Orange County · General election11 days to goregister by Oct 19

Orange County · General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026

What's on your ballot, Orange County.

Every measure and contest we hold for Orange County, in the official documents' own words: what each measure does, what it costs, what a YES and a NO mean where a card sets them out, and who is running. Nothing here tells you how to vote. Every item links to the official document it came from.

Oct 5

Vote-by-mail ballots mailed to every registered voter

Oct 5

Ballot drop boxes open, through 8pm on Election Day

Oct 19

Registration deadline (same-day registration after, at the county elections office or any vote center)

Oct 24

First vote centers open, 10am–6pm

Oct 31

All vote centers open, 10am–6pm through Nov 2

Nov 3

Election Day, 7am–8pm

Not sure how you lean? Three questions for each of the 14 statewide propositions, answered on your own device. A lean comes back — YES, NO or split — and it is yours, not ours.

Find where you stand

Ballot forShow one city or district

Other ballots: San Diego County · Los Angeles County · San Francisco · New York City · Washington, D.C. · Alexandria · Arlington County · Fairfax County · Loudoun County · Prince William County

By city

City measures

13 measures in 11 cities. Pick your city above to see only yours.

The Costa Mesa Fair Business License Reform, Small Business Protection Measure

City of Costa Mesa · Measure C

open

YESA “yes” vote would approve reforming the business license tax, leaving the tax unchanged for small businesses and establishing an updated rate for businesses earning over $500,000 annually, raising $4.6 million annually to support crime prevention, police and fire services, homelessness prevention, roads, sidewalks and parks and other general city services, and to help the City maintain fiscal stability.

NOA ”no” vote would leave the existing business license tax in place and maintain the existing $200 cap adopted in 1985.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesWithout taxing residents, shall the measure be adopted, updating Costa Mesa’s 41-year-old business license tax, ensuring large businesses pay their proportionate share and helping fund general city services including keeping public areas safe/clean; preventing crime/burglaries; addressing homelessness; maintaining Costa Mesa’s financial stability; revising the tax rate to 50¢ per $1,000 gross receipts, with no increase for small businesses; generating approximately $5,600,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring audits, spending disclosure, funds locally controlled?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Costa Mesa Measure C Measure C, known as “The Costa Mesa Fair Business License Reform, Small Business Protection Measure” (referred to herein as the “Measure”) would amend Section 9-25 of Chapter I of Article 9 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, which was originally adopted in 1985 and has remained unchanged in the 41 years since then. This tax is charged to businesses using city services, but not to residents. Small businesses, those making $500,000 or less, would not pay any more tax than they do currently. The Measure would update the business license tax for businesses making more than $500,000 annual gross receipts, up to a maximum amount of $15,000 per year for businesses earning $30 million per year or more.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–3)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–3 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Measure Directing the Use of Ranked Choice Voting for City Council Member and Mayoral Elections after January 1, 2028

City of Irvine · Measure D

open

YESA “Yes” vote is in favor of adopting the measure and transitioning to RCV elections after January 1, 2028, if the specified technical and financial conditions are met.

NOA “No” vote is against adopting the measure.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall a measure that directs, to the extent technically and financially feasible, the use of ranked choice voting for City Council Member and Mayoral Elections occurring after January 1, 2028, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Irvine Measure D City of Irvine Measure Directing the Use of Ranked Choice Voting for City Council Member and Mayoral Elections After January 1, 2028 The City Council of the City of Irvine has placed a measure before the voters that would amend the Irvine Municipal Code to use ranked choice voting (RCV) for City Council member and mayoral elections after January 1, 2028, if certain technical and financial conditions are satisfied. The City of Irvine (City) currently uses a plurality voting system for City Council member and mayoral elections. Under that system, voters vote for only one candidate and the person receiving the most votes wins the election even if they do not receive a majority of the votes. In RCV elections, voters rank their choices in order of preference, such as first, second, third, and so on. If no candidate wins a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots ranking that candidate are transferred to the next-ranked continuing candidate. This process repeats until one candidate secures a majority of the votes counted in that round. Under the proposed measure, the City would transition to RCV after January 1, 2028, once all of the following conditions are satisfied: The available voting equipment can feasibly accommodate RCV;

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–5)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 7 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–5 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

An Ordinance of the People of the City of Laguna Beach, California, Adding Section 2.04.080 to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code to Establish Term Limits for City Council Members

City of Laguna Beach · Measure E

open

YESA “yes” vote on Measure E will approve the establishment of City Council term limits as described above.

