2020 General Election in Alameda County: What I’m Voting For

As has become my habit, here are my votes for the 2020 general election, along with reasons and receipts. This will be a long post, so buckle up! (For the tl;dr version, please scroll to the bottom.) For my general overview reference point, please see https://progressivevotersguide.com/california/2020/general/county/alameda and the official Voter Information Guide for Alameda County. For the propositions on the ballot, I am combining my research with LAist.com, SF Gate, MotherJones, and a useful graphic available at https://i.redd.it/t7lqvp58wbr51.jpg. I am also considering individual guides like those by Taina Vargas-Edmond on Facebook. More specific citations are provided in each area. The order of appearance below matches the order of appearance on my ballot. Standard caveats: I have not received in fact or in promise any money from any candidate. I have not received in fact or in promise a vote for a specific interest that would benefit me financially or professionally. I have no financial interest, such as a business or investment, that would directly profit from any of the ballot propositions or measures. While the below represents my votes for the 2020 election, my support is not uncritical or unconditional. I reserve the right to modify and/or withdraw it at any time for any reasons with or without notice, based on any information or based on no information. Further, the reasons given below for my votes are not meant to be comprehensive and I do not guarantee their accuracy beyond that I believe they are true to the best of my knowledge at the time of this posting. Lastly, my opinion is solely my own and should not be misconstrued as the stance of any employer, group, or individual except to the extent that we share similar goals or values for our society.

For President and Vice President of the United States: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

Dreams of a multiparty system notwithstanding, this is the obvious choice for those who want America to not be actively on fire again. Biden, like many White male career politicians, has a deeply problematic history. However, he has improved on many issues, particularly since his time as President Obama’s VP. You can find a comprehensive list of his policies at https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/. Some useful highlights include: immigration – scaling back ICE operations, undoing family separation for asylum seekers, and ending for-profit detention centers; gun violence – banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, a gun buy-back program, mandatory background checks for all gun sales, and legislation to hold gun manufacturers accountable; criminal legal system – expand DOJ authority to address local law enforcement misconduct, eliminate mandatory minimums, decriminalize cannabis and expunge records for convictions based on its use, end cash bail, as well as utilizing evidence-based processes for eliminating racial disparities; climate – push for 100% clean energy by 2050, invest in green jobs and infrastructure, accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change; antisemitism – this is a personal one for me, condemning anti-Jewish hate wherever and whenever it appears, not encourage White domestic terrorists who want to kill me and my family, as well as reject BDS as much as illegal settlements in the West Bank to promote a 2SS. A note about Harris: her obviously difficult prosecutorial record notwithstanding, she is even more progressive than Biden and I’ve written extensively about her work (and am happy to direct you to it) as one of the first progressive prosecutors, as well as one of the most progressive legislators in the nation since she was elected to the Senate. Lastly, if you have any doubts about why voting for the lesser of two evils is not just a pragmatic choice, but a moral and ethical imperative, please refer to https://www.mcsweeneys.net/columns/reasons-why-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/01/yes-you-do-have-an-obligation-to-vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils-heres-why/. 

For U.S. Representative, 13th Congressional District: Barbara Lee

This should be obvious. While there really is no other option, even if there was I couldn’t imagine who could be remotely competitive. Congresswoman Lee has been a stalwart advocate for our district since she was first elected. She represents our values, our methods, and our needs. Her office is responsive to outreach and calls for help. I dare anyone to find something actually bad to say about her! But if you need receipts, then please view https://lee.house.gov/about/biography.

State Senator, 9th District: Nancy Skinner

Again, another obvious choice. Again, no other real choice. Again, I couldn’t imagine a more competitive candidate. Senator Skinner has championed local and statewide legislation to target longstanding inequities in our communities. On a personal note, she has done amazing work on improving our criminal legal system, particularly her work on improving California juries (something I work with every day at the Judicial Council), such as SB 310, AB 3070, SB 592, as well as a variety of other issues. For her receipts, please view https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/biography. 

State Assembly, 18th District: Rob Bonta

Once again, the best and only real choice here. We’re extremely fortunate to have incumbents like Assemblymember Bonta to represent our community at the state level. His work on ending for-profit prisons, supporting racial equity and justice, as well as his longstanding efforts to advance progressive causes speaks for itself. I will admit he has a tendency to overly favor law enforcement more than I personally like, yet he still supports restricting police use of force and has done great work to improve police accountability. Notably, he listens to his constituents – even when they push for policies he didn’t initially support – and is equally willing to be a leader when what we want is either not possible or not a good idea. For his receipts, please view https://a18.asmdc.org/biography.

For Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Judge Office #2: Elena Condes

This is a race I feel that I have particularly special insight on. Elena Condes has received support and endorsements from a wide range of people in the criminal legal system that I respect, admire, and/or have worked with in a professional capacity for years to some degree. (See https://www.elenacondesforjudge.com/endorsements.html.) That alone would be enough, but she also boasts an impressive list of accomplishments – serving as a Judge Pro Tem for Alameda County, the Executive Committee for Court Appointed Attorneys (see https://www.acbanet.org/committees/criminal-court-appointed-attorneys-program-caap-advisory-committee/ for their work in defending indigent people in Alameda County), president and treasurer for East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association for 20 years (!), and on the board of Woman Defenders (a professional organization of criminal defense attorneys). She is the first Latinx to run for a judgeship in Alameda County, and one of the few (but growing in number) lesbians of color in our court system. For her receipts, please view https://www.elenacondesforjudge.com/about.html.

For San Leandro Unified School District Governing Board Member, Area 5: Richard D. Chennault

While I was initially on the fence about this, I have since come to believe that Richard Chennault is the best possible choice (of the two available, admittedly) to serve in this position. While his opponent, incumbent Diana Prola, has a seemingly impressive history, it is also a history of stagnation and failure by a thousand little acts. Whether that is staggering raises to administrators instead of teachers or cuts to special education, Prola’s record has become indefensible for me in recent years. As a future SLUSD parent, I do not believe she represents the best interests for my children and I cannot support her. Conversely, I believe Richard Chennault will bring innovation and enthusiasm not burdened by conflicts of interest, as well as the support and endorsements of two other local candidates I’m also voting for in this election. He has stated he will work for term limits to trustees and direct area elections; those are the choices of someone not interested in power or political gain, to be sure. I believe he also has the understanding of how to make technology work for SLUSD students instead of sitting around as expensive showpieces while simultaneously pursuing racial equity that uplifts BIPOC students that are currently struggling in our elementary schools. For his receipts, please view http://www.chennault.net/.

For AC Transit District Director, At-Large: H.E. Christian (Chris) Peeples

I make this choice with reservations. AC Transit operations is not an area I have enough expertise or knowledge in yet. However, based on the work done by Peeples, he appears to have been a decent incumbent. While the promises made by his challengers, Victoria Fierce and Dollene C. Jones, sound great and their resumes are admittedly fairly impressive, I’m not sure they have the ability to actually deliver on their ideas during this difficult time. I should note that I’m also weighing endorsements by local unions and Democratic party officials for Peeples pretty heavily in this race. For receipts, please view https://votersedge.org/ca/en/election/2020-11-03/alameda-county/director-alameda-contra-costa-transit-district-at-large/h.e.-christian-%22chris%22-peeples.

For Eden Township Healthcare District Directors: Winny Knowles and Pam Russo

Again, I make these choices with reservations. There simply isn’t as much information about the specific, substantive differences between the candidates. That said, I believe Knowles and Russo have the experience, expertise, and combined support to do the job. Both have worked as career nurses. Russo has significant administration experience. Knowles has been a healthcare labor and patient advocate. Eden Township has faced a number of financial challenges and while the other candidates certainly have equally useful experience and expertise, I am not as confident that their values match with the unique needs for healthcare in our community during this extremely difficult time. For receipts, please view https://votersedge.org/ca/en/election/2020-11-03/alameda-county/director-eden-township-health-care-district.

For Proposition 14: Yes.

I understand that the ban on federal funding for stem cell research is long gone, which was what necessitated the creation of California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004. (The recipient of these funds allocated by this proposition.) However, I’m not confident that a federal ban couldn’t come back given recent changes to our federal court system. More importantly, publicly funded medical research has regularly been the genesis of the most historic advances in healthcare. For instance, a 2018 grant to UCSF resulted in part for a 2019 potential cure to severe combined immunodificiency (SCID). A 2017 grant to UCSD resulted in finding a pre-approved drug to help block the Zika virus. A 2011 grant to a clinical trial on spinal cord injuries led to a paralyzed high school student, Jake Javier, regaining function in his upper body. Admittedly, private corporations typically then capitalize on them in order to steal massive profits. Still, this proposition will support efforts develop medical therapies that could potentially save millions of people, particularly people in rural areas or from low-income populations. It’s also the kind of legislation that has something for everyone – from the public to special interests too. On balance, I believe the benefits outweigh the costs. To be clear though: there’s a lot under-the-hood of this proposition and I encourage people to read more about many of the specifics at https://capitolweekly.net/proposition-14-theres-much-much-more-than-meets-the-eye/, https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php, and https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-2020-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-15578295.php. 

