Federal Races

Representative, U.S. House California District 11

Choose OneFederal  

(Dem)Nancy Pelosi (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

U.S. Senate California

Choose OneFederal  

This race is for the next full, six-year term for the U.S Senate seat.

(Dem)Alex Padilla (Incumbent)

This vote is for Alex Padilla to serve a full term in the Senate beginning 1/2023


Endorsed by

U.S. Senate California - Special

Choose OneFederal  

This special race is for the remainder of the term to fill VP Kamala Harris's vacated Senate seat.

(Dem)Alex Padilla (Incumbent)

This is to fill the balance of V.P. Harris' vacated seat until 1/2023


Endorsed by

State Races

Governor of California

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Gavin Newsom (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

Lieutenant Governor of California

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Eleni Kounalakis (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

Attorney General of California

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Rob Bonta (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

California Secretary of State

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Shirley Weber (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

California Treasurer

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Fiona Ma (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

California Controller

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Malia Cohen


Endorsed by

California Superintendent of Public Instruction

Choose One (non-partisan race)State  

Tony Thurmond (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

California State Board of Equalization District 2

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Sally Lieber


Endorsed by

California Commissioner of Insurance

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Ricardo Lara (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

California State Assembly District 19

Choose OneState  

(Dem)Phil Ting (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

Judges

California Supreme Court - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Martin J. Jenkins (Incumbent)

Jenkins was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2020.


Yes

Endorsed by

California Supreme Court - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Joshua Groban (Incumbent)

Groban was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2018. Groban received a partisanship confidence score of Strong Democrat.


Yes

Endorsed by

California Supreme Court - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Goodwin Liu (Incumbent)

Liu was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2011. He received a partisanship confidence score of Strong Democrat


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 3 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Carin Fujisaki (Incumbent)

Fujisaki was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2018.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 3 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Ioana Petrou (Incumbent)

Petrou was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2018.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 5 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Teri L. Jackson (Incumbent)

Jackson was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2019 and serves as the presiding justice.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 4 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Tracie L. Brown (Incumbent)

Brown was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2018.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 5 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Gordon Burns (Incumbent)

Burns was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2018.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 3 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Alison M. Tucher (Incumbent)

Tucher was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2021.


Yes

Endorsed by

California Supreme Court - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Patricia Guerrero (Incumbent)

Guerrero was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2022.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 3 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Victor Rodriguez (Incumbent)

Rodriguez was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2021.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 2 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Therese M. Stewart (Incumbent)

Stewart was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2014.


Yes

Endorsed by

California 1st District Court of Appeal Division 4 - Retention

Retain this Judge? Select Yes or NoState  

Jeremy Goldman (Incumbent)

Goldman was appointed to the court by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in 2022.


Yes

Endorsed by

Local Races

San Francisco District Attorney - Special

Choose One Local  

John Hamasaki


Endorsed by

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors District 8

Choose One Local  

Janice Li (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

San Francisco Assessor-Recorder

Choose One Local  

Joaqun Torres (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

San Francisco Public Defender

Choose One (non-partisan race) Local  

Manohar Raju (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

San Francisco Community College Board

Choose Three Local  

Susan Solomon


Endorsed by

Anita Martinez


Endorsed by

Vick Chung


Endorsed by

San Francisco Community College Board - Special

Choose One Local  

Adolfo Velasquez


Endorsed by

San Francisco Unified Board of Education

Choose Three (non-partisan race) Local  

Lainie Motamedi (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

Lisa Weissman-Ward (Incumbent)


Endorsed by

Alida Fisher


Endorsed by

Measures and Propositions

California State Ballot Measures

Proposition 1California Proposition 1: California Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2022)

 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.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed this amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution.
Proposition 26California Proposition 26: Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative (2022)
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.
"Yes" Recommended by

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California and roulette and dice games at tribal casinos.
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Proposition 27California Proposition 27: Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative (2022)
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.
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Proposition 28California Proposition 28: Art and Music K-12 Education Funding Initiative (2022)

 A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to:
  • require 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;
  • distribute a portion of the additional funding based on a local education agency's share of economically disadvantaged students; and
  • require schools with 500 or more students to use 80% of the funding for employing teachers and 20% to training and materials.
"Yes" Recommended by
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.
"No" Recommended by
Proposition 29California Proposition 29: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative (2022)

 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. 
"Yes" Recommended by
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. 
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Proposition 30California Proposition 30: Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative (2022)

 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.
"Yes" Recommended by
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.
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Proposition 31California Proposition 31: California Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)

 A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products.
"Yes" Recommended by
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. 
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"