NOA “no” vote on Measure E will not approve the establishment of City Council term limits as described above and the City of Laguna Beach will continue not to have City Council term limits.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall an ordinance to amend the Laguna Beach Municipal Code by enacting a limit on consecutive years of service by members of the City Council to a combined total of two four-year consecutive terms, with the ability to again serve as a Councilmember after a lapse of service of at least two years, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Laguna Beach Measure E The City of Laguna Beach is governed by a five-member City Council whose members are elected by Laguna Beach voters to four-year terms of office. Currently, the City of Laguna Beach does not have term limits on elected City Council office. Measure E was placed on the ballot by a citizens’ initiative petition. On December 9, 2025, the City Council voted to place Measure E on the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election, in compliance with the California Elections Code. If approved by a majority of voters (50% +1), Measure E would add Section 2.04.080 to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code to establish term limits on City Council service. Measure E would provide that no person may serve more than two consecutive four-year terms as a Council Member. In the event a person is appointed or elected to fill a vacant City Council office for less than two years of a four-year term, that individual will be eligible to serve two consecutive four-year terms thereafter.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4

Read the measure · the official text (p. 2)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 2 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Lake Forest Election Reform and Voter Choice Measure

City of Lake Forest · Measure F

open

YESA “Yes” vote on Measure F will approve the Measure and prohibit City Council Members or the Mayor from serving more than two four-year terms without a four more consecutive years break in service.

NOA “No” vote on Measure F will not approve the Measure and will prohibit the City Council members or Mayor from serving more than two four-year terms.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall the measure limiting city council members to two consecutive terms in office with a mandatory four-year out of office period before being eligible to serve for another two consecutive terms in office, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Lake Forest Measure F Lake Forest Municipal Code Section 2.04.080 currently prohibits any person from serving as a Lake Forest City Council Member or Mayor for more than two four-year terms. The City’s current term limits have been in place since the passage of Measure S in 2018. Measure F amends Section 2.04.080 to prohibit any person from serving more than two four-year terms on the Lake Forest City Council unless he or she does not hold office for four or more consecutive years immediately following the conclusion of each consecutive two terms of office. After the required four-year break, a person may again serve up to two four-year terms. Each full City Council term is four years. Measure F was placed on the ballot by the Lake Forest City Council. If Measure F is approved, the new four-year break between consecutive four-year terms would apply to all new or re-elected City Council Members beginning with the 2026 election.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 2

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Read the measure · the official text (p. 2)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 2

Los Alamitos Hotel Tax (TOT Measure)

City of Los Alamitos · Measure G

open

YESA “yes” vote on Measure G is a vote to increase the TOT tax rate from 8% to 12%.

NOA “no” vote on Measure G is a vote to maintain the current TOT tax rate at 8%.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall the ordinance providing funding for City of Los Alamitos’ general services such as maintaining 911 emergency response and police services; providing neighborhood police patrols; maintaining parks; supporting youth, afterschool, and senior programs; repairing streets and potholes; by increasing the City of Los Alamitos’ transient occupancy tax, paid only by hotel/motel and short-term rental guests, from 8% to 12%, providing approximately $300,000 annually be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Los Alamitos Measure G The City of Los Alamitos (“City”) currently imposes a transient occupancy tax (“TOT”), also generally known as a “hotel” tax, at the rate of eight percent (8%) of rent paid by guests to occupy a hotel room or similar lodging. The TOT is imposed upon occupancy of a hotel room or similar lodging within the City for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days or less. The TOT currently provides approximately $600,000.00 annually to the General Fund to pay for general City services and programs. Measure G was placed on the ballot by the Los Alamitos City Council and, if approved by a majority of Los Alamitos voters, will amend the Los Alamitos Municipal Code to increase the TOT tax rate from eight percent (8%) to twelve percent (12%) of the rent paid by guests to occupy a hotel room or similar lodging. It is anticipated that this rate increase will generate an additional $300,000.00 in new revenues. Measure G would be a “general tax”.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–3)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–3 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

City of Newport Beach General Plan – Amendment

City of Newport Beach · Measure H

open

YESA “YES” vote is a vote in favor of the amending the General Plan.

