{¿Quiere que lo lleve a su lugar de votación?}{¿Quiere un paseo?}
Click here
{¿Quiere que lo lleve a su lugar de votación?}{¿Quiere un paseo?}
Click here
Elija UnoFederal
Elija UnoFederal
This vote is for Alex Padilla to serve a full term in the Senate beginning 1/2023
Elija UnoFederal
Elija UnoEstatal 
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija Uno (carrera no partidista)Estatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Groban was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2018. Groban received a partisanship confidence score of Strong Democrat.
Sí
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Liu was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2011. He received a partisanship confidence score of Strong Democrat
Sí
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Jackson was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2019 and serves as the presiding justice.
Sí
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Guerrero was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2022.
Sí
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Rodriguez was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2021.
Sí
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
|
|
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to prohibit the state from interfering with or denying an individual's reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to an abortion and a right to contraceptives. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed this amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution. |
|
|
A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to (i) legalize sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California; (ii) tax profits derived from sports betting at racetracks at 10%; and (iii) legalize roulette and dice games, such as craps, at tribal casinos. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California and roulette and dice games at tribal casinos. |
|
|
|
|
|
"sin opinión" |
|
|
|
|
A "yes" vote supported legalizing online and mobile sports betting for persons 21 years of age or older, establishing regulations for the mobile sports betting industry, imposing a 10% tax on sports betting revenues and licensing fees, and allocating tax revenue to an account for homelessness programs and an account for tribes not operating sports betting. |
|
|
A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California. |
|
|
|
|
|
"sin opinión" |
|
|
|
|
A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed requiring an annual source of funding for K-12 public schools for arts and music education equal to, at minimum, 1% of the total state and local revenues that local education agencies receive under Proposition 98. |
|
|
|
|
A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care. |
|
|
|
|
|
"sin opinión" |
|
|
|
|
A "yes" vote supported increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs. |
|
|
|
|
|
"sin opinión" |
|
|
|
|
A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), thus keeping the sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state. |
|
|
|
|
|
"sin opinión" |
|
|
|
|
A yes vote supported increasing an annual parcel tax of $98 for 9 years to fund library services. |
|
|
A no vote opposed increasing an annual parcel tax of $98 for 9 years to fund library services. |
|
|
A yes vote supported authorizing the Marin County Open Space District Community Facilities District No. 2022-1 to issue $23,000,000 in bonds with bond revenue going to acquire the Martha Property on the Tiburon Peninsula and requiring a tax levy of $335 increasing 2% annually. |
|
|
A no vote opposed authorizing the Marin County Open Space District Community Facilities District No. 2022-1 to issue $23,000,000 in bonds with bond revenue going to acquire the Martha Property on the Tiburon Peninsula and requiring a tax levy of $335 increasing 2% annually. |
|
|
A yes vote supported authorizing a special tax of $94.50 per residential living unit or 1,500 square feet of developed nonresidential property to provide emergency response services. |
|
|
A no vote opposed authorizing a special tax of $94.50 per residential living unit or 1,500 square feet of developed nonresidential property to provide emergency response services. |
|
|
A yes vote supported establishing the appropriations limit for the Stinson Beach County Water District at $2,478,750 for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and using this amount to set future appropriations limits. |
|
|
A no vote opposed establishing the appropriations limit for the Stinson Beach County Water District at $2,478,750 for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and using this amount to set future appropriations limits. |
Y¡Su voto importa!
