
- Barisha Spriggs
Ward 5: The general election was canceled and this candidate was elected: Diane Shaw (incumbent)
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board:
District 2: The general election was canceled and this candidate was elected: Mark Foley (incumbent)
District 4: The general election was canceled and this candidate was elected: Robert Raburn (incumbent)
- Liz Ames (incumbent) – winner
- Shyam Chetal
- Lance Nishihira
There are more Alameda County elections to be found on Ballotpedia.
June 7: Oaklandside posted an article titled: “Alameda County District Attorney election results: Pamala Price leads” From the article:
Civil rights attorney Pamela Price held her lead in the field of four candidates in the Alameda County district attorney’s race, according to an updated count of ballots Friday evening.
Price, who also ran in 2018, had 40% of the vote, followed by Terry Wiley, an assistant DA, who gained 30%.
The Alameda County Registrar of Voters office on Thursday estimated that there were more than 100,000 ballots left to count. If the results continue to hold after more ballots are counted in the next few days, Price and Wiley will face off against each other in the November general election…
…County voters were asked for the first time in decades to elect a District Attorney who wasn’t an incumbent or someone appointed to the position. District Attorney Nancy O’Malley announced she was stepping down in 2021 after three terms…
…O’Malley has not faced an opponent until 2018, when Price challenged her as part of a wave of progressive candidates challenging siting DAs. Price ran again in 2022…
Oaklandside posted the results of the General Election for Alameda County District Attorney Election:
- Pamala Price: 116,987 votes – 43%
- Terry Wiley: 73,454 votes – 27%
- Jimmie Wilson: 52,987 votes – 20%
- Seth Steward: 27,253 votes – 10%
September 6: Ballotpedia posted an article titled: “All candidates for Alameda County, California, District Attorney complete Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey” From the article:
…Here are excerpts from candidates’ responses to the question: Who are you? Tell us about yourself.
Price: “Pamela Price knows that our current legal system is dysfunctional and that it disproportionately targets Black and Brown communities. Every other candidate for DA in Alameda County is a “law and order” candidate, while Pamela Price is committed to pushing away from our addiction to incarceration. A graduate of Yale and UC Berkley Law School, her outspoken leadership in support of alternatives to incarceration has pushed every candidate’s platform to the left, resulting in more conversations about diversion programs, ending the practice of charging youth as adults, and investing in community.”
Wiley: “Terry Wiley has spent 30 years in the Alameda County District Attorney’s office fighting crime. He knows how to keep our communities safe – we need to tackle crime from every direction. Terry has taken on the toughest prosecutions and he knows that we can make progress on safety – quickly – by focusing on repeat and violent offenders. Just 2,000 offenders commit the majority of crimes in Alameda County. As DA, Terry will start by focusing on these offenders. But he won’t stop there. He will make sure we focus on drug treatment, mental health, job training and excellent schools to keep kids out of the criminal justice system.”…
November 3: ABC 7 News posted an article titled: “Alameda Co. voters to make history electing 1st Black DA: Here are candidates’ stances on issues” From the article:
For the first time in nearly four decades there’s no incumbent or appointed successor in the race for district attorney in Alameda County. The race between the two candidates Terry Wiley and Pamala Price is wide open.
The two candidates offer different visions for policing, public safety and accountability.
Pamala Price is a civil rights lawyer who bills herself as a reform candidate campaigning on progressive policies like ending cash bail.
In her own words, she stands for “integrity, independence, transparency, equity and accountability.”
Terry Wiley is a 32-year veteran of the Alameda County District Attorney’s office. He now serves as a chief deputy district attorney and is serving on a more “pragmatic approach” to the job.
“I stand for a safe community. If someone should happen to come into contact with the criminal justice system I want it to be a fair and just system,” he said…
…Here’s what each candidate vows to tackle immediately if elected:
Price said she would work to immediately implement the mandates of the Racial Justice Act.
The law makes it illegal for the state to pursue a criminal conviction on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin and addresses disparities in sentencing.
She also mentioning [sic] the need to address people being prosecuted who have a mental illness…
…Wiley is distancing himself from his current boss Nancy O’Malley, who is retiring after a controversial 13-year tenure as DA.
Wiley said he wants to change the culture by diversifying the DA’s office. This includes tripling the number of Asian American prosecutors.
This is Price’s second run for office. She ran against O’malley [sic] in 2018, winning 42% of the vote.
Price also claimed more votes than Wiley in the June primary, which featured four candidates.
The two candidates do agree on some changes they would implement, like never seeking the death penalty, increasing transparency in the office by releasing more stats on who is being prosecuted and decreasing the criminalization of minors.
But there are several areas where they differ, including what to do with the crowded Santa Rita Jail in Dublin — one of the largest jails in the country with growing concerns over the treatment of people being held in custody…
…Price said she would decrease the jail population by 25% in her first term by expanding diversion programs and decreasing the use of cash bail.
Wiley agreed on limiting cash bail for non-violent property crimes, but wouldn’t commit to decreasing the jail population…
November 9: The Mercury News posted an article titled: “Alameda County DA election results: Wiley jumps out to early lead over Price”. From the article:
In the race to replace outgoing Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Terry Wiley has jumped out to an early lead over Pamela Price.
In the early vote count, Wiley is holding his lead over Price with 52 percent of the vote to 48 percent. An untold number remain uncounted.
Neither candidate returned requests for comments on the early results…
…The June primary – where Price received 43 percent of the vote but failed to secure the majority needed for an outright victory – was seen as a silver lining by progressive justice reform advocates who were dealt a blow by the recall of Chesa Boudin in San Francisco…
…Both campaigns held election watch parties in Oakland. Wiley’s campaign party was at Mimosa Two on Grand Avenue, while Price held hers at Everett and Jones Barbecue on Broadway…
November 18: Berkleyside (via MSN) posted an article titled: “Pamela Price defeats Terry Wiley in Alameda County District Attorney race”. From the article:
Civil rights attorney Pamela Price wins tight race for Alameda County District Attorney after the registrar’s office released the completed results Friday night.