NOA “NO” vote is a vote against amending the General Plan.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall the measure to amend the City of Newport Beach’s General Plan Land Use Element allowing 2,900 new affordable housing units (2,160 reserved for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households; and 740 for moderate-income households) with densities of 20 - 50 dwelling units per acre, plus State of California allowed housing density bonuses, in Dover/Westcliff (174), Newport Center (870), West Newport Mesa (406), Airport Area (929), and Coyote Canyon (521), be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Newport Beach Measure H State law requires the City of Newport Beach to maintain a Housing Element identifying adequate sites to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation by income category. If adopted, this measure would amend the City’s General Plan (Policy LU 4.4) to impose limits and affordability requirements for up to 2,900 dwelling units within five housing opportunity areas. Of those units, 2,160 would be reserved for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households, with the remainder designated for moderate-income households. The measure also establishes a density range of 20 to 50 units per gross acre, plus any additional density permitted by state law, which may affect how residential development is distributed among sites. State housing law requires local governments to identify and address governmental constraints to housing development and to maintain sufficient capacity to meet housing obligations by income category. The measure’s affordability requirements and development limitations could constrain the City’s ability to satisfy these obligations.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–5)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

City of Orange Public Safety/Essential Services Measure

City of Orange · Measure I

open

YESA “Yes” vote on Measure I authorizes the City to establish the one percent (1.0%) general transactions and use tax for thirteen (13) years.

NOA “No” vote on Measure I does not authorize the City to establish the one percent (1.0%) general transactions and use tax.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesTo maintain City of Orange’s quality of life, such as 9-1-1 response; maintaining police/fire protection; preventing crimes/thefts; retaining/attracting well-trained police officers/firefighters; keeping public parks safe/clean; addressing homelessness; wildfire protection/prevention; repairing streets/potholes; critical infrastructure improvements; shall a measure establishing a 1¢ sales tax, providing approximately $37,000,000 annually for general revenue/government purposes, expiring after 13 years, with independent oversight committee, all funds benefiting Orange residents, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Orange Measure I The City Council of the City of Orange is submitting Measure I to the voters for consideration at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election. If approved by a majority of the voters, Measure I would add Chapter 3.23 to the Orange Municipal Code to establish a one percent (1.0%) general transactions and use tax, commonly referred to as a local sales tax, to generate general revenues for the City. The tax would be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in accordance with California law. The proposed tax generally would apply to taxable retail sales and purchases, as provided under California law. The tax generally would not apply to purchases exempt from state sales and use taxes, including most groceries, prescription medicines, medical services, and certain other exempt transactions. The tax would be collected at the same time and in the same manner as existing state and local sales and use taxes.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 7

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–5)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 8 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 7 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–5 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6

City of Orange Hotel Guest Tax Modification Measure

City of Orange · Measure J

open

YESA “Yes” vote on Measure J authorizes the City to amend the Transient Occupancy Tax by increasing the tax rate from 10 percent to 14 percent for hotels with eleven (11) or more accommodations, applying the tax online and other travel companies, and updating the tax to apply to the full amount charged to hotel guests, as provided in the ordinance.

