By Alan “Lorax” Hirsch
12th edition of our local Davis ballot, summarized to save you time.
Dear Neighbor,
This six-page flier’s goal is to save you time as you make your voting decisions. This is my 12th neighborhood flier.
I am not a candidate or a party, and I don’t work for any candidate. It is just me, with help from a neighbor, Victor Libet.
This flier flows from my longtime hobby of observing council and city commission meetings.
This time, the ballot is for 12 offices plus judge retention. There are 14 propositions, 12 state propositions and two local propositions: a Los Rios bond and Davis housing Proposition W.
I’ve done research, including interviewing many of the candidates, talking to campaign staff and talking to other council and DJUSD observers. I also have suggestions on where to get more information.
I suggest reading the local opinions and news articles at DavisVanguard.org and Davisite at www.Davisite.org. Sadly, The Enterprise doesn’t add much value, though CalMatters-authored articles are helpful on state races and propositions.
The League of Women Voters gives good summaries and pros and cons of propositions, but not who’s behind them and the spin in the arguments. The Blue Voter Guide does an excellent job here.
Contact me if you want a lawn sign.
This election, I think your focus should be items marked “?” — three propositions and three candidate races. My “progressive-biased” endorsements are in bold and indicated by an asterisk.
Alan “Lorax” Hirsch
1711 Redwood Lane
Alan@DavisLorax.org
Part 1: Candidates on the Tuesday, Nov. 3, Ballot
Use the “Blue Voter Guide” to check my work.
Don’t just trust me; check this universal ballot guide, useful everywhere. The guide will tell you who is for or against different propositions and candidates.
Plug in your address and see only what you are voting on: https://bluevoterguide.org/state/california.
Part 1A: Federal and State Races
My bias: If you believe Fox cable news or Newsmax are credible sources of news, my voter recommendations won’t be of much value to you. I read California GOP candidate descriptions of what is happening in our state, and it does not map with the reality I experience personally or read about.
These right-wing news organizations have little or no California staff to do fact-checking or independent reporting, but seem to cherry-pick reports from other media or even social media and then reframe or rewrite headlines to fit their preexisting narrative and create clickbait.
? U.S. House, District 4 — Most of Davis, North of Interstate 80
Eric Jones, Democrat, vs. Mike Thompson, Democratic incumbent.
This is a tough one. The reductionist take is that Thompson is an establishment Democrat who has not pushed progressive issues, while Eric Jones is a carpetbagger with Silicon Valley money and, despite his protests and statements, we can’t know who he is until he is in office and votes.
I think both are true. I view voting as a chess game, not a valentine, so I will vote for Jones, as he polled half of what Thompson did in the primary and is unlikely to win — but a large vote for him will send a message to the Democratic establishment.
The slimy mailers from the pro-Jones PAC out of Silicon Valley are troubling. I doubt the veracity of these mailers.
See the Davis Vanguard if you want to go into a discussion of the issues’ pros and cons. You can use an AI query to help summarize candidate positions by asking for a side-by-side comparison, but always click through to check sources and ask the AI questions two ways, as you’ll often get two different answers.
Governor
Xavier Becerra, Democrat, vs. Steve Hilton, Republican.
Lieutenant Governor
Fiona Mav, Democrat, current state treasurer and CPA*, vs. Gloria Romero, Republican.
Secretary of State
Shirley N. Weber, Democratic incumbent*, vs. Donald P. “Don” Wagner, Republican, Orange County supervisor.
Controller
Malia M. Cohen, Democratic incumbent*, vs. Herb W Morgan, Republican.
Treasurer
Eleni Kounalakis, Democrat, current lieutenant governor*, vs. Jennifer Hawks, Republican.
Attorney General
Rob Bonta, Democratic incumbent*, vs. Michael E. Gates, Republican, deputy U.S. attorney.
? Insurance Commissioner
Jane Kim, Democrat*, vs. Ben Allen, Democrat.
Both candidates seem to be progressive Democrats and have progressive endorsements, but have “stark differences” in their visions of maintaining the affordability — and availability — of home insurance due to the increased risk of wildfires.
Allen believes in incremental private-sector solutions through increased regulation, but prevention is based on each homeowner, pressured by insurers acting only on their own specific properties.
Kim believes the state should take an active role in providing catastrophic wildfire and flood insurance, as it does earthquake insurance, and then innovate by using some of the premium money to reduce the risk and scale of wildfires — instead of the current hit-or-miss tapping into the state general fund for prevention.