For Proposition 15: Yes

There’s a lot of history behind the expensive fight over this measure on the ballot. Indeed, that history goes back to 1978’s Prop 13 and has a lot to do with big businesses avoiding taxes on the real worth of their properties. This rollback of that handout is overdue and sending that money towards our incredibly underfunded school system is exactly the kind of work we need to be doing. Shoot, during the kind of fiscal crisis we’re facing right now? It’s a no-brainer. For more information, please visit https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php.

For Proposition 16: Yes

This rolls back the ban on affirmative action. Another no-brainer. While diversity is only the start to undoing racial injustice in California, it’s definitely one of the most important steps we need to take. Notably, this doesn’t change the federal restrictions on quotas or points systems, but it would allow California to be more in line with other states on eliminating the type of color blindness that only entrenches inequity and inequality. We need fairer and more inclusive hiring decisions at every level – from college admissions to private industry. For more information, please visit https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php.

For Proposition 17: Yes

Restoring voting rights to people who have completed their term of incarceration? Obviously yes! Either we’re a democratic republic, or we aren’t. As many as 50,000 people would immediately be affected by this change to the California Constitution that would return their right to vote. Voter enfranchisement is not only the best choice for ensuring a representative government – it’s the only ethical choice if we believe in the rehabilitation and reintegration of people convicted of felonies. For more information, please visit https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php. 

For Proposition 18: Yes 

Speaking of voter enfranchisement, yes we need to allow 17-year-olds who will turn 18 by the date of the next general election to vote in primaries. There is no real good reason not to allow full participation in our society by the very people who we are preparing to become full legal members of it. For more information, please visit https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php.

For Proposition 19: No

Knowing the background behind Prop 15 is crucial for the background behind this proposition as well. It’s a sneaky combination of various measures on transferring property taxes for housing to new or replacement housing. The façade for this is allowing people who’ve lost their homes to wildfires or at risk for losing their homes to wildfires to be able to get rehoused more easily. The reality is that this is a cash-grab for old wealthy property owners that only exacerbates existing inequities while barely addressing the ones it’s meant to fix – the chokehold on housing, recovering loophole money for localities, and underfunded fire services. Notably, a similar measure failed back in 2018. For more information, please visit https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php.

For Proposition 20: No

No. Hell no. No no no no no. This whole measure is a lie wrapped in deceit and adorned with fabrication. Ostensibly this is supposed to ensure “nonviolent” offenders like domestic abusers, child traffickers, and date-rapists are not eligible for early release and to ensure that “wobbler” offenders have their DNA collected to assist law enforcement efforts. (“Wobbler” offenses are those that can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony; they are somewhat complex to discuss in context, but some background on them is available with a simple internet search.) In reality, those things are already happening, by and large; and when they aren’t, there are better mechanisms to address them because the reasons for those failures are due to systemic failures that Prop 20 doesn’t address. Indeed, this measure is merely an unnecessary expansion of the prison industrial complex and would enable an exponential increase in abuses of power by law enforcement. I actually know the people responsible for implementing many of the mechanics of this measure if it is approved and, not only would it cost tens of millions of dollars we don’t have, it would result in a “solution” searching for a problem. A “solution” at the expense of BIPOC, immigrants, as well as survivors of human trafficking and sexually-based crimes. I cannot emphasize strongly enough voting no on this. For more information, please visit https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Don-t-buy-the-tired-tough-on-15579876.php.

For Proposition 21: Yes

Allow local governments to choose whether to expand rent control to properties over 15 years old? Strengthening the options for communities to prevent homelessness and housing insecurity during a time of an historically overpriced market combined with the pressures of a new great depression as well as a global pandemic? This is an easy yes vote. Anyone telling you different is probably a landlord afraid of not being able to gouge their tenants, a politician in the pocket of big developers, or living under a rock in Mongolia. But seriously: this would allow local solutions to local housing problems that are desperately needed without hurting small property owners or unnecessarily restricting tax revenue. (Particularly in combination with other ballot initiatives!) For more information, please visit https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-10/yes-prop-21.

