2024 Voting Recommendations

Many of you have requested assistance with navigating your ballot. This year, the Berkeley Democratic Club board (BDC) elected me as interim President to help with voter education. The board and I have interviewed candidates and measure proponents/opponents, pored over questionnaires, read the ballot statements, and debated our positions. You can view all endorsements here. Simply click the triangular icon next to each name or measure for more information.

Once I fulfill my responsibilities as BDC President, I can provide my insights on additional races, candidates, or measures that aren't mentioned below. For more details on local races, please visit www.berkeleydemocraticclub.com.

Local Races / Measures: For an in-depth look, check out the comprehensive endorsement guide for the Berkeley Democratic Club, available here.

The recommendations below are from the Berkeley Democratic Club:

US Congress, 12th District: Lateefah Simon
State Senator, 7th District: Jesse Arreguín
State Assemblymember, 14th District: Buffy Wicks
County Supervisor, 5th District: John Bauters
Rent Stabilization Board: Andy Kelley and Carole Marasovic
School Directors: Jen Corn and Laura Babitt
BART District 7: Victor Flores

Mayor of Berkeley: Adena Ishii (read the East Bay Times strong endorsement here).
City Council, District 2: Terry Taplin
City Council, District 3: Deborah Matthews
City Council, District 6: Brent Blackaby

Yes on Measure W (Homelessness prevention)
Yes on Measure X (Library Relief Act)
Yes on Measure Y (Parks and Waterfront Improvement)
Yes on Measure Z (Sugary Beverages Tax)
Yes on Measure AA (Gann Limit)
No on Measure BB (Rent Stabilization Amendments)
No on Measure EE (Inadequate Paving Measure with a big loophole)
Yes on Measure FF (Adequate Paving with Safety Improvements)
No on Measure GG (Poorly designed small business & nonprofit tax that could deal a death blow to Alta Bates, Berkeley Bowl, other small businesses, theaters, and nonprofits)
No on Measure HH (Unfunded HVAC mandate that would be catastrophic for the city and its residents. Read this opinion piece.)

**To read more about these measures and candidates, click here and on the triangular icon.**

The Berkeley Democratic Club didn't reach the endorsement threshold either in favor or opposed to the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price. However, you can view the video of our board interviewing proponents of the recall and video of District Attorney Pamela Price opposing the recall.

My other recommendations

United States President: Vote for Kamala Harris
United States Senate (both terms): Vote for Adam Schiff

California statewide ballot propositions:

Yes on Proposition 2 Improve public schools and community college facilities
Yes on Proposition 3 Enshrine same sex marriage into state constitution
Yes on Proposition 4 Respond to climate change
Yes on Proposition 5 Reduce bond threshold from 66.6% to 55%
Yes on Proposition 6 End involuntary servitude
Yes on Proposition 32 Raise the minimum wage to $18/hour
No on Proposition 33 Costa Hawkins repeal
Yes on Proposition 34 Ensure prescription drug revenues go towards direct patient care
Undecided on Proposition 35 Fund Medi-Cal Health Services at the ballot box
No on Proposition 36 which increases misdemeanor punishments.

Other City Races


School board: Ana Vasudeo


Yes on CC: Rent relief payments; does not apply to sitting tenants or tenancies prior to 11/5/2024.


I'm ambivalent about Measure DD: Factory farms aren't present in Berkeley, so this issue feels insignificant either way.


Key Citywide Races to Highlight


John Bauters for Alameda County Supervisor


First, my good friend John Bauters is running for the County Board of Supervisors. Having known John for almost a decade, I can attest to his tireless dedication, effective leadership, and genuine integrity. His experience as a homeless services outreach worker and an attorney for the homeless, alongside his impactful leadership on the Emeryville City Council, has led to a remarkable 79% reduction in homelessness since 2019. John is endorsed by the Berkeley Firefighters, Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and long-time outgoing Supervisor Keith Carson, and many, many more.

John is a gifted leader who delivers real results. For example, he won the Sierra Club's Visionary Award because he led the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in forcing refineries to dramatically reduce pollutants with a landmark vote to protect communities. In 2023 alone, as Mayor of Emeryville, he oversaw the creation of 89 affordable homes for very low- and low-income households—an achievement that even cities 20 times its size often struggle to accomplish. In contrast, his opponent's tenure on Oakland City Council has seen ineffective spending and misguided policies.

Berkeley deserves John’s proven leadership, financial expertise, and progressive vision to ensure our tax dollars ($4.5B!) effectively combat homelessness, mental health issues, and support our community. Honestly, you would be very lucky to have him as your representative.