She notes this was done successfully in New Zealand. There are questions about the feasibility of each approach, and, of course, business interests line up with Allen.
There is an article in The Sacramento Bee from Sept. 21, or Google or ask AI about the California insurance commissioner’s race.
I recommend Kim, believing we are stronger together in reducing wildfire risk and costs, versus each homeowner dealing with their property. This is just like dealing with a pandemic: Your home can catch fire from our least careful or least protected neighbor, just as we can catch communicable diseases from unvaccinated strangers.
Member, State Board of Equalization, District 1
Shannon Grove, Republican, vs. Nelson Esparza, Democrat*.
State Assembly, District 4
Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry, Democratic incumbent.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Sonja Shaw vs. Richard Barrera*.
Sonja Shaw’s positions are in alignment with the right-wing Moms for Liberty, which school board candidate Beth Bourne, in District 4, heads locally. Shaw is endorsed by the GOP.
Part 1B: Local Candidate Races
West Davis: DJUSD School Board Trustee Area 1
Colleen Zern* or Dorte Jensen.
Dorte Jensen is a softer-spoken but persistent ally of one-issue candidate Beth Bourne; see DJUSD District 4. She does not seem to have a website or campaign team.
Colleen is an attorney and an adjunct at UC Davis. She has multiple endorsements from civic leaders.
? Central Davis: DJUSD School Board Trustee Area 3
Joe DiNunzio, incumbent*, or Kurt Wendlenner.
I spent six hours doing my due diligence researching this race, as both Joe and Kurt have substantial campaigns and resumes. This included two interviews with Joe and three with Kurt, a review of their webpages, conversations with teachers and other observers of board meetings, and a review of the written policy materials they provided me.
This reflects factual corrections I got from both candidates. I incorrectly stated that Patwin parents endorsed Joe when only Judy Ennis did; Patwin parents have not endorsed anyone.
But visit their websites and decide for yourself based on experience, endorsements and specifics. Our schools are too important to rely on your neighbor’s lawn sign, a half-sheet of campaign literature or a rhyming slogan.
I unpack my own side-by-side comparison below. If you read on, I think you will see why the choice is clear based on an objective comparison of Kurt versus Joe.
If Kurt were running against another board member, the calculus might be different.
Joe, the incumbent, is a professor of innovation at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management and previously served as senior vice president for new ventures at the Disney Company. Kurt was an attorney for the city of Sacramento’s youth programs and now works for the League of California Cities; this experience would be a valuable addition to the board, even if it is not education-related.
Joe is a teacher at the business school; Kurt lists no classroom or pedagogical experience on his website.
Kurt has served on the site council for Monarca Elementary School and on the Measure M Bond Oversight Committee. Joe has served two terms on the school board and, before that, spent 10 years volunteering on five districtwide parent advisory councils and two site-specific advisory groups.
He served five years at the Davis Schools Foundation — first on the board and then as its selected president. Joe’s connections to DJUSD’s more than 16 schools and their parent and teacher communities throughout the city are reflected in endorsements from across the city.
Kurt, as a newcomer, has more limited districtwide experience that seems to come from just one or maybe two of the six elementary schools in the district. His endorsements appear to come primarily from parents at Monarca School.
I have asked Kurt to update his website to identify the sites his endorsers are from when he uses their site titles.
I strongly encourage everyone to compare Joe’s and Kurt’s listed endorsements and experience, which are easily found on their respective websites, but I share this: Kurt lists the Bond Oversight Committee as his only district-level volunteer involvement.
Between 2019 and 2025, 10 individuals served on that committee alongside him. Five of those individuals have endorsed Joe, and only one has endorsed Kurt.
Kurt lists no teacher endorsements on his website as of today. Joe has teacher endorsements, as well as an endorsement from the Davis Teachers Association, the teachers’ union — especially notable as the union is currently at a salary impasse with the board.
Six people have told me that Kurt has been most publicly passionate about improving security on school campuses — proposals involving locking classroom doors at all times and how to fence school sites. However, he provided me with nothing in writing about his proposals, nor is there anything on his website.
This is strange, as I am told he wrote to the district multiple times on this. One hopes his campaign will clarify this in writing for the community.
I am making a public records request on what he proposed in the past.
Joe has a long record of service, so I am sure he or the district must have made many decisions others disagree with, but none of this surfaced in my work. Even Kurt’s website does not contain any specific, concrete policy changes he proposes for the district.