Price won 53% of the votes to defeat Terry Wiley, the county’s chief deputy district attorney.
An audit will be done to confirm the results.
Price will replace Nancy O’Malley, who decided not to seek a fourth term.
The DA is responsible for representing the people of California in criminal, civil and juvenile cases, and decades of whether or not a person should face criminal charges following an arrest by police.
They oversee an office of hundreds of lawyers who have the authority to set policies like whether or not to seek prison or jain sentences for people convicted of drug offenses or theft or to divert these people into treatment programs or other alternatives…
…The election results revealed a stark divide. Communities of color most impacted by crime and mass incarceration chose reform candidate Price, while more affluent suburban areas in the Tri-Valley and southern Alameda County voted for O’Malley…
…Price is endorsed by scholar and activist Angela Davis, actor Danny Glover, civil rights attorney Carl E. Douglas, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, Anti-Policy Terror Project co-founder Cat Brooks, and other Oakland police reform advocates and former Oakland Mayor Jean Quan.
Wiley’s endorsements include Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, civil rights attorneys including John Burris, Congressman Eric Swalwell, several labor unions including the Alameda County Prosecutors’ Association and many county elected officials.
November 20: NBC Bay Area posted an article titled: “Alameda County Announces Pamala Price as Next District Attorney” From the article:
Alameda County voters have elected a new district attorney for the first time in 37 years.
The county’s Department of Elections confirmed that 53 percent of the votes for district attorney were in favor of Pamala Price, who will replace incumbent Nancy O’Malley.
Price, a longtime civil rights attorney, defeated Terry Wiley, a county prosecutor who was endorsed by the outgoing O’Malley.
Price makes history as the first Black woman elected to the position…
Ballotpedia posted the General Election for Alameda County District Attorney results:
- Pamela Price (Nonpartisan): 53.1% – 228,954
- Terry Wiley (Nonpartisan): 46.9% – 201,837
San Francisco District Attorney Recall Election – 2022
San Francisco County – Proposition H (Recall Chesa Boudin)
- Yes / Si – 60% – 74,336 votes (WINNER)
- No / No – 40% – 49,591 votes
June 3, 2022: San Francisco Examiner posted an article titled: “Examiner poll finds voters will recall Chesa Boudin despite strong support for reform”. From the article:
It’s hardly news at this point, but San Francisco voters will almost certainly oust District Attorney Chesa Boudin next week. A new Examiner poll of 541 likely voters conducted by Change Research from May 26-29 shows 56% in favor of recalling the DA, who has a disapproval rate of 62%.
The poll is the latest public survey to show Boudin losing big. While I don’t support the recall, I’m also not a fan of poll-denialism. Barring a literal miracle, Boudin is done.
Many will interpret his defeat as a verdict against criminal justice reform, but the poll suggests the truth is more complicated. While most voters disapprove of Boudin and 66% say they feel less safe than they did 10 years ago, they continue to express strong support for reform.
They may not like Boudin, but they also don’t like the prison industrial complex.
When asked whether they supported “Expanding mental health treatment and stopping the use of jail as a mental health facility,” 85% of voters expressed support.
When asked whether they support sending low-level criminals to diversion programs instead of jail, 68% expressed support.
Even the much vilified policy of eliminating cash bail – a signature Boudin policy – has support from 50% of voters, with only 31% expressing opposition.
These voter attitudes might seem contradictory, but strong support for reform is nothing new. Last June, a David Binder Research poll found 61% of California voters favored treatment and rehabilitation over imprisonment even though 65% believed crime was getting worse…
…If anything, Tuesday’s election will deliver a resounding defeat for some of criminal justice reform’s loudest opponents. Just watch what happens to Michael Shellenberger and Anne Marie Schubert, who are running “tough on crime” campaigns focused on drugs and homelessness.
Despite their fanatical criticism of Democratic reforms and their promises to crack down, neither of these retrograde reactionaries is expected to survive the primary. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta – the state’s main reformers – will sail to victory in November…
June 5, 2022: ABC 7 News posted an article titled: “Rev. Jesse Jackson lends support to San Francisco DA Chess Boudin in recall election” From the article:
As we approach Tuesday’s election, those for and against the recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin are in the final stretch.
The embattled DA now has one of the nation’s most well-known civil rights leaders on his side.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson is lending his support to fighting a recall effort that’s gained national attention.
“It’s unnecessary,” said Jackson.
Jackson believes Boudin’s work as DA must continue…
…Boudin has been district attorney since 2019 and says his goal has been reforming the criminal justice system. But those supporting the recall believe his approach to crime has led to increased crime rates.
Supporters of the recall stood in the rain on 19th Avenue, telling votes why Boudin’s got to go…
…A recent poll by the San Francisco Standard found over half of registered voters, 57% support recalling Boudin, while 22% plan to reject the recall.
Boudin’s campaign tweeted its internal polling suggests the race is tied 48% to 48%.
But no one is claiming victory until the votes are counted.
June 7, 2022: NBC Bay Area posted an article titled: “San Francisco Community Reacts to District Attorney Chesa Boudin Recall”. From the article:
District Attorney Chesa Boudin Tuesday became the fourth San Francisco politician to be removed from office in just the last few months.
His 18 months in office were dominated by the COVID pandemic and the outbreak of widespread property crimes, including a rash of mass retail break-ins and assaults on several members of the AAPI community.
Many of those victims complained that Boudin declined to pursue hate crime charges in those assaults and several of his former deputy prosecutors also became some of his loudest critics.