John has several house parties in our neighborhood. Please let me know if you would like to go by emailing BautersRSVP@gmail.com.

Yes on FF/No on EE

Several people have reached out to me, confused about which street measure will actually maintain or improve our streets. The answer is Measure FF. Don’t be misled by false promises—an independent city report shows that Measure EE will significantly underperform in paving our streets and providing essential pedestrian improvements. In fact, the condition of our streets will deteriorate with Measure EE. Why would you support a tax that leads to worse streets?

While I welcome policy disagreements, I find it frustrating when campaigns misrepresent measures and well-meaning people are misled. For example, the Measure EE campaign claims it will "bring every street up to good condition," which is false. The pavement condition index (PCI) would actually drop to 54 which is classified as "poor" condition (p.14). Measure EE also states that it will fully fund sidewalks—this is also not true. Measure EE won't have enough money to cover the city's share, much less homeowners' share. The EE campaign also promises to eliminate homeowner contributions for sidewalks, but that can't happen either. Additionally, it wrongly accuses the FF campaign of lacking performance evaluations, which it certainly has (Section 7.11.050.B). 

I want to highlight my collaboration with City Auditor Jenny Wong in a recent op-ed urging voters to reject Measure EE. Jenny, who authored a nationally award-winning audit of Berkeley’s deteriorating streets, is one of the most knowledgeable experts on what is needed to improve our infrastructure. She offers a nonpartisan perspective on why Measure EE is problematic; it fails to deliver on its promises, resulting in further decline of street pavement and continued underfunding of sidewalks.

Key Facts About Measure FF:

  1. Strong Accountability Measures: Unlike FF, Measure EE contains a significant loophole that allows the City Council to reallocate existing paving funds and use the tax proceeds to fill budget gaps, which undermines its purpose. In contrast, Measure FF ensures that if the City Council does not maintain its current street funding, it cannot collect the tax—holding them accountable.
  2. Pavement Conditions: Measure FF guarantees that street pavement conditions will be maintained or improved. Measure EE, however, does not provide enough funding to improve pavement conditions.
  3. Unlocking Additional Funds: Measure FF will unlock access to regional, state, and federal funding to improve our streets. Measure EE's restrictive framework prevents the city from securing many of these matching funds due to its excessive limitations.
  4. Street Safety and Collaboration: Measure FF prioritizes traffic calming and street safety to reduce deaths and serious injuries. It aligns with existing pedestrian and bicycle plans and was developed in consultation with firefighters focused on evacuation routes, along with transportation experts who understand the Safe Routes to Schools program, ensuring a comprehensive approach to safety improvements.

That’s why I’m joining the nonpartisan City Auditor, Firefighters, the League of Women Voters, the Democratic Party, the Sierra Club, Berkeley Federation of Teachers, the Alameda Labor Council and many, many others in urging you to support the measure that will truly lead to street maintenance and improvements.

Vote Yes on FF and No on EE. Learn more here.



 

Adena Ishii for Berkeley Mayor

I am proud to endorse Adena Ishii for Mayor alongside State Senator Nancy Skinner and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks. The East Bay Times wrote a strong endorsement for Adena stating, "We were impressed by her temperament, desire to bridge compromises and recognition that the council needs to rein in its focus." Adena is the fresh leader Berkeley needs, focused on problem-solving and fostering collaboration. This year, two City Council members resigned, citing a broken and toxic local government. In contrast, Adena offers a new approach: lowering the temperature, fostering compromise, and uniting people around common-sense solutions.

As the youngest and first woman of color elected President of our local League of Women Voters, Adena strengthened democracy by increasing voter participation and advocating for policy-driven solutions. She will prioritize affordable housing, improve homeless shelters, invest in mental health services, and ensure our fire and police departments have the necessary resources to serve the community effectively.



Her opponents have troubling records as thoroughly documented in the East Bay Times, including votes to cut the police budget by 50% and resistance to essential public safety measures like license plate readers. Additionally, they have opposed reasonable initiatives for affordable housing and revitalizing Downtown, which are critical for our community’s future.

Ishii’s emphasis on practical, collaborative solutions will address Berkeley’s most pressing challenges and foster positive change in our city. Remember that it doesn't hurt your favored candidate to rank candidates below them. Please vote Adena #1.