When I asked him for written examples — his past or future policy recommendations — he offered none.
One of Kurt’s themes is that he believes district staff need to include more stakeholders and experts in decision-making, but this was offered as a generality. My research identified more than 30 DJUSD parent advisory groups and a long list of experts the district consulted.
I was disappointed Kurt did not have a positive proposal in writing — say, a list of ideas for missing parent or expert advisory bodies.
Kurt specifically criticized the district’s decision-making process on the policy limiting cellphone use at school, saying experts were not consulted; this is not consistent with staff reports. He also offered no complaint about the final result.
Kurt calls for more “transparency” in his campaign literature and on his website, but he could not identify anything DJUSD has not shared with the public. He suggests the opposite of transparency is not opaqueness but “anecdotal decision making,” which he claims is happening.
This goes back to his process critique.
He suggests on his website that better financial management or lower administrative salaries might avoid closing a school, yet it is nonspecific about the amount of savings. Neither he nor anyone on his campaign offers any numbers, and it is too easy to just say “there is to much overhead.”
DJUSD once cut nonclassroom overhead by firing all the guidance counselors.
Kurt’s campaign slogan and core argument for his candidacy is “Parents not Politicians.” Considering Joe’s nearly three decades of volunteer service, framing him as a “politician” rather than an “involved parent” seems unfair given his more than two decades of volunteering for our city’s kids, including 10 years in youth sports, apart from a career with Disney and UC Davis.
School board members only receive a stipend of $1,200 a month.
Kurt is a nice guy, and I enjoyed meeting him, and being a challenger is a hard position, but he lacks specific ideas and experience with the many aspects of DJUSD that he should acquire if he wants to run again. Joe is an outstanding candidate whose breadth of experience I feel we don’t want to lose.
South Davis: DJUSD School Board Trustee Area 4
Elizabeth Moon, incumbent*, vs. Beth Bourne.
Ms. Bourne is the local head of the right-wing group Moms for Liberty. She has exercised her free speech rights hundreds of times in many forums and public gatherings to speak on just one issue: trans kids.
Though usually legal, most everyone finds her behavior disruptive of civil society. She allegedly has a large following on her social media, which she uses to intimidate others by recording people while holding her phone in their faces and asking them questions about trans people.
This has happened to me. This is so upsetting that people have taken the time and expense to obtain court orders restricting her behavior.
Davis City Council — Uncontested
West Davis, District 1: Judy Ennis is running unopposed; no election.
East Davis, District 4: Gloria Partida, incumbent, is running unopposed.
Judge Retention: Appellate District 3
Vote to retain all seven: Mesiwala, Renner, Feinberg, Earl, Eurie, Robie and Damrell.
Part 2: State and Local Ballot Measures — November 2026
I flag the three controversial propositions with “?” The League of Women Voters website does a good job summarizing arguments, but these often hide the spin you can derive from knowing who’s behind propositions and candidates.
Use the “Blue Voter Guide” to see who endorsed candidates and propositions: https://bluevoterguide.org/state/california.
Proposition 1 — $11.25 Billion Housing Bond
This bond measure would generate $11.25 billion for affordable housing. California needs a million affordable housing units for very low-income renters and another million for low-income renters.
This measure would subsidize 40,000 multifamily rental units and assist up to 40,000 households in buying homes.
Recommendation on Proposition 1: YES
Proposition 2 — Raise State Rainy Day Fund Ceiling From 10% to 20%
In good years, the state can squirrel away up to 10% of its general tax fund revenue into a rainy day fund. This money can be tapped in bad years when tax revenues are low.
This measure would raise the cap to 20%. The state should save more when it can.
Recommendation on Proposition 2: YES
Proposition 3 — Make 2012 Tax Rates for High-Income Californians Permanent
In 2012, voters passed Proposition 30, which set a 10.3% state income tax rate for single-filer Californians making more than $371,000 and 12.3% for those making more than $743,000. These rates will expire in 2031.
This measure would make those tax rates permanent. Eighty-nine percent of these revenues will go to fund K-12 schools.
Recommendation on Proposition 3: YES
Proposition 4 — Small-Donor Financing for Political Campaigns
This measure would allow local governments in California to establish public campaign funds for candidates. State and local governments would be able to organize grassroots fundraising by small donors and to match low-dollar donations with public funds — taxpayer money.
Since 2023, across the country, 14 states and 25 local governments have been doing this, and the sky has not fallen. This measure helps more candidates compete without seeking money from a few hundred megadonors, who currently outspend millions of ordinary Americans by 50% to 60% in every election.
