DAVIS, Calif. — Measure V gained ground in the latest Yolo County election update released just before 4 pm on Friday, but the proposed Village Farms development remains behind as election officials continue counting thousands of outstanding ballots.
On election night, Measure V trailed by 473 votes, receiving 5,275 votes in favor and 5,748 opposed. The latest update released Friday showed the measure with 6,343 votes in favor and 6,759 opposed, narrowing the deficit to 416 votes.
The change reflects a net gain of 57 votes for supporters of the measure.
Between election night and Friday’s update, election officials counted 2,079 additional ballots. Of those newly counted ballots, Measure V received 1,068 votes while opponents received 1,011 votes.
That means Measure V won the latest batch of ballots by a margin of 57 votes, or approximately 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent.
While that represents a positive development for supporters, the improvement was modest relative to the overall deficit.
The measure’s share of the vote increased from 47.85 percent on election night to 48.41 percent in Friday’s update. Opposition declined from 52.15 percent to 51.59 percent.
The key question now is how many ballots remain uncounted.
Local observers estimate that roughly 10,000 ballots were uncounted after election day. Based on that assumption, approximately 2,079 of those ballots have now been counted, leaving about 8,000 ballots still outstanding.
If that estimate proves accurate, Measure V would need to make up a 416-vote deficit using those remaining ballots.
The math is relatively straightforward.
With approximately 8,000 ballots left to count, Measure V would need at least 4,209 votes among those ballots to overcome the current deficit and finish ahead.
That translates to approximately 52.6 percent of the remaining vote.
Under that scenario, opponents would receive approximately 47.4 percent of the remaining ballots.
These numbers exceeds Measure V’s performance in the most recently counted ballots — albeit not by a huge margin.
While Measure V carried the latest batch, it did so with only 51.4 percent of the vote. If there are approximately 8,000 ballots remaining, supporters would need to improve upon that performance and capture about 52.6 percent of the outstanding ballots.
The amount of support required changes depending on the actual number of ballots remaining.
If only 6,000 ballots remain, Measure V would need roughly 53.5 percent of the vote.
If 10,000 ballots remain, the threshold falls to about 52.1 percent.
If 12,000 ballots remain, the required share drops further to approximately 51.7 percent.
As a result, the size and composition of the remaining ballot pool could prove decisive.
Historically, late-arriving ballots in California do not always mirror election-night returns. In some elections they trend more progressive and younger, while in others they closely resemble earlier voting patterns. Whether Measure V benefits from the remaining count will depend on who cast those outstanding ballots and when they were received.
For now, the latest numbers provide cautious optimism for supporters but do not fundamentally alter the race.
Measure V succeeded in reducing its deficit and won the most recently counted ballots. At the same time, it remains 416 votes behind and will likely need to perform better in the remaining ballots than it has thus far in the post-election count.
With thousands of ballots still believed to be outstanding, the outcome remains uncertain.
The next several updates from Yolo County election officials will determine whether Measure V’s gradual gains are sufficient to overcome the current deficit or whether opposition can maintain its narrow lead through the final count.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Let’s all hope the NO’s hang on.
Interesting that the new votes counted have flipped the judge’s race, with Ryan Davis now leading Ortiz by 300+ votes. It may be awhile before we have a firm answer for Measure V.
In a sense, it’s going to be anti-climatic if it’s confirmed that Village Farms lost.
Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of any celebratory feelings.
And of course – if the race actually changes, the opposite would be true (euphoria for the sprawl monkeys, and devastation for the farmland preservationists).
As for my own reaction, I’ve concluded that voters (in general) get what they deserve. And I’ve switched some of my focus elsewhere in regard to land preservation, at this point. Especially since many of the Measure V opponents support Willowgrove.
I’ve also been disappointed that some of the supporters kowtowed to the school district, and didn’t challenge the fake housing shortage claims.
By kowtowing, I’m referring to the argument that Village Farms wouldn’t bring very many young families into an expanded Davis, rather than telling the school district to stuff it. I’m not sure that the argument that was used was very effective in convincing anyone, though pointing to Willowgrove was probably effective.
The info I have received is that in Davis there were about 23,000 ballots cast which would mean roughly 10,000 remain
As written this morning: “ If 10,000 ballots remain, the threshold falls to about 52.1 percent.”