NOA “No” vote on Measure J does not authorize those changes to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall the measure updating the City of Orange’s existing Transient Occupancy Tax, a tax on persons occupying hotel rooms by increasing the tax rate from 10% to 14% for hotels with 11 or more rooms and applying the tax to online and other travel companies, generating approximately $3,000,000 annually for general City purposes including police, fire and emergency response, parks, and street and infrastructure maintenance, until ended by voters, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Orange Measure J The City Council of the City of Orange is submitting Measure J to the voters for consideration at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election. If approved by a majority of the voters, Measure J would amend Chapter 5.16 of the Orange Municipal Code to update the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”), commonly referred to as the hotel guest tax. The TOT is imposed on the occupancy of hotel accommodations and is paid by hotel guests rather than by hotel operators. The ordinance would continue to require operators to collect and remit the tax to the City. The measure would increase the TOT rate from 10 percent to 14 percent for hotels with eleven (11) or more accommodations. Hotels with ten (10) or fewer accommodations would continue to be subject to the existing 10 percent tax rate.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–5)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–5 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

Proposed Charter for the City of Orange

City of Orange · Measure K

open

YESA “Yes” vote on Measure K approves the proposed Charter and authorizes the City of Orange to become a charter city.

NOA “No” vote on Measure K rejects the proposed Charter, and the City of Orange would remain a general law city governed by existing state law.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall the proposed Charter for the City of Orange, establishing the City as a charter city under the California Constitution and providing the City’s governing document for municipal affairs, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Orange Measure K The City Council of the City of Orange is submitting Measure K to the voters for consideration at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election. If approved by a majority of the voters, Measure K would adopt the proposed Charter for the City of Orange, changing the City from a general law city to a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution. The Charter would become the City’s governing document upon voter approval and filing with the California Secretary of State. As a general law city, Orange is governed primarily by state law. As a charter city, Orange would continue to be subject to the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and state law on matters of statewide concern, but would have authority over municipal affairs. The proposed Charter would retain the City’s Council-Manager form of government and continue governance by an elected Mayor and City Council. It would establish lifetime term limits of two four-year terms for Mayor and three four-year terms for Council Members. These term limits would apply prospectively and would not count terms served before the Charter becomes effective.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 7

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 8

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–6)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 9 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 8 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–6 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 7

Placentia Hotel Tax Measure

City of Placentia · Measure L

open

YESA YES vote approves the ordinance increasing the rate of the Hotel Tax to 14%.

NOA NO vote rejects the ordinance, and would leave the Hotel Tax at 10%.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall the measure increasing the rate of the City of Placentia’s existing transient occupancy tax (hotel tax), paid only by hotel guests, to 14%, funding city services such as police patrols, fire protection, 911 response, and road repairs; requiring citizen oversight and annual audits, generating about $715,000 annually, until ended by voters, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Placentia Measure L The City of Placentia currently imposes a 10% transient occupancy tax on transients (hotel guests) who occupy a hotel room for 30 consecutive days or less. This tax is commonly referred to as the City’s “Hotel Tax.” It is collected by the hotel operator (or their agent) from the guest based on the “rent” charged for lodging. The hotel operator then remits the collected tax to the City. For purposes of the Hotel Tax, “hotel” is broadly defined to include “any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes.” Thus, short-term rentals of homes or of rooms in homes would be subject to the tax. Proceeds of the Hotel Tax are deposited in the general fund and available for any lawful municipal purpose. Examples of services funded through the general fund include neighborhood police patrols, fire protection, 911 response, and road repairs. The City’s accounts, including the general fund, are audited annually by an independent auditor. Measure L seeks voter approval of an ordinance that increases the rate of the Hotel Tax to 14%.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4

Read the measure · the official text (p. 2)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 2 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

San Clemente Natural Hazards Sales Tax Citizens Initiative

City of San Clemente · Measure M

open

YESA “Yes” vote is a vote in favor of the tax.