They complained about the way the district attorney, a self-described reformer, would handle prosecutions. Often opting for what they described as “lenient plea deals.”
After the results came in, he addressed his supporters saying he’s the victim of the anger voters felt because of the pandemic.
“People are angry, and they’re frustrated. And I want to be very clear about what happened tonight,” he said. “The right-wing billionaires outspent us three to one. They exploited an environment in which people are appropriately upset. And they created an electoral dynamic in which we were literally shadow boxing.”
Boudin did not take any questions from reporters, including if he plans on running again….
…Boudin’s recall now means Mayor London Breed will be appointing someone else to the DA’s office for the second time since she’s been in office…
June 8, 2022: The New York Times posted an article titled: “Voters in San Francisco topple the city’s progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin”. From the article:
Voters in San Francisco on Tuesday put an end to one of the country’s most pioneering experiments in criminal justice reform, ousting a district attorney who eliminated cash bail, vowed to hold police accountable and worked to reduce the number of people sent to prison.
Chesa Boudin, the progressive district attorney, was removed after two and a half years in office, according to The Associated Press, in a vote that is set to reverberate through Democratic politics nationwide as the party fine-tunes its messaging on crime before midterm elections that threaten to strip Democratic control over Congress.
Early returns showed 60 percent of voters in the city approving of the recall.
Ultimately, the election was a contest between progressive Democrats who saw Mr. Boudin as a key leader of a national movement to address mass incarceration and a backlash by more politically moderate San Franciscans – a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans – who grew agitated by persistent property crimes and open drug use during the pandemic. The backlash won.
Locally, the resounding recall suggested that many in San Francisco’s Democratic hierarchy are out of step with – and further left than – the city’s voters, one of the most liberal electorates in the country.
In February, the Democratic County Central Committee voted 20-2 to oppose the recall of Mr. Boudin, with the two contrary votes coming from candidates who had run against him for the job. In addition, only two members of the 11-member Board of Supervisors, the city’s top legislative body, publicly supported removing Mr. Boudin; one of them was a former spokesman for the police department and the other is rumored to want Mr. Boudin’s job…
…Mr.Boudin’s replacement will be chosen by Mayor London Breed, who has made public safety a cornerstone of her tenure, including her unusual move in December to declare a state of emergency in the city’s Tenderloin neighborhood, the center of the city’s illicit drug trade…
…The vote was seen by many as an accumulation of frustration by city residents over squalid street conditions, including the illicit drug sales, homeless encampments and untreated mental illness. During the campaign, Mr. Boudin repeatedly pointed out that he was not responsible for many of the street conditions that San Francisco residents are decrying but he recognized that he had become a vessel for their anger…
…Tuesday’s vote had echos of another tectonic election in the city, the ouster of three school board members in February, a recall that reflected voters’ sour mood during the pandemic and an assertion of political power by the city’s Asian Americans.
Many of the volunteers in both recall elections were from the Chinese community, members of whom were stung by burglaries and shoplifting and who felt particularly vulnerable after a spate of attacks on Asian Americans in the city during the pandemic…
Who became the next San Francisco District Attorney?
The current San Francisco District Attorney is Brooke Jenkins, who was sworn in as San Francisco’s 31st District Attorney on January 2023. Jenkins leads the District Attorney’s office and its mission to promote public safety and advance justice for all and is committed to implementing important and vital criminal justice reforms responsibly.
A Bay Area native and Black and Latina woman, District Attorney Jenkins has seen the imbalance and disproportionate impacts of the criminal justice system firsthand. She has had family members on both sides of the courtroom and has seen and felt the impacts of police violence and misconduct. She believes reforms are necessary to ensure that justice is proportional and fairly executed for every person in San Francisco regardless of who they are or where they are from.
Since the beginning of her career in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney Jenkins has dedicated her life and career to the pursuit of justice, to advocating for victims and striving to make San Francisco a safer place to live, work, and visit.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Race
Ballotpedia posted information on Alex Villanueva. From the information:
Alex Villanueva is the Los Angeles County Sheriff in California. He assumed office in 2018. His current terms ends December 5, 2022.
Villanueva ran for re-election for Los Angeles County Sheriff in California. He lost in the general election on November 8, 2022.
Villanueva completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey in 2022. Here are some of the questions he answered:
Q: Who are you? Tell us about yourself.
Alex Villanueva is the 33rd Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and he is the first Spanish-speaking sheriff in the county. In 2018, retired sheriff’s lieutenant Villanueva defeated incumbent Sheriff Jim McDonnell, becoming the first to unseat the incumbent in over 100 years. Sheriff Villanueva also became the first Democratic Sheriff in LA County in almost 140 years.
Q: Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?
- Reduce Violent Crimes: We must end the hiring freeze and begin to get more cops and detectives on the street.
- Expand Homeless Outreach Service: We must help our unhoused get the help they need while regulating public space.
- Dismantle Homeless Industrial Complex: use those valuable resources to fund proven methods to treat drug addiction and mental health. If the board won’t do it, we’ll take it to the ballot.
Q: What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?
I am passionate about public service. I have dedicated my life to making the L.A. county’s sheriff department better. Four years ago I ran on a promise to Rebuild, Restore, and Reform the department. We have delivered on the promise!
Here is my record. All sheriff deputies on patrol are now equipped with body worn cameras and body cameras in county jails are coming soon. We promoted a record number of Asian, Latino, African American, female and LGBTQ+ deputies and executives. All transfers of inmates to ICE have been permanently banned.
Perhaps most important, we publicly banned deputy gangs, which led to his policy becoming state law. From day one, we have had zero tolerance of deputy misconduct, 154 individuals fired, 1,000 more disciplined.
Ballotpedia posted information about Robert Luna. From the information:
Robert Luna is the Los Angeles County Sheriff-elect in California. Luna assumed office on December 5, 2022.