Remember, ranking candidates below your favorite doesn’t hurt their chances. For instance, if you strongly prefer Candidate A, like Candidate B, and dislike Candidate C, you can rank Candidate A as your first choice, Candidate B as your second, and Candidate C as your third. If Candidate A is among the top two candidates, your votes for Candidates B and C won’t be reallocated. However, if Candidate A finishes third, your vote shifts to your second choice, Candidate B. This way, you prevent vote splitting while still making your preferences known.

State Propositions

Proposition 2

YES to improve public school and community college facilities.
Schools and community colleges depend on state and local bonds to fix school facilities, but many areas rely solely on state funding for these costs. This measure raises $10 billion for facility improvements—$8.5 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges. While some may criticize the funding formula as imperfect, we must remember not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A “yes” vote will help secure vital resources for our educational institutions. 

Proposition 3

YES to enshrine marriage equality into the California Constitution

In 2008, I worked tirelessly to defeat Proposition 8, a measure that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. While same-sex marriage is now legal across the United States, the California Constitution still reflects this painful chapter in our history. Voting for Proposition 3 is a crucial step to align this document with current laws. At the same time, I remain concerned about the potential for revisiting the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, similar to what we witnessed with Roe v. Wade. My family and I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 3 to protect and affirm marriage equality.

Proposition 4

YES to respond to climate change.
This measure would issue $10 billion in bonds to fund essential climate projects, prioritizing low-income and vulnerable communities. Prop 3 aims to improve drinking water, enhance protections against floods, droughts, and wildfires, safeguard natural lands and parks, and provide coastal protections against rising sea levels—all while supporting clean energy initiatives. Given that the state has scaled back its climate spending plan due to a deficit, we need to increase our investment in climate action.

Proposition 5

YES to listen to the majority of voters.
Proposition 5 lowers the threshold for passing bond measures from 66.6% to 55%. In the 1970s, a tax revolt made it more difficult for local governments to secure funding for affordable housing, infrastructure, and parks. For example, in March 2020, a county fire protection bond received 66% support but still failed. The current requirement of 66.6% makes it challenging to finance crucial projects like affordable housing and local infrastructure and parks improvements. A vote in favor of Prop 5 ensures that the majority's voices can be heard.

Proposition 6

YES to end involuntary servitude.
Ending forced labor in prisons is a moral obligation, regardless of an individual's status as a prisoner. Involuntary servitude is fundamentally wrong. Currently, the state constitution allows involuntary servitude only for those incarcerated, and inmates face punishment for refusal to work. Prisons should focus on rehabilitation—such as mental health treatment, vocational training, and education—preparing individuals for successful reentry into society, as most inmates will eventually be released. Ending forced labor in prisons will enhance public safety.

Proposition 32

YES to raise the minimum wage to $18/hour
Although Berkeley's minimum wage is higher than the rate proposed in Proposition 32, passing this measure is crucial for the 2 million workers across California who currently earn less than $18/hour. Cities with higher minimum wages would not be impacted, nor would healthcare and fast food workers who already benefit from state laws that guarantee higher wages. Supporting Proposition 32 would help lift the earnings of those who need it most.
 

Proposition 33

NO to repealing Costa Hawkins

After seeing another Costa Hawkins repeal appear on the California ballot for the third time, I believe this version is the worst yet. Legislating reasonable tenant protections is a more effective approach than ballot initiatives.

In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1482 (California Tenant Protection Act), which limits annual rent increases to 5% and requires a valid reason for eviction. Currently, Costa Hawkins sets certain boundaries on rent control, such as exempting single-family homes and newer buildings constructed after 1995, while allowing landlords to raise rents after tenants move out.

If Proposition 33 passes, Berkeley elected officials would gain more control over rent regulations. Even if you like that idea, this measure still has significant flaws. It does not provide special protections for renters; it simply prevents the state from intervening in any rent control measures. Alarmingly, some elected officials across the state have already announced plans to manipulate the law if it passes to skirt housing laws to address the housing crisis. In announcing his support, a Republican elected official in Huntington Beach expressed intentions to abuse this law to bypass affordable housing mandates.

Proposition 33 will worsen the housing crisis and fail to help renters. I urge you to join local Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in opposing Proposition 33. For more information, read more about it here and read the nonpartisan LAO report about helping low-income Californians afford housing.

In my previous endorsements, I didn’t delve into the specifics of why Prop 33 is problematic. Framing it simply as pro-rent control versus anti-rent control does a disservice to the nuances of the measure. As you may know, I’ve spoken across the country about addressing the affordability crisis and housing scarcity, giving me some insight into how this measure could hinder affordable housing goals. At the same time, I recognize the need for rent stability for Californians. Recently, I came across an excellent explanation that aligns with my views. Shane Phillips, a UCLA professor, housing expert, and author of Affordable City, outlines his reasons for voting no on Prop 33 here.