NOA “No” vote is a vote against the tax.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesShall the measure establishing two funds dedicated to protecting San Clemente from natural hazards of beach erosion and fires and a 1% sales tax increase, providing approximately $15,000,000 annually for 10 years, requiring public spending disclosure, independent audits, all funds used locally for specified purposes only, including sand replenishment/ nourishment/ retention, beach erosion control, maintaining/ restoring beach access/ water quality and supporting fire protection/ prevention programs/ services, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of San Clemente Measure M A petition signed by the requisite number of San Clemente voters placed Measure M on the ballot for voters to decide whether a 1% transactions and use tax (commonly known as “sales tax”) should be added to retail sales prices (or 1 cent for an item that costs one dollar). Because this measure legally restricts the use of revenue to specific purposes, it is a “special tax”. Half the proceeds must be deposited into a new City “Beach Protection Fund” and expenditures must directly relate to: (1) sand replenishment, nourishment or retention projects; (2) beach erosion control measures; (3) maintenance, repair or improvement of the Beach Trail, public beach access points, pedestrian bridges, the Pier or beachfront restrooms; or (4) beach water quality protection measures. At least 70% of total Beach Protection Fund expenditures must be for items (1) and (2) above.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 9

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 10

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–9)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 11 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 10 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–9 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 9

Santa Ana Streets, Public Safety, Essential City Services Measure

City of Santa Ana · Measure N

open

YESA “YES” vote on the measure is a vote in favor of continuing a local transactions and use tax in the City of Santa Ana at the current rate of one and one half (1.5) cents without a rate reduction or sunset provision to fund general city services until ended by the voters.

NOA “NO” vote on the measure is a vote against removing the rate reduction from one and one half (1.5) cents to one (1) cent scheduled to occur on April 1, 2029 and against removing the sunset provision which would end the transactions and use tax on April 1, 2039.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesTo maintain city services, such as fixing potholes; keeping streets, sidewalks, parks, and playgrounds safe and clean; removing graffiti and litter; providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response, shall City of Santa Ana’s ordinance be amended to maintain the 1.5 cent sales tax without sunset providing approximately $84,000,000 annually for services until ended by voters, with independent audits, resident oversight, and all money locally controlled?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Santa Ana Measure N Measure N titled the “Santa Ana Streets, Public Safety, Essential City Services Measure” was placed on the ballot by a vote of the Santa Ana City Council. It seeks to indefinitely continue the existing sales tax past 2039, by removing both the sunset provision and the 2029 reduction, as originally contained in Article VII of Chapter 35 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. In 2018, Santa Ana’s voters enacted an ordinance creating a 20-year local transactions and use tax in at a rate of one and one half (1.5) cents, until March 31, 2029 with a reduction to one (1) cent until March 31, 2039, to fund general city services.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4

Read the measure · the official text (p. 2)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 2 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Westminster City Services Measure

City of Westminster · Measure O

open

YESA YES vote is a vote to increase the rate of the Hotel Tax to 12%.

NOA NO vote is a vote to not increase the rate of the Hotel Tax.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesTo fund general city services such as fire, paramedic, police, 911 emergency response, disaster preparedness, keeping public areas safe/clean; addressing homelessness; maintaining parks, and addressing speeding/unsafe driving; shall the measure increasing Westminster’s tax paid by hotel/motel guests (transient occupancy tax), from 8% to 12%, providing approximately $452,000 annually in new funds until ended by voters, requiring audits, spending disclosures, funds controlled locally, be adopted?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis City of Westminster Measure O The City of Westminster currently imposes an 8% transient occupancy tax on transients (hotel/motel guests) who occupy a hotel in Westminster for 30 consecutive days or less. This tax is commonly referred to as the City’s “hotel tax.” Measure O is an ordinance that increases the rate of the hotel tax to 12%. The hotel tax is collected by the hotel operator (or their agent) from guests based on the rent charged by the hotel operator. The hotel operator then remits the collected taxes to the City. Proceeds of the hotel tax are deposited in the City’s general fund and available for any lawful municipal purpose. The City Council has identified the following as examples of services funded though the general fund: fire, paramedic, police, 911 emergency response; disaster preparedness; keeping public areas safe/clean; addressing homelessness; maintaining parks; and addressing speeding/unsafe driving. Proceeds of the tax must be audited annually by an independent certified public accountant, and the report of that audit is a public record. Measure O does not change the definitions that currently apply to the hotel tax.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

The official documents record that no argument for and none against was filed.

Read the measure · the official text (p. 2)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 2 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 3

By school district

School and college measures

2 measures in 2 districts. Your sample ballot is the final word on which are yours.

Bond Measure

Laguna Beach Unified School District · Measure A

open

YESA “YES” vote is a vote in favor of authorizing the District to issue and sell up to $83,000,000 in general obligation bonds.

NOA “NO” vote is a vote against authorizing the District to issue and sell up to $83,000,000 in general obligation bonds.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesTo repair and upgrade aging classrooms, science labs, career technology and school facilities to support college/career readiness in math, science, technology, arts, engineering, and skilled trades; and fix deteriorating roofs, plumbing, and electrical systems; shall Laguna Beach Unified School District’s measure be adopted authorizing $83 million in bonds at legal rates (without increasing current tax rates), levying $8.85 per $100,000 assessed value ($5 million annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits, citizen oversight, all money locally controlled?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis Laguna Beach Unified School District Measure A This measure was placed on the ballot by the governing board (“Board”) of the Laguna Beach Unified School District (“District”). This measure, if approved by 55 percent of the votes cast on the measure, will authorize the District to issue and sell up to $83,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The sale of these bonds by the District represents a debt of the District. Voter approval of this measure will also authorize an annual tax to be levied on taxable property in the District to generate revenue to pay principal and interest on the bonds. The District’s stated best estimate in its tax rate statement of the average annual tax rate required to fund the bonds is $8.68 per $100,000 of assessed value. The final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is fiscal year 2056-57. The best estimate of the total debt service, including principal and interest, required to be repaid if all bonds are issued and sold is $157,260,047.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

Passes with

55% of the votes

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–4)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–4 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

Classroom Repair, School Safety/Security, Quality Education Improvement Measure

Westminster School District · Measure B

open

YESA “YES” vote is a vote in favor of authorizing the District to issue and sell up to $128,000,000 in general obligation bonds.

NOA “NO” vote is a vote against authorizing the District to issue and sell up to $128,000,000 in general obligation bonds.

The Registrar's words · Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What it doesTo provide safe, modern schools by repairing, upgrading and equipping aging classrooms, labs, instructional technology, and school facilities to support student achievement in math, science, technology, arts and engineering, fixing deteriorated roofs, plumbing, HVAC, electrical systems and improving school safety/security systems, shall Westminster School District’s measure authorizing $128,000,000 in bonds at legal rates be adopted, levying $30 per $100,000 assessed value ($8,000,000 annually) while bonds are outstanding, with citizen oversight, independent audits, all money locally- controlled?

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1

What changesImpartial Analysis Westminster School District Measure B This measure was placed on the ballot by the governing board (“Board”) of the Westminster School District (“District”). This measure, if approved by 55 percent of the votes cast on the measure, will authorize the District to issue and sell up to $128,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The sale of these bonds by the District represents a debt of the District. Voter approval of this measure will also authorize an annual tax to be levied on taxable property in the District to generate revenue to pay principal and interest on the bonds.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5

Tax rateThe best estimate of the average annual tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue over the entire duration of the bond debt service, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is $30.00 per $100,000 (3.0¢ per $100) of assessed valuation.

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4

Passes with

55% of the votes

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 2–4)

Title: Orange County Registrar of Voters

Sources: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 6 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 1 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, pp. 2–4 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 5 · Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 4

Statewide · everyone in California

State propositions

14 propositions, each in the Secretary of State's Official Voter Information Guide's own words, cited to its page.

Authorizes bonds for housing affordability programs.

State of California · Proposition 1

open

A YES vote meansThe state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.

A NO vote meansThe state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5

What it doesAuthorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including for California veterans, and to finance housing development projects seeking federal tax credits. Allocates funds:

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 14

TodayPublic Sector Funds Some Home Building. In most years, about 100,000 houses and apartments are built in California. Most of these housing units are built entirely with private dollars. Some, however, receive financial help from federal, state, or local governments. In the case of housing funded by the state, the state government generally provides local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private developers with grants or low-cost loans to fund a portion of the housing units’ construction costs. Typically, housing built with these funds must be sold or rented to Californians with low incomes.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 14–17

What changesNew General Obligation Bond for Housing. Proposition 1 allows the state to sell