While the Davis Vanguard has posted some opposition view points regarding Village Farms , the overwhelming support of Village Farms has been bolstered by Mr. Greenwald’s consistent, fear mongering and lengthy screeds regarding a lack of a public school aged population , fear of State intervention and the assumption that Davis has an inherent “housing crisis “ drones on above the comments his project reposts. Today’s pep talk for development at any cost to his constituents was “MEASURE V NARROWS DEFICIT.” As if Yes on
Measure V was the Good Guy here. Of course the final tally will tell, but most
of us are pleased that the $20 to $1
CA$H ROOTS vs Grassroots campaign by the North Davis Land Company, LLC wasn’t able to buy off the opinion of our honest and well informed community. Plenty of blame to go around Mr. Greenwald including the majority (but not unanimous) recommendation of the
Planning commission, unanimous vote for a ballot measure by our City Council and a disappointing number of endorsements from
Past and present civic leaders, unions and local business owners. Having lived in Davis for over a decade before David Greenwald arrived and a quarter century before the inception of the Davis Vanguard I can understand he has an outsider’s perspective regarding the essential civic character of our unique city. Not sure I trust this outsider’s viewpoint on future development, but he is sure as heck going to use his “journalistic (extreme lower case) soap box” to attempt to shape the careless expansion of our small town.
Now I will wait to see if the two Ron’s are awake still. But my ultimate point here is that I find the entire Vanguard forum to be journalistically conflicted.
I found your comment amusing.
There is a key policy point I want to make here: you and I actually share a similar premise. We both believe Davis is unique and has characteristics worth preserving.
Where we disagree is over what threatens that character. You believe growth threatens Davis. I believe the current status quo and continued stagnation ultimately threaten Davis.
From my perspective, rising housing costs, declining school enrollment, an aging population, and the inability of many families, workers, and young people to live in Davis are already changing the city in significant ways. The question is not whether Davis will change, but what kind of change we are willing to accept.
You may see new housing as a threat to the Davis you value. I see the consequences of not building housing as a threat to many of the same qualities that have long made Davis a special place to live.
Reasonable people can disagree about that. But I think the real debate is about how best to preserve Davis, not whether Davis is worth preserving.
David, your comment “… as a threat to many of the same qualities that have long made Davis a special place to live” is at the 100,000 foot level, and as such can be seen by some readers as more of the “fear mongering” that he calls out in his comment. So I strongly encourage you to descend from that 100,000 foot level and share your thoughts about what those qualities that have long made Davis a special place to live are.
Matt – I think you’re missing the point. You seem to be treating “threat” and “fear” as inherently illegitimate. But public policy debates are often about competing fears of the future.
Both sides in this debate are concerned about the future of Davis. Opponents fear that growth will undermine the qualities that make Davis special. I fear that continued housing scarcity, declining school enrollment, and demographic stagnation will undermine many of those same qualities.
“We both believe Davis is unique and has characteristics worth preserving.”
And both of you are wrong. Davis is just another college town where over educated selfish nimby’s claim they are progressive while supporting policies that are exclusionary and reactionary.
As an unaligned outsider, I wanted to point out that at least Davis voters were given a say in this decision. Your neighbors in Solano County are facing the decision on the California Forever project, a proposed project with 100 times the population and 46 times the acreage – and under the current direction we will not have a say in whether to build an Oakland/ Minneapolis/ Tulsa/ Bakersfield sized city on the best preserved agricultural land and some of the most precious habitat in California. Although the scale of the two projects is vastly different, the debate shares similarities. The negative impacts (traffic, increased taxes to pay for infrastructure, increased city deficits, stretched public services, loss of farmland, perceived loss of identity, etc.) are obvious and certain. The potential benefits are vague and uncertain: California needs housing so ya gotta take one for the team. For us, it’s hard to see how putting 175,000 million+ dollar houses in an area distant from any infrastructure will make a dent in housing affordability, despite the Abundance Doctrine in fashion for the moment. In California 20% – 25% of new units are immediately snapped up by investors – who then will set rents. Again, at least you had a vote.
And don’t think for one second the right-minded thinkers in Davis don’t cherish our electoral ability to shape the size and characteristics of our city’s development. And, as you might imagine, we will fight tooth and nail to protect our representation through Measure J. California Forever is a formidable assault on the rural nature of Solano County. So sorry y’all have to struggle against a deceptive corporate juggernaut.