Luna ran for election for Los Angeles County Sheriff in California. Luna won the general election on November 8, 2022.
Luna completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey in 2022. Here are some of the questions he answered:
Q: Who are you? Tell us about yourself.
I am running to restore public trust and reform the Sheriff’s Department.
I worked in law enforcement for 36 years, and was promoted through every rank of the Long Beach Police Department. For 20 years, I served in executive level positions and in 2014, was appointed to serve as the Long Beach Police Chief where I managed the second largest police department in Los Angeles County.
As Police Chief in Long Beach, I proved that you can decrease crime while increasing law enforcement accountability and transparency.
During my tenure, violent crime decreased by 6.5% and property crime decreased by 10%. During the same time, officer involved shootings decreasing 33% and citizen complaints alleging excessive force decreased by 34%.
As Sheriff, I will work to reduce crime address homelessness, restore public trust in the Sheriff’s Office, reform and modernize the Department, and improve deputy and employee wellness.
I have a reputation for listening, problem-solving and being able to work in partnership with our community, and have earned the endorsement of Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia, the entire Long Beach City Council, all 5 LA County Supervisors, the LA County Democratic Party and the LA Times.
Q: Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?
- Reduce Violent Crime and Property Crime – The people of Los Angeles County are concerned about the trajectory of crime and are looking for a proven leader to keep people safe. As Police Chief in Long Beach, during my tenure violent crime decreased 6.5% in Long Beach and property crime by 10%. To address crime, law enforcement must implement a data-driven approach, be relentless in investigations, and be surgical with interventions. In addition, law enforcement must coordinate with the DA’s Office to create a plan for habitual offenders, especially for individuals accused of gun violence. We must also invest in long-term solutions to reduce crime, including prevention strategies like community engagement and social services.
- Address Homelessness – Homelessness is the humanitarian crisis of our time. Los Angeles County has the largest unsheltered population in the nation and the status quo is not working. I understand the complexities of homelessness because I worked on homelessness in Long Beach. As Sheriff, I will make sure that case management and diversion programs are offered on our streets, in our jails, and also our courtrooms. I also support the creation of a multidisciplinary team to respond to non-life-threatening emergencies. These alternate responses free up our deputies to respond to crime. And, I will advocate for additional accountability and transparency of our partners who recieve public resources to address homelessness.
- Restore Public Trust in the Sheriff’s Office – The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is in a crisis of leadership, accountability, and public trust. After nearly a decade of scandals, the current Sheriff was elected on the promise of reform and to clean up the department. Instead, the current Sheriff has failed to root out misconduct, rejected oversight, and destroyed public trust. Restoring public trust requires leadership experience and a proven commitment to transparency and accountability. As Sheriff, I will be transparent with all community partners, especially the Civilian Oversight Commission.
Q: What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?
Improve Deputy and Employee Wellness – As Sheriff and senior management for more than ten thousand deputies, I will improve the working conditions within LASD by eradicating gangs and providing wellness programs to deputies and employees. With more than three decades of police experience, I have seen first-hand that the personal needs of law enforcement officers and employees go ignored too often, which leads to negative consequences. The Sheriff’s Department has been plagued by gangs and cliques for decades. As Sheriff, I will eradicate gangs and cliques within the Department by repairing the management structure, implementing protocols to stop deputies from participating in gangs, and enforcing consequences when we find staff who are involved in gang activities.
As Sheriff, I will reform LASD’s culture and policies to support the wellbeing and safety of the brave women and men who chose to serve their community. This includes being attentive to equipment and uniform needs, providing mental healthcare, and creating peer counseling and mentoring programs. And, just as importantly, I will work to reduce any stigma associated with mental health care to ensure that all deputies take full advantage of these services. Strengthening law enforcement safety and wellness are not only essential for employees, but also for public safety.
November 5: The New York Times posted an article titled: “Democrats Ushered In the Los Angeles Sheriff. Now Many Want Him Gone.” From the article:
…Elected four years ago as sheriff of Los Angeles County, Mr. Villanueva, 59, has become one of California’s most polarizing figures, his tenure punctuated with what many see as combative behavior, perplexing politics, and the antics of a cowboy lawman.
Recoiling from efforts to regulate his power, he has battled with public officials and antagonized his critics. Among them are Ms. Kuehl, who serves on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors – the governing body that oversees the sheriff’s department budget – and Ms. Giggans, who sits on the county civilian oversight commission. Both have called for the sheriff’s resignation.
Unlike police chiefs who are appointed, sheriffs in most states answer directly to voters, giving them largely unchecked powers over an array of law enforcement matters, from issuing gun permits to running the jails. Few have pushed the bounds of their authority like Sheriff Villanueva.
In his first term running the largest sheriff’s department in the nation, he has been accused of opening criminal investigations into his detractors, covering up intimate abuse and deputy misconduct, unlawfully reinstating a friend fired for alleged domestic abuse and bullying a county executive, which led to a $1.5 million settlement…
…His actions have prompted the county supervisors to place an extraordinary measure on the ballot allowing them to oust him – if he survives the election on Tuesday against a former police chief, Robert Luna, who has been endorsed by prominent Democrats and labor unions.
November 15: Los Angeles Times posted an article titled: “Sheriff Villanueva’s chances for second term dwindle as Luna’s holds strong”. From the article:
With Robert Luna continuing to hold a commanding lead in the race for Los Angeles County sheriff, Alex Villanueva’s chances of winning a second term have all but vanished, election results show.
With 1.8 million ballots counted as of Monday evening, Luna has won 60% of the vote and Villanueva has received 40% – a gap that has remained relatively steady since the first batch of ballots were counted on election night last Tuesday.
While the exact number of outstanding ballots is not known, on Monday election officials estimated there were 655,300 ballots still left to count.
