Statewide Propositions

Analysis

Overall we can see that the murky and dishonest wording of many propositions led to few clear victories and defeats in the county. Nine of the twelve propositions were decided within 7%, while statewide this trend continued with ten of the twelve decided within 10%. The only two decisively clear decisions were prop 20 and 23 being voted down. Sonoma County voted nearly identically to the state on all propositions except prop 17, 20, and 22, where the county differed by more than 5%.

In specific, Prop 17 allows parolees to vote and to run for office barring certain restrictions. California voters approved this proposition however Sonoma County voters approved it by an additional margin of 8%, which is fantastic. Sonoma County truly did #votesonomastrong on this proposition.

Another #votesonomastrong success, Prop 20 was a huge handout to the prison industrial complex and would have worsened an already crisis-stricken system.  We are very pleased this proposition was voted down on the state level and humbled that our county voted an additional 8% against. 

Continuing the trend, Prop 22 was a corporate buyout of our election process and while Sonoma County voted in favor, it did so by a mere 0.17%.  This is encouraging given that it passed the state by 9%.  We are pleased to see that our county voters were better able to see through the corporate propaganda that plagued this proposition.  Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash paid more than 220 million dollars to pass this proposition, making it the most expensive in California history.

Local Measures

Analysis

Overall, Sonoma County voters feel confident in increasing and extending taxes across the board. This is odd and disconcerting in the current economic climate wherein many have no jobs, are housing unstable, and are increasing debt. It is highly likely we will see months of increased restrictions on activities, including possible lockdowns. In light of this political context, widely increasing regressive taxes (those that negatively affect the poor the most) seems unwise. We attribute this apparent overwhelming desire to increase taxes to the terrible wording of the measures in question.

Our two biggest items—measures O and P—overwhelmingly passed!  Measure P, which strengthens oversight of the Sheriff’s office, passed with a crushing 64.74% of the vote in favor and Measure O, which provides services to the unsheltered, passed with an even greater 68.07% in favor.  It is empowering to see our county vote at a near two to one margin for such important items. #votesonomastrong indeed.

We will assess the remaining measures as we broke them down in the guide.

In the guide we wrote that

Measures L, M, N, and AA levy a parcel tax for specific, measurable services such as education and fire prevention. We recommend YES on these measures as they have quantifiable goals and limits.

Voters agreed and all were passed, though this appears to be less a symptom of careful reading and more a broad tendency across the board.

Conversely, in the guide we wrote that

Measures Q, R, S, T, U, and V levy a variety of taxes (usually regressive—impacting the poor the most—such as sales tax) to be delivered to the general fund of the locality with no provisions on how said funds should be spent.  Many of these will become permanent taxes which do not expire.  We recommend NO on these measures as they have no quantifiable goals and limits.

Voters disagreed and voted for every tax increase. This is unsurprising given the wording of the measures and the fact that it took us, individuals dedicated to researching the facts, hours to locate the actual tax increases and the time periods (some are indefinite).

In the guide we wrote that

Measures BB and CC involve the sale of local hospitals. There is little good public information available for BB, so we offer no recommendation. CC, however, has vocal opposition from nurses unions (see here) and you can find a good write-up on the situation here, so we are recommending a NO vote on CC.

Both purchases of hospitals passed by over 80% which makes sense on the surface. After all, who wouldn’t want to expand healthcare options for our community? We hope to encourage better dialogue over such items in the future.

Local Elections: Schools

Analysis

Elections for local school boards are often overlooked, much to the detriment of students. Electing progressive individuals and expanding the representation of those in charge of local schools has profound impacts on learning environments. We are pleased to see that Sonoma County voters did overwhelmingly #votesonomastrong for these positions.

Local Elections: Cities

Analysis

This election offered many opportunities to increase representation in our local government and, on the whole, Sonoma County voters answered in favor. Bringing Eddie Alvarez, Natalie Rogers, Skylaer Palacios, Willy Linares, and Jackie Elward into local government is a major step forward for the county. While major publications such as the Press Democrat failed, or passed on the opportunity altogether, to endorse several of these individuals, we advocated strongly in their favor. In Windsor we saw newcomer Rosa Reynoza give establishment incumbent Dominic Foppoli an excellent campaign as she collected 32.42% of the vote to his 43.59%. The remaining races saw progressives win the majority of seats. We are very pleased to see this trend to #votesonomastrong.