Proposition 34

YES to make health care providers use drug sale profits on direct patient care

This measure is complex and has significant backstory, but its underlying intent is crucial. Even though I'm in favor of this measure, make no mistake—this measure is targeted at Michael Weinstein at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

For context, federal law provides healthcare providers with discounted drug prices, allowing them to sell medications to insurers at a profit. This measure stipulates that if a healthcare organization spends $100 million on expenses unrelated to direct patient care and operates apartment buildings with over 500 health and safety violations, it must redirect its net drug sale revenue to patient care. This primarily impacts one organization—the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Supporters of this measure may have various motivations (such as disdain for Weinstein and AHF's lobbying for housing moratoriums and financing the various iterations of Prop 33), but I'm less concerned about the motivations of those opposing the AHF's policies. What truly disturbs me is that a healthcare provider can redirect profits from drug sales—intended to help disadvantaged, low-income, at-risk, and predominantly LGBTQIA+ patients—toward a personal political agenda. I find it deeply ironic that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation spends $300 million on state rent control measures while its tenants live in unsafe, substandard conditions.  Instead, I want to support the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's mission to prioritize patient care.

I recommend voting Yes on Prop 34.

Proposition 35

???

This ballot measure is the most complex one on the ballot, and interestingly, there's no funded opposition. I'm feeling conflicted about it and would appreciate your guidance! For those who might not be familiar, here’s my perspective.

Prop 35 aims to protect Medi-Cal, backed by a significant and impressive coalition except Governor Gavin Newsom. I strongly back Medi-Cal.  At first glance, I was swayed to support it because Medi-Cal urgently needs funding given the crisis in our healthcare system. With over 15 million people relying on Medi-Cal, improving access to healthcare is crucial. So, I initially leaned towards support—and I still likely will.

However, after digging deeper, I'm concerned about the low cap on tax collections on non Medi-Cal enrollees. There's a risk that the federal government could alter regulations, which might limit overall revenue. The San Francisco Chronicle  recommends opposing Prop 35, while the Sacramento Bee supports Prop 35. The nonpartisan California Budget and Policy Center also has an excellent write up. I’d love to hear your insights—I'm sure there are readers here with in-depth knowledge about MCOs and tax proceeds who can convince me!

Proposition 36

Not the solution to address crime and addiction. Vote NO. 

Public safety is a top priority for government, but I cannot support Proposition 36 as the answer to our current challenges.

In 2014, voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified certain theft and drug offenses as misdemeanors. Proposition 36 seeks to roll back some of these reforms by increasing penalties for theft and drug offenses, establishing treatment-focused courts, and introducing warnings for drug dealers about possible murder charges in overdose cases. While these measures might sound reasonable on the surface, they raise serious concerns upon closer examination.

One alarming element is the expansion of the "three strikes" rule, which could result in a three-year prison sentence for a third shoplifting offense. Additionally, if individuals fail to complete the proposed three years of court-mandated treatment—which is often a difficult process that may require multiple attempts—they could face harsh penalties. People struggling with addiction should not be treated as violent offenders. This punitive approach does not address the root causes of substance use disorders, and in fact, Proposition 36 cuts funding for evidence-based programs proven to treat addiction and prevent recidivism.

I am also deeply concerned about the disproportionate impact this measure will have on marginalized communities and the potential for it to worsen prison overcrowding. Proposition 36 would slash funding for critical rehabilitation programs, including mental health services, drug treatment, school truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services.

Despite claims to address retail theft, drug abuse, and homelessness, Proposition 36 offers no clear evidence that it will effectively tackle these issues. Serious crimes such as robbery, burglary, and grand theft already carry severe penalties under current law.

For these reasons, I urge a No vote on Proposition 36. Let's invest in solutions that genuinely reduce crime and help those in need without exacerbating our existing problems.

I recommend reading the LA Times editorial opposing Proposition 36 and the Legislative Analyst Office analysis of Proposition 36.

National Races

If you have made it this far, congratulations! You truly are a political junkie. If you are Democrat and understandably worried about democracy and women’s reproductive freedom, I encourage you to examine these House races and support where you can (credit: Dave Margulius).

I also encourage you to support these extremely competitive Senate races:

Thanks for bearing with me on this long email and thank you for voting!

Sincerely,
Lori
Retired Berkeley Councilmember and, more importantly, your neighbor