To catch up to Luna, Villanueva would need to win three out of every four of the remaining ballots. The likelihood of Villanueva mounting a comeback of that size is very low given that he has won only about four in 10 of the votes counted so far.
On Tuesday, the Sheriff’s Department announced that Villanueva planned to address the media at 2 p.m., fueling speculation that he might concede to Luna…
…Villanueva struggled to build momentum throughout the campaign. He finished first in the primary in June, but won only 31% of the vote – and underwhelming performance for an incumbent and not nearly enough to avoid a runoff against Luna, who finished in second with 26% of the vote.
Luna, who headed the Long Beach Police Department for seven years before retiring last year, positioned himself during the campaign as the level-headed alternative to Villanueva and vowed he would work with the county elected officials Villanueva has vilified. He received the endorsements of all five county supervisors, and the sheriff candidates he beat in the June primary threw their support to him.
November 15: ABC7 posted an article titled: “LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva concedes to Robert Luna, wishes ‘the incoming sheriff well'”. From the article:
Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva conceded the race one week after the election, wishing Robert Luna well as the former Long Beach police chief will succeed him as head of one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the U.S.
During a Tuesday afternoon news conference, Villanueva blamed his loss on what he describes as a sweeping misinformation campaign and the use of “false narratives” focused on issued including alleged deputy gangs, his appeared resistance of oversight by the county and Civilian Oversight Commission and other allegations of internal harassment and retaliation against purported whistleblowers.
Villanueva has trailed Luna as results from last week’s election continued to be tallied.
According to the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s Office, Luna had a lead of 324,837 votes, up from 259,184 when the last update was released Saturday.
The results from last Tuesday’s election stood at 987,730 votes for Luna, or 59.8%, and 622,893 for Villanueva, or 40.2%
The next update is expected to be released Tuesday afternoon, according to election officials.
The article included the following information about the vote totals (as of November 15):
- Luna – 60% – 1,040,727
- Villanueva – 40% – 693,527
November 18: LAist posted an article titled: “LA Sheriff-Elect Robert Luna Promises ‘Open Arms, Ears Open'” From the article:
In his first news conference as Los Angeles County’s sheriff-elect, Robert Luna on Friday announced the members of his transition team and promised to work with community and county leaders to resolve the many controversies the Sheriff’s Department remains embroiled in.
He vowed to repair relations with the Board of Supervisors and the Civilian Oversight Commission, bodies outgoing Sheriff Alex Villanueva constantly battled throughout his four years in office…
…Luna said that over the next several months he will be working towards new policies and strategies to address crime, “repair relationships in our community and across the board,” address homelessness, modernize the department, and “improve employee wellness.”…
December 5: (published November 8:) LAist posted an article titled: “LA County Sheriff Results: Sheriff Villanueva Concedes Race to Robert Luna. What’s Next For LASD?” From the article:
Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva conceded Tuesday that he had lost his bid for reelection to former Long Beach Police Officer Robert Luna.
After Tuesday’s vote update, Luna has opened up a 20-point lead over Villanueva.
In a statement on Twitter Tuesday,Luna said he is “deeply honored and humbled that you have elected me as your next sheriff.”
His full statement on Twitter said:
“Thank you, L.A. County!
I’m deeply honored and humbled that you have elected me as your next Sheriff.
With your vote, you have entrusted me with a clear mandate to bring new leadership and accountability to the Sheriff’s Department.
And that’s exactly what I will do.
I want to offer my best wishes to Sheriff Villanueva and his family.
And I look forward to working with the talented and courageous sworn and professional staff of the Sheriff’s Department who are dedicated to keeping our communities safe.”
– Sheriff Robert Luna
California Propositions 2022 Midterm Elections
CalMatters provided information about the various Propositions on the 2022 Ballot:
Proposition 1: Putting Abortion Safeguards In The California Constitution
After the news leaked in early May that the U.S. Supreme Court was planning to rule that the federal constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to an abortion – and it did reverse the five-decade-old precedent on June 24 – California’s top Democrats vowing to “fight like hell,” proposed adding the protection to the state constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was introduced in the Legislature in early June and was passed with the overwhelming support of both chambers by the end of the month. If approved by the voters, it would bar the state from denying or interfering with a person’s right to choose an abortion and contraceptives…
CalMatters also provided the following information about Proposition 1:
This ballot measure amends the California Constitution to enshrine a fundamental right to reproductive freedom. That includes the right to choose to have an abortion and the right to choose or refuse contraceptives. Because these rights are already protected by state law, Prop. 1 is unlikely to have any financial impact on California, unless court interpreted it as expanding the government’s obligation to pay for contraception and abortion procedures, which it already does for low-income residents.
Why was it on the ballot?
There is already a right to privacy guaranteed in the California Constitution, but it is not explicitly defined. Historically, the language has been understood to preserve reproductive rights, including a decision by the California Supreme Court. Abortion and contraceptive access were later expressly protected in state law.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in June overturning Roe v. Wade, however, has raised fears that a change in legal interpretation or partisan control of the now-overwhelmingly Democratic state Legislature could undermine those protections for Californian’s in the future.
Backed by abortion rights advocates and Gov. Gavin Newsom, lawmakers rushed to place Proposition 1 on the ballot to ensure that reproductive health care remains a constitutional right in California.
Supporters of Proposition 1 argue that Proposition 1 will prevent California from going backwards on reproductive rights. By putting the right to abortion and contraception directly into the California Constitution, they say that reproductive health care will always be a medical decision, not a political one, no matter what party controls state government.