It is a small step toward the comprehensive campaign finance reform that we desperately need.
Recommendation on Proposition 4: YES
Proposition 5 — Limit the Scope of a Recall
Currently, when a recall initiative is on the ballot, voters decide whether to recall the governor and, at the same time, who the next governor will be. This measure would separate these two votes.
The first vote would be the recall only. If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor will take over until the next election.
This measure seems highly partisan. Democrats support it because Republican challengers with no chance in a general election can use recall elections to get elected — because the successor candidate with the most votes becomes governor, even if they get much less than 51% of the vote.
Republicans oppose it because they believe it will weaken the recall tool. Logically, however, the measure makes sense.
The purpose of a recall is to remove a particular officeholder who has broken the law, abused their office or manifestly ignored the will of the people on a key issue. In other words, a recall is directed at an individual, not a political party.
Therefore, a recall of an individual should not be used to transfer power from one party to another.
Recommendation on Proposition 5: YES
? Proposition 37 — $25 Billion in Loans to Help New Homebuyers
This measure would authorize, not require, the California Housing Finance Agency to borrow $25 billion to lend to homebuyers. The state loans would cover up to 17% of the home’s purchase price.
Recommendation on Proposition 37: YES
Note: Indivisible CA is neutral.
Proposition 38 — $8.4 Billion Bond for Immunology Research
This bond measure would generate $8.4 billion to be spent on research into immunotherapies. Half the money would go to researchers in the University of California system.
This research may or may not lead to effective therapies licensed to private companies. If it does, 10% of licensing revenue will be used to pay the cost of the bond.
One-off, targeted borrowing is not the right way to finance scientific research, but since the Trump administration has recently frozen or defunded $3 billion worth of scientific research and is threatening to cut tens of billions more, this seems the best we can do.
Recommendation on Proposition 38: YES
Proposition 39 — Everyone Must Document Proof of Citizenship to Vote
This measure would require voters to show government-issued identification at the polls that proves citizenship. For the half of U.S. citizens who do not have passports, this will make voting burdensome, especially if you are a woman who changed your name when marrying.
Mail-in ballots would have to include the last four digits of the voter’s government ID, such as a driver’s license, which would then need verification.
Noncitizens rarely vote in U.S. elections, and the numbers are vanishingly small, according to studies, and proposition proponents offer no contrary evidence. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that less than 0.0001% of the votes cast around the country in the 2016 election were by noncitizens.
I have repeatedly asked Yolo County GOP tablers promoting Proposition 39 at the Davis Farmers Market for evidence of widespread voter fraud, and they have never provided any. You can ask them yourself!
The state of Louisiana has 2,873,116 registered voters, and the Louisiana secretary of state reported in 2025 that 390 noncitizens were registered to vote there.
This measure would inconvenience hundreds of thousands of Americans and discourage them from voting, delay election results and cost state and local governments millions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Recommendation on Proposition 39: NO
? Proposition 40 — One-Time Billionaire Tax
This measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the 200 or so billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, 2026. It would raise tens of billions of dollars over the next few years.
Ninety percent of the money would be spent on health care, particularly on enabling more people to keep their health insurance.
A one-off income tax on rich individuals is not the right way to finance government services and fix health care, but since there is zero chance of eliminating corporate tax breaks — 45% of California corporations pay only $800 per year — or instituting even a 0.1% financial transaction tax, this seems the best we can do.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Recommendation on Proposition 40: YES
Proposition 41 — State Auditor Review of Tax Proposals
This measure would require the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes on the ballot. If Proposition 41 receives more votes than Proposition 40, Proposition 40 will be nullified.
Proposition 41 is a device to defeat Proposition 40.
Recommendation on Proposition 41: NO
Proposition 42 — Ban on New Taxes on Personal Property
This measure would prohibit new state taxes on personal property. If Proposition 42 receives more votes than Proposition 40, Proposition 40 will be nullified.
Proposition 42 is a device to defeat Proposition 40.
Recommendation on Proposition 42: NO
Proposition 43 — Two-Thirds Majority Required to Pass Special Taxes
This measure would require a two-thirds vote, not a majority vote, to pass a special tax at the local level if that tax is proposed by a local voter, or citizen, initiative. The two-thirds rule already applies to special taxes proposed by local governments.
Since 2018, California cities and counties have been using voter-initiative special taxes, passed by votes of 51% to 58%, to raise funds for child care, community parks, affordable housing, services for the homeless and transportation.