For Proposition 22: No

Sorry not sorry, but Uber and Lyft should not be allowed to bribe their way out of treating their workers fairly by classifying them as proper employees who are entitled to the benefits, sick leave, and other compensation they earn for these large-scale companies. For more information, please visit https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/09/prop22-uber-doordash/.

For Proposition 23: Yes

This is the latest in another salvo of the fight between dialysis corporations trying to literally siphon the most profits they can get and labor organizations advocating for workers as well as patients. This would ensure a physician is present onsite to assist, increase transparency for badly performing clinics, as well as ensure individuals are not discriminated against simply because they are poor. For more information, please visit https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php.

For Proposition 24: No

As much as I love the changes to improve privacy in this measure, the drawbacks are just not enough to overcome it. Yes, I want consumers to be able to request businesses to stop sharing their personal information, not just stop selling it. I want a new category of "sensitive personal information," including data like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, precise geolocation, health or biometric data, and Social Security number, that also allows consumers to restrict their use by businesses. Yes, I want to triple the penalties for violations of the law when it concerns people under the age of 16. Yes, I want to establish an agency tasked with enforcing these new privacy rules, using money from California's general fund. But I cannot support those, especially given the ongoing rollout of the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), when it comes with the drawbacks of allowing businesses to charge consumers more if they refuse to share their data in a “pay for privacy” scheme (as well as expanding business’ ability to refuse to delete certain consumer information). It alone would create tiered access for haves and have-nots that I just cannot support, despite the tempting changes this measure is offering in exchange. People should not be penalized for choosing their privacy by having their access restricted, network speeds slowed, and/or their costs for web-services and internet increased. For more information, please visit https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php.

For Proposition 25: Yes

This would effectively end cash bail in California. A system that has, for generations, allowed freedom for the rich and incarceration for the poor, regardless of criminality. No one should be stuck in jail awaiting trial merely because they’re too poor to afford bail. Indeed, this is precisely one of the major reasons so many are first entrapped by the criminal legal system and prison industrial complex in such a way that they are never able to escape. Notably, this proposition was crafted by bail bond companies, primarily the big corporate ones, to protect their profits at the expense of low-income, predominantly BIPOC communities. I understand that I’m going to catch flak from many progressives for this, but I think my unique insight into how pre-trial risk assessments in California are being developed and utilized gives me an understanding that many others may not have. I’ve worked with the analysts and courts responsible for testing pre-trial risk assessments and they are not, contrary to many fears, pure algorithms that are garbage-racism in and garbage-racism out. They consider a multitude of factors (e.g. their criminal history, their community ties, their age, what they’re charged with, where they live, where they work, where their family is, do they have kids, their medical history, etc.) that can be changed as needed, when needed, while allowing a more holistic picture of whether someone truly should be incarcerated or not pending their trial. (Note: technically, almost nobody should be in jail pending trial, but I’m setting that aside for the purpose of this discussion.) Judicial discretion is always required and there are a number of factors that go into the decision-making behind it, including creating frameworks that account for existing disparities that would otherwise see innocent or low-risk people left to rot behind bars. Additionally, there are other options besides just in-jail or not-in-jail! People can have house arrest, location monitoring, third-party custodianship, halfway housing, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and sex offender treatment, among many other options. Yes, I know that judges and prosecutors can be and are often racist. Yes, I understand that they can and will make wrong decisions about keeping people in or letting them out of incarceration before trial. I also know that they have already had the power to do that anyways under the current system while also siphoning the money from the people who can least afford it. Notably, we are not going to be able to make progress on abolishing the issues around the criminal legal system at the scale of California’s courts without taking a decisive first step like this. Whatever misgivings you have about this measure, the alternative has already proven to be too horrible to continue. Conversely, this proposed change would, at worst, allow us to react more quickly when people shouldn’t be in prison. At best, it would fundamentally alter how injustice is administered in our state and start a process where wealth doesn’t automatically determine your fate and where large corporations have less opportunities to profit off historically marginalized people. For more information, please view https://laist.com/elections/2020/props/your-guide-to-the-california-ballot-propositions-in-the-november-2020-election.php, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article246181895.html, https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/21/editorial-prop-25-cash-bail/, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/11/if-pre-trial-risk-assessment-tool-does-not-satisfy-these-criteria-it-needs-stay, https://www.kqed.org/news/11841209/proposition-25-would-end-cash-bail-so-why-are-some-progressive-groups-against-it, and https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/10/a-short-guide-to-californias-2020-ballot-initiatives/.