- Yes on 1 committee
- Abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and NARAL Pro-Choice California
- California Medical Association
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
- League of Women Voters of California
- SEIU California
- California Democratic Party
- Equality California
- Gov. Gavin Newsom, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and other Democratic statewide elected officials
- Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and dozens of other Democratic legislators
- Hillary Clinton
- Health Care for All-California
Opponents of Proposition 1 say that Prop. 1 is unnecessary to protect reproductive rights in California but is written so broadly that it could face years of protracted court battles to clear up the language, costing the state millions of dollars in legal fees. They raise particular concern that the measure would override state regulations that now limit abortions after the point when a fetus is viable on its own outside the womb, at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. These late-term abortions are currently only legal if the health or the life of the mother is threatened. Supporters say the measure does nothing to change that.
- No on 1 Committee
- California Alliance of Pregnancy Care (a faith-based organization)
- Pacific Justice Institute (a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties)
- California Catholic Conference
- International Faith Based Coalition
- California Republican Party
August 16: Politifact posted an article titled: California Together, No On Proposition 1″.
“With Proposition 1, the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar even higher, costing taxpayers millions more.” California Together, No on Proposition 1 on its website, Aug. 16, 2022.
Politifact’s “Truth-O-Meter” declaring that quote to be “Mostly False”.
California Together, a campaign led by religious and anti-abortion groups, is hoping to persuade voters to reject a ballot measure that would cement the right to an abortion in the state’s constitution. The group is warning that taxpayers will be on the hook for an influx of abortion seekers from out of state.
Proposition 1 was placed on the ballot by the Democratic-controlled legislature in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. If passed, it would protect an individual’s “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion,” along with the right to birth control.
California Together’s website says: “With Proposition 1, the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar even higher, costing taxpayers millions more.”
The campaign raised similar cost concerns in a voter information guide that will be mailed out to every registered voter ahead of the Nov. 8 election. One prominent argument is that Proposition 1 will turn California into a “sanctuary state” for abortion seekers, including those in late-term pregnancy – and that would be a drain on tax dollars.
We decided to take a closer look at those eye-catching statements to see how well they hold up when broken down.
We reached out to California Together to find out the basis for its arguments against the measure. The campaign cited an analysis from the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, which estimated before Roe was overturned that the number of women ages 15 to 49 whose nearest abortion provider would be in California would increase 3,000% in response to state abortion bands [sic]. The Guttmacher analysis said most of California’s out-of-state patients would likely come from Arizona because it’s within driving distance.
California Together does not cite a specific cost to taxpayers for the measure. Rather, it points to millions of dollars the state has already allocated to support abortion and reproductive services as an indication of how much more the state could spend if the proposed amendment passes.
Sources indicate that people are already coming to the state for abortion services.
Jessica Pinckney, executive director of Oakland-based Access Reproductive Justice, which provides financial and emotional support for people who have abortions in California, said the organization has experienced an increase in out-of-state calls even before the high court ruled in June. Pinckney anticipates handling more cases as more states restrict abortion – regardless of Proposition 1’s outcome.
Will it cost taxpayers millions?
In its fiscal year 2022-23 budget, California committed more than $200 million to expanding reproductive health care services, including $20 million for a fund to cover the travel expenses of abortion seekers, regardless of what state they live in. Once it’s up and running in 2023, the fund will provide grants to nonprofit organizations that help women with transportation and lodging.
However, none of this spending is connected to Proposition 1, said Carolyn Chu, chief deputy legislative analyst at the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. It’s already allocated in the budget and will be sold out next year, regardless of what happens with the ballot measure.
In the end, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found “no direct fiscal effect” if Proposition 1 passes because Californians already have abortion protections. And people traveling from out of state don’t qualify for state-subsidized health programs, such as Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, Chu added in an interview.
“If people were to travel to California for services, including abortion, that does not mean they’re eligible for Medi-Cal- she said.
Still, Proposition 1 opponents see the cost argument playing out differently.
Richard Temple, a campaign strategist for California Together, said a “no” vote will send lawmakers a mandate to stop the support fund.
“Defeat Prop. 1, and you send a loud signal to the legislature and to the governor that you don’t want to pay for those kinds of expenses for people coming in from out or state, Temple said.
What about an influx of abortion seekers?
A key element of California Together’s argument is pegged to the idea that California will become a sanctuary state for abortion seekers. Opponents assert that Proposition 1 opens the door to a new legal interpretation of the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act. Currently, that law allows abortion up to the point of viability, usually around the 24th week of pregnancy, or later to protect the life or health of the patient.
An argument made in the voter guide against the constitutional amendment is that it would allow all late-term abortions “even when the mother’s life is not in danger, even when the healthy baby could survive outside the womb.“
Because the proposition says the state can’t interfere with the right to abortion, opponents argue that current law restricting most abortions after viability will become unconstitutional. They contend that without restrictions, California will draw thousands, possibly millions, of women in late-term pregnancy.
Statistically, that’s unlikely. The state doesn’t report abortion figures, but nationwide only 1% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Whether there will be new interpretation if Proposition 1 passes is up for debate…
…California voters will soon have their say.
Polling has found widespread support for the constitutional amendment. An August survey by the Berkeley IGS Poll found 71% of voters would vote “yes” on Proposition 1. A September survey by the Public Policy Institute of California pegged support at 69%.
California Together warns voters: “With Proposition 1, the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar even higher, costing taxpayers millions more.”
Proposition 1 would protect and individual’s “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.”
It could lead to more people going to California for abortion services, but that’s already happening, even before voters decide on the measure.
Also, Proposition 1 doesn’t allocate any new spending. So, the $20 million state fund to cover travel expenses for abortion seekers would exist regardless of whether it is adopted. Bottom line: a nonpartisan analyst found there would be no direct fiscal impact to the state and out-of-state residents don’t qualify for state-subsidized health programs.
It’s speculative that Proposition 1 would expand abortion rights beyond what’s currently allowed or that the state would allocate money for out-of-state residents.
Because the statement contains some truth but ignores critical facts to give a different impression, we rate the statement Mostly False.