San Francisco City/Town Ballot Measures

Proposition ASan Francisco, California, Proposition A, Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment for Certain City Retirees and Employment Contract for Retirement Board Executive Director Amendment (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported allowing city employees who retired before November 6, 1996, to receive a supplemental cost of living adjustment to their pensions whether or not the retirement system is fully funded and allowing the Retirement Board to enter into an individual employment contract with its executive director.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed allowing city employees who retired before November 6, 1996, to receive a supplemental cost of living adjustment to their pensions whether or not the retirement system is fully funded and allowing the Retirement Board to enter into an individual employment contract with its executive director, thereby requiring the Retirement Board to follow city civil service hiring rules, which limit the Board's salary and benefit offerings.
"No" Recommended by
Proposition BSan Francisco, California, Proposition B, Eliminate Department of Sanitation and Streets and Transfer Duties to Department of Public Works Amendment (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported eliminating the Department of Sanitation and Streets and transferring its duties to the Department of Public Works and retaining the Public Works Commission and the Sanitation and Streets Commission.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed eliminating the Department of Sanitation and Streets and transferring its duties to the Department of Public Works.
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Proposition CSan Francisco, California, Proposition C, Create Homelessness Oversight Commission Amendment (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported creating a Homelessness Oversight Commission to oversee the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and requiring the city controller to conduct audits of services for people experiencing homelessness.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed creating a Homelessness Oversight Commission to oversee the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and requiring the city controller to conduct audits of services for people experiencing homelessness.
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Proposition FSan Francisco, California, Proposition F, Library Preservation Fund Renewal Amendment (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported the following:
  • renewing the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years, funded through an annual parcel tax of $25 per $100,000 in assessed value, otherwise set to expire on June 30, 2023;
  • allowing the city to temporarily freeze the annual minimum library funding amount when the city expects a budget deficit over $300 million; and
  • increasing the minimum hours the main library and its 27 branches must be open per week.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed the following:
  • renewing the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years, funded through an annual parcel tax of $25 per $100,000 in assessed value, otherwise set to expire on June 30, 2023;
  • allowing the city to temporarily freeze the annual minimum library funding amount when the city expects a budget deficit over $300 million; and
  • increasing the minimum hours the main library and its 27 branches must be open per week.
Proposition GSan Francisco, California, Proposition G, Create Student Success Fund to Provide Additional Grants to San Francisco Unified School District Amendment (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported creating the Student Success Fund to provide additional grants to San Francisco Unified School District through 2038, with the city allocating $11 million to the Fund in 2024, $35 million in 2025, and $45 million in 2026.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed creating the Student Success Fund to provide additional grants to San Francisco Unified School District.
Prposition HSan Francisco, California, Proposition H, Move Local Elections to Even-Numbered Years and Change Initiative Petition Signature Requirements Amendment (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported changing elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney, and Treasurer from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years (in November of presidential election years) and changing signature requirements for ballot initiatives from 5% of votes cast for mayor to 2% of registered voters.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed the proposed changes, thereby continuing to hold elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney, and Treasurer during odd-numbered years and maintaining that the basis for determining the number of signatures required for ballot initiatives shall be 5% of votes cast for mayor in the previous mayoral election.
"No" Recommended by
Proposition ISan Francisco, California, Proposition I, Allow Private Vehicles on JFK Drive and Connector Streets in Golden Gate Park Initiative (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported allowing private motor vehicles on John F. Kennedy Drive and connector streets, known as the JFK Promenade, except from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and legal holidays as well as on Saturdays from April through September.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed allowing private motor vehicles on John F. Kennedy Drive and connector streets, known as the JFK Promenade, except from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and legal holidays as well as on Saturdays from April through September, thereby maintaining current law providing for the closure of these roads to use the area as recreational open space.
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Proposition JSan Francisco, California, Proposition J, Limit Private Vehicles on JFK Drive and Connector Streets in Golden Gate Park For Use as Recreational Open Space Measure (November 2022)
A "yes" vote supported upholding an ordinance adopted in May 2022 that provided for the closure of portions of John F. Kennedy Drive and certain connector streets in Golden Gate Park, known as JFK Promenade, to use the area as open recreation spaces.
"Yes" Recommended by

A "no" vote opposed upholding an ordinance adopted in May 2022 that provided for the closure of portions of John F. Kennedy Drive and certain connector streets in Golden Gate Park, known as JFK Promenade, to use the area as open recreation spaces
"no opinion"
Proposition LSan Francisco, California, Proposition L, Sales Tax Renewal for Transportation Projects Measure (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported continuing an existing one-half cent sales tax through 2053 for transportation project funding and allowing the Transportation Authority to issue up to $1.91 billion in bonds for transportation projects.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed continuing an existing one-half cent sales tax through 2053 for transportation project funding and allowing the Transportation Authority to issue up to $1.91 billion in bonds for transportation projects.
Proposition NSan Francisco, California, Proposition N, Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Measure (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported allowing the city to use public funds to acquire, operate, or subsidize public parking in the underground parking garage in Golden Gate Park; dissolves the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority and transfers management of the garage to the Recreation and Park Commission.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed allowing the city to use public funds to acquire, operate, or subsidize public parking in the underground parking garage in Golden Gate Park; dissolves the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority and transfers management of the garage to the Recreation and Park Commission.
"no opinion"
Proposition OSan Francisco, California, Proposition O, Additional Parcel Tax to Fund City College Student and Workforce Development Programs Initiative (November 2022)

 A "yes" vote supported levying a parcel tax at varying rates between $1504,000 per parcel, beginning on July 1, 2023 and ending on June 30, 2043, with funding appropriated to the City College of San Francisco for student and workforce development programs.
"Yes" Recommended by
A "no" vote opposed levying a parcel tax at varying rates between $1504,000 per parcel, beginning on July 1, 2023 and ending on June 30, 2043, with funding appropriated to the City College of San Francisco for student and workforce development programs.
"No" Recommended by
"no opinion"
Back to Top

Your vote matters!