For Measure V:  Yes

As much as I want more money for the unincorporated areas of Alameda County, particularly during this economic crisis caused by the pandemic and blunders by the federal administration, this funding is not specifically earmarked for critically unfunded and/or underfunded social services. Indeed, I have serious concerns that this tax increase will predominantly fill the coffers of law enforcement rather than address the more pressing needs of poverty, homelessness, healthcare, climate change, education, as well as under and unemployment in our community. Additionally, the county has significant pension liabilities to cover, as well as the fact that this tax has been re-upped for about 28 years. That said, I have no proof to support my concerns at this time and so will vote yes for the measure with reservations in order to ensure we have sufficient revenue to cover countywide necessities. For more information, please visit https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/09/29/alameda-county-voters-to-consider-a-host-of-measures-in-november/ and https://www.kalw.org/post/alameda-county-measure-v-renewing-unincorporated-areas-utility-tax#stream/0. 

For Measure W: Yes

Again, my vote comes with reservations. In this case, sales taxes disproportionately burden lower-income people. However, this money will be earmarked for critical community and social services, specifically housing, homelessness, mental health, job training, and other safety net programs. The money will predominantly go towards seniors, veterans, and those experiencing housing insecurity. It also comes with annual audits and citizen oversight, per most such measures. So, I will support it. For more information, please visit https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/09/29/alameda-county-voters-to-consider-a-host-of-measures-in-november/ and https://www.kalw.org/post/alameda-county-measure-w-sales-tax-tackle-homelessness#stream/0.

For Measure VV: No

Do not be fooled by the ballot language here. After months of social justice work in San Leandro I have learned that the city has no intention of promising that this money will go to support the critical community services that residents are asking for during this time of a healthcare pandemic and economic crisis. Instead, most of this money would go to support local law enforcement, specifically the San Leandro Police Department (SLPD) in their continued misconduct — from the murder of Steven Taylor to the assault on Emerald Black, and a budget supporting far too many bad officers that has ballooned to over $42 million despite stagnant crime rates and abysmal clearance rates for the crimes that do occur. Moreover, for a former sundown town with a history of segregation and redlining, making home ownership even more expensive than it already is should not be where our priorities for generating revenue are focused. Indeed, our transfer tax is already 11th highest in the entire state of California! I cannot support new taxes until the city is ready to commit to managing our budget wisely, including using feedback from the newly created Budget Advisory Task Force to make reasonable cuts across the board, as well as listen to local activists and organizers for our residents that have been advocating investment in our values rather than our fears. For more information, please visit my blog at https://eunoiainsomnia.blogspot.com/, my posts on Nextdoor if you’re local, my posts on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/stowzje/ if you’re not local, as well as https://votersedge.org/ca/en/election/2020-11-03/alameda-county/city-of-san-leandro/measure/measure-vv. 

For San Leandro City Council, District 2: Bryan Azevedo

Vote Azevedo for your 1st choice! (Hernandez can be 5th.) After meeting with Bryan Azevedo and getting to learn more about him and his campaign, I can honestly say that he is the best choice for San Leandro during this difficult time. Bryan has invested years caring for our community, including food distribution programs, trash clean-up, and other community services. Bryan is not a career politician. He’s a union worker with deep roots in our city who wants to ensure our diverse community stays that way. Importantly, Bryan has shown a lot of growth in understanding that we cannot police our way out of social issues and that evidence-based programs are needed to resolve the conflicts we experience every day, especially for mental health issues, animal control, and domestic disturbances. Bryan has committed to rejecting campaign contributions and endorsements from the San Leandro Police Officers’ Association (SLPOA) as well as large developers, demonstrating his commitment to working and lower class residents rather than special interests. Lastly, Bryan has the support of the Alameda County Democratic Party, the California Democratic Party, the San Leandro Democratic Club, a range of local unions and businesses, Councilman Victor Aguilar, as well as civil rights attorney and activists Pamela Price. For more information on Bryan Azevedo, please visit https://bryanazevedo.com/ and https://www.facebook.com/jeromey.shafer, for his campaign manager’s page. (Jeromey is another good guy in San Leandro working to make things better!) Conversely, Bryan’s opponent has taken thousands of dollars from those same special interests in return for key votes to support their profits and economic goals. In fact, Ed Hernandez has tried to hijack social justice causes to elevate his profile, but his actions have shown a lack of courage, conviction, and even outright lies. Yes, Hernandez told myself and other local activists that he would reject money, endorsements, and support from law enforcement in this race. Instead, he has courted them desperately. Hernandez says he supports renters and low-income folks, but his voting record shows a commitment to large developers that will price people out of San Leandro. He capitulated to the SLPOA’s pressure by appointing a police officer to the Budget Advisory Task Force despite their conflict of interest and personal friendship while, at the same time, making an embarrassing attempt to keep a local business owner off of it due to an immature grudge. He has not supported a police oversight body. He has not supported rent control. He has not supported building more affordable housing. He has taken credit for projects that he was barely involved with even! When I spoke with Ed Hernandez about my concerns on these and many other issues, he gave me political spin, platitudes, or feigned ignorance, not to mention no apology for the lies he told previously. These same problems are partly why he lost key endorsements from local officials and organizations that usually back incumbents. While I am disappointed that this election race has become such an ugly contest, the blame for that lies with the incumbent, Ed Hernandez. So, I hope you all will join me in voting for Bryan Azevedo for San Leandro City Council, District 2!