November 12: The New York Times reported the following results on Proposition 1:
- Yes – 65.7%
- No – 34.4%
This count was tallied with 69% of the votes in. CalMatters declared Proposition 1 as “Passed”.
Proposition 26: Legalize Sports Betting At Tribal Casinos
CalMatters reported that Proposition 26 would have allowed tribal casinos and the state’s four horse race tracks to offer in-person sports betting. At race tracks, sports betting could only be offered to people 21 or older. Age restrictions on sports betting at tribal casinos would need to be negotiated by California’s governor and each tribe, and written into each tribe’s compact with the state.
The proposition would also have allowed tribal casinos to begin offering roulette and dice games, including craps.
It taxes sports bets placed at horse race tracks. It doesn’t tax tribes, which are sovereign nations, but it requires tribes to reimburse the state for the cost of regulating sports betting.
The proposition also would have created new ways of enforcing some gaming laws, allowing anyone to bring a lawsuit if they believe the laws are being violated and the state Justice Department declines to act. Any penalty and settlement money that results would go to the state.
State analysts say the proposition could generate as much as tens of millions annually for the state. It’s difficult to know the exact amount for a few reasons. New tribal-state compacts might require tribes to pay more to local government, for example, and it’s unclear how much money will result from the new private lawsuits. The revenue would first be spent on education spending commitments and regulatory costs. If there’s any money left over, it would go to the state’s discretionary fund, as well as to problem gaming and mental health research, and the enforcement of gaming rules.
Why was it on the ballot?
Tribes have long had the exclusive right to offer certain forms of gambling in California, including slot machines and certain card games, such as 21 and baccarat. But sports betting – besides horse racing – isn’t legal in California currently.
Since the Supreme Court ruled that states could legalize sports betting in 2018, 35 states plus Washington D.C. have made the leap. In California, lawmakers tried to negotiate a deal on sports betting in 2020, but weren’t able to work it out in time to get a measure on the ballot.
Elsewhere it’s proven popular – and lucrative. Americans bet more than $57 billion on sports in 2021. The massive expansion has also concerned advocates, who say that gambling addiction will increase, and that research into long-term effect of legalizing sports betting has fallen short.
Two different sports betting measures made it onto the ballot for the 2022 election. Prop. 27 would allow sports betting across the state, while Prop. 26 would allow in-person betting only at tribal casinos and horse race tracks. If both pass, both could go into effect, but all likelihood a court would decide.
Supporters of Proposition 26 argue it will increase tribal self-sufficiency by bringing more business to tribal casinos. Tribal casinos create jobs, and help tribes pay for services like health care and education. Supporters also say it will protect against underage gambling by requiring people to be physically present to make bets, and by prohibiting advertising to people under 21. They also say it will generate money for the state of California.
- 27 tribes and tribal organizations, led by tribes with casinos, including Federated Indians of Groton Rancheria, Pechanga Band of Indians, Mocha Dee Wintun Nation
- NAACP, California-Hawaii state conference
- Labor leader Dolores Huerta, and Communications Workers of America
- Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis
- Treasurer Fiona Ma
- California Young Democrats, and many local Democratic committies
- California District Attorneys Association
Opponents of Proposition 26 argue the new gaming law enforcement mechanism will be used by tribal casinos to sue competing card rooms and drive card rooms out of business. If that happens, they argue, it will lead to lost jobs and tax revenue, often in communities of color. Some casinos allow 18 year olds to gamble, so opponents argue the initiative could lead young people to develop gambling addictions. They also argue it will revive the shrinking horse racing industry, which they say endangers horses.
- No on 26 committee
- Cities including Clovis, Commerce, Compton, and Huntington Park
- California Republican Party
- American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees California
- Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals chapters and local humane societies
- California Black Chamber of Commerce and California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
CalMatters reported that voters resoundingly rejected Proposition 26, with nearly 70% against in early returns. Proposition 26 failed.
What did California Tribes Think About Proposition 26?
November 4: 23ABC Bakersfield posted an article titled: “Tejon Tribe of California weighs in on Propositions 26 and 27, tribal gaming rights, and gambling restrictions”. From the article:
Propositions 26 and 27 are both aimed at sports betting and have to do with California tribes’ exclusive rights to offer certain types of games.
Prop 26 would give the green light for tribes to offer in-person sports betting at their casinos. It would also empower officials to crack down on non-native businesses that illegally offer games that are supposed to be exclusive to tribes.
The Tejon Indian Tribe of California is the only federally recognized tribe in Kern County, and tribal leaders are currently looking forward to their first commercial venture, the creation of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino that would be built near Mettler.
23ABC spoke with Councilwoman Sandra Hernandez about the tribe’s stances on two California ballot measures when it comes to gambling and tribal rights.
“I think all it does is really put those wardrooms that are operating illegally in check. And it will bring those parameters into place that you’re not allowed to game in this manner,” Hernandez said. “And while it’s maybe already existing and happening now, that it would be something that would become a little bit more regulated with this.”
She says Prop 27, which legalizes mobile sports betting and is funded by large companies including casino groups in Las Vegas, doesn’t respect tribal sovereignty, as tribes who make deals with these groups would have to give up certain rights that were passed by voters.
“It gives these out-of-state corporations the same ability to game that the California tribes received through California’s voters,” Hernandez said. “And I think that that’s something that’s very important to California and the state, and that recognition of realizing where gaming stands right now with California tribes.”
More than 50 tribe are in support of Proposition 26, including The Tejon Indian Tribe of California. Hernandez says tribe officials believe the measure strengthens the gambling system that’s already in place here in California, and is the best option to help everyone regardless of tribal affiliation…
CalMatters wrote that Proposition 26, with nearly 70% against in early returns – Failed.