Recommendation on Proposition 43: NO
Proposition 44 — Clinics Serving Low-Income Patients Must Spend 90% of Their Revenue on Patient Care
NO! This measure was defeated last year, and it is back.
It is the hobbyhorse of the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers, its only backer. It sets very rigid rules on an already heavily regulated nonprofit sector.
Recommendation on Proposition 44: NO
Proposition 45 — Accelerate Environmental Review of Construction Projects
This measure would amend the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, to speed up environmental review of construction projects. Environmental impact reports would have to be finished in 365 business days.
For projects deemed “essential,” such as housing, public comment periods would be limited.
Business organizations solidly support this measure, while environmental groups solidly oppose it. Is it a good idea to weaken CEQA and risk more harm to the environment due to less scrutiny of projects?
Anyway, environmental regulation and red tape are NOT the main reasons why developers are not building affordable housing. Rising construction costs and lower profit margins mean that developers have zero incentive to build affordable housing.
Recommendation on Proposition 45: NO
Los Rios Community College District Facilities Measure H Bond
Yes. I read the arguments against it and don’t see much meat.
My prejudice is that investing in education is always good. This is about rehabbing buildings as well as new vocational training facilities.
Trump’s cut to education requires us to step up. It requires 55% approval to pass.
Yolo County Measure X — Transient Occupancy Tax
This is a transient occupancy tax on short-term hotel and Airbnb stays in the unincorporated area of Yolo County, meaning outside of cities. No opposition arguments were filed.
All incorporated cities in Yolo County and elsewhere have a similar tax on hotel rentals, Airbnb and other accommodations, so it maintains a level playing field.
Yolo County has an agreement with cities not to zone land for tax-generating commercial or retail uses to avoid sprawl and loss of agricultural land, so this is an appropriate revenue measure.
Recommendation: YES
? City of Davis Measure W — New Greenfield Housing Development on East Covell
Develop a 232-acre parcel of land on East Covell Boulevard near Harper School to provide 1,250 residential units, high and low density, with parks. This is a project costing more than $600 million on the edge of town.
Why Yes on W: Good housing affordability. If not passed, state law may override Measure J/R in the future, and the city needs affordable housing for families with children to fill schools that may otherwise close.
Why No on W: The land-use plan and location are auto-oriented, not designed with transit use in mind. It is apartment buildings on the outskirts of town — dense sprawl: Everyone will drive, so it offers few climate change benefits.
Part 3: Voting Information — Davis
Tuesday, Nov. 3, is Election Day! But vote early by mail or drop off your ballot.
Everyone who is registered to vote should expect a barcoded, personalized official ballot between Oct. 5 and 12.
Mail-in voting: I urge you to mail your ballot earlier this year, nine calendar days before Election Day — by Oct. 26 — to ensure an acceptable postmark. Or you can wait in line at any post office and get a real-time date and time stamp to post your ballot through Nov. 3.
Better yet, drop it off at either a ballot drop box, beginning Oct. 6, or at a vote center by 8 p.m. on Election Day.
Ballot drop boxes: Available 14 or 24 hours a day from Oct. 6 until 8 p.m. Nov. 3.
Locations include Davis City Hall, available 24 hours; inside either of Davis’ Nugget Markets; or UC Davis’ Hunt Hall by the tennis courts, available 24 hours. There are other places throughout Yolo County, too!
Spoiled or misplaced ballot: Vote in person at one of the vote centers. They can even help you check if you have forgotten whether you have voted yet.
Register to vote: If you need to check your registration or register, you can go to https://RegisterToVote.ca.gov. Or visit the website of the Yolo County elections office.
The deadline to register online is Oct. 19. But if you miss that deadline, you can still vote if you do it in person: Go to a vote center, register in real time and vote provisionally, or go to county offices in Woodland until 8 p.m. Nov. 3.
Vote centers are open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., seven days a week, starting Oct. 24 or 30.
Vote centers: Open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on Election Day from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Go there to deliver a ballot, get help, or register at the last minute and vote provisionally.
Locations begin Oct. 24 at Veterans Memorial, or Saturday, Oct. 31, at Emerson School, the UC Davis ARC Ballroom or Montgomery Elementary.
If you lose your ballot or aren’t registered, you can request another ballot from the Yolo County Elections Office or, as a last resort, come to a vote center and vote provisionally.
If all else fails, call 530-666-8133 or go to www.yoloelections.org.
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