For San Leandro City Council, District 4: Fred Simon

This is a race of challengers, not incumbents. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about Christopher Bammer to say anything good, neutral, or negative about him. That said, I can tell you that Fred Simon has proven himself a dedicated, competent, and effective public servant as a board member of the Oro Loma Sanitary District. Fred Simon understands the challenges and difficulties climate change poses to our city. He supports green infrastructure for green jobs to drive the type of economic development that benefits all of us while staying focused on those of us who need the most help. He understands that climate justice and racial justice are intrinsically linked, and he has committed to rejecting campaign contributions, support, or endorsements from law enforcement. Moreover, he will support police oversight, reform, as well as reasonable budgetary cuts. Lastly, Fred Simon has an impressive array of endorsements from local and statewide officials, including Assemblymember Bonta, the Alameda Democratic Party, and progressive San Leandro leaders. For more information, please visit https://votefredsimon.com/.

For San Leandro City Council, District 6: Write-In 

Incumbent Pete Ballew is running unopposed. However, there is every good reason to write-in your own name or that of a local social justice activist instead, such as Ginny Madsen. Ballew has been vehemently against accountability for police brutality, fraud, corruption, waste of public funds, and even murder. Ballew has rarely supported the needs of his constituents in favor of special interests and personal friends. His appointments to the Budget Advisory Task Force have included some of the most unqualified, unprofessional, and/or incompetent people in our city, including SLUSD Trustee Leo Sheridan who has misled people on social media about community issues and Ray Davis who can’t stop playing video games on his phone during budget meetings. Despite repeated outreach efforts to engage Ballew in a dialogue about the issues affecting San Leandro, he has refused even the bare minimum of understanding the problems we’re facing. Indeed, when I communicated with him via email, he was quite clear that he doesn’t need to care whether anyone supports him or feel the need to listen to anyone because he’s running unopposed. This is not the kind of person who should hold public office. But we already knew this — back in 2009 when Ballew was an SLPD Captain, he engaged in a disgusting act of discrimination and harassment to Simon Aguirre who was seeking justice in the death of his brother, Henry Aguirre. He has been part of the “old boys” club in San Leandro as far back as its history as a sundown town and has been known to make problematic comments in private about people’s race and gender, among other issues. His appointment to vice-mayor over the more qualified (soon-to-be former) Councilman Benny Lee is one of many instances when his connections overcame his incompetence. Another instance was when he failed to remember that he has the power to vote on resolutions regarding employment contracts with the city. There was also the time when he couldn’t even say “Black Lives Matter.” I cannot condemn Ballew strongly enough. Even though he will win by default, our city should send a message that his conduct is an affront to the very ideals of public service. For more information, check the city council meetings and minutes or feel free to contact me, read my blog, read my Facebook, read my Twitter, and definitely read https://casetext.com/case/aguirre-v-san-leandro-police-department.

This concludes my voting guide for the 2020 General Election for this Alameda County voter. These are my 2¢. Spend ‘em how you will.

Take note and take care.

Tl;Dr — Biden+Harris, Lee, Skinner, Bonta, Condes, Chennault, Peeples, Knowles+Russo, 14 Yes, 15 Yes, 16 Yes, 17 Yes, 18 Yes, 19 No, 20 No, 21 Yes, 22 No, 23 Yes, 24 No, 25 Yes, V Yes, W Yes, VV No, Azevedo, Simon, & Screw Ballew So Choose Write-In.