Proposition 27: Allow Online Sports Betting
CalMatters reported that Prop. 27 would have allowed licensed tribes and gaming companies to offer mobile and online sports betting for adults 21 and older outside Native American tribal lands. Gaming companies – such as FanDuel and DraftKings – could only offer sports betting if they made a deal with a tribe.
The measure creates extremely high thresholds for gaming companies to do business in California, making it all but impossible for smaller companies to compete.
The proposition would have created a new division within the state’s Justice Department to regulate online sports wagering. That division could also decide whether to approve new forms of gambling, such as betting on awards shows and video games. It also gives the Justice Department additional powers to address illegal sports betting.
Tribes and gaming companies would pay fees and taxes to the state that could total several hundred million dollars a year, state analysts estimate. The actual amount is uncertain, in part because gaming operators are allowed to deduct certain expenses to reduce their tax bill.
After covering the state’s new regulatory costs, most of the money would be used to address homelessness and for gambling and addiction programs, while 15% would go to Native American tribes that aren’t involved in sports betting.
Why was it on the ballot?
Sports betting – other than on horse racing – isn’t legal in California currently.
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to legalize sports betting in 2018. Since then, 35 states plus D.C. have made the move. It’s proven to be big business: Americans bet more than $57 billion on sports betting in 2021. The explosion of sports betting has also concerned advocates, who say that gambling addiction will increase, and that research into the long-term effects of legalizing sports betting has fallen short.
California lawmakers tried to negotiate a deal on sports betting in 2020, but weren’t able to work one out in time to get a measure on the ballot. Then came a rush of groups trying to qualify their own sports betting initiatives for the 2022 election. Ultimately, two different measures made it onto the ballot. Prop. 27 would allow online sports betting only at tribal casinos and horse race tracks. If both pass, both could go into effect, but in all likelihood, a court would decide.
Supporters of Prop. 27 say it would create a permanent source of funding to reduce homelessness and will allow every tribe to benefit – including tribes that decide not to offer sports betting. it would protect against underage gambling with fines for violators and would prohibit betting on youth sporting events.
- Yes on Prop 27 committee
- FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, and four other gaming companies, which are funding the measure
- Three Native American tribes: Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians, and Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians
- Mayors of Fresno, Sacramento, Oakland, and Long Beach
- Some homeless advocates including Bay Area Community Services and Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness
- Major League Baseball
Opponents say that Prop 27 would turn every cellphone and computer into a gambling device. They say it would escalate the risks of underage and problem gambling. They also say it would drive business away from tribal casinos and threaten tribal sovereignty because tribes would have to give up some of their rights in order to offer sports betting. And they argue that most of the money would go to companies in other states.
- No on Prop. 27 committee
- 50 Native American tribes and tribal organizations
- California Democratic Party
- California Republican Party
- Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis
- Gov. Gavin Newsom
- California Teachers Association, Communications Workers of America, United Food and Commercial Workers, labor leader Dolores Huerta
- Homelessness and housing advocates, including Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco and California Coalition for Rural Housing
CalMatters reported that “voters didn’t just reject Proposition 27, they are headed to defeating it by one of the largest margins for initiatives, with more than 80% opposed in early returns.” CalMatters marked Proposition as “Failed”.
Proposition 28: Guarantee Funding For Arts And Music Education
CalMatters reported that Proposition 28 easily passed, with more than 60% of the vote in early returns.
What will it do?
Proposition 98 requires the state to spend a certain percentage of its general fund on public education. This measure will require the state to add an amount equal to 1% of Prop. 98 funding – money guaranteed for public schools and community colleges in the state budget – for music and arts educations. That’s estimated to be a $1 billion annual set aside. This measure would not raise taxes, so the additional money would have to come from elsewhere in the state’s general fund. Proponents say the state’s recent surplus should cover the cost. Schools with high proportions of students from low-income households would get more funding. School districts will be required to spend 80% of the new funding on hiring arts and music instructors, and they will have to publish annual reports on how they spend the money.
Why was it on the ballot?
State law requires instruction in visual and performing arts for grades 1-6. For grades 7-8, schools must offer arts classes either during or after school. High school students must take either a year of art, a foreign language or career and technical education to graduate. But most California high schools require students to take art to align with the admissions requirements for the California State University and University of California systems.
But when school district budgets are cut during economic downturns, arts and music programs are often the first to be downsize. So former Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner said he launched the Prop. 28 campaign to turn the arts into a core subject along with math, science and reading.
He said the push for more arts education was inspired by conversations he had with educators during his time leading the state’s largest school district. Citing a 2021 study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Beutner said giving students the space to express themselves creatively leads to a sense of belonging, which in turn helps them in math and reading.
“Math has rules. Grammar has rules. Art is unbounded,” Beutner said. “And if you think about preparing students for critical thinking, art isn’t just the sprinkles on an ice cream sundae. It’s an essential piece.”
Arguments For Prop. 28
Beutner, who donated more than $4 million to the campaign, and other supporters also say that arts and music instruction could help address the mental health crisis facing California’s youth as they recover from the pandemic.
Along with Beutner, supporters include Sylvester Stallone and other Hollywood stars and musicians such as Andersan Paak, and Barbara Streisand. Prop. 28 also has strong support from teachers unions, as the arts funding is expected to generate jobs for educators.
Fender Musical Instruments donated more than $1 million to the campaign. Fender CEO Andy Mooney said the company has donated more than 10,000 guitars to Los Angeles Unified and hopes Prop. 28 will allow Fender to donate instruments to other districts.
Supporters for Prop 28 include:
- Vote Yes on 28 committee
- SEIU California
- California Democratic Party
- Local arts organizations
- Local music and arts education groups
CalMatters wrote that no opposition filed. But critics, including some newspaper editorial boards, call it “ballot box budgeting” that locks in even more spending for schools and that could force cuts to other important programs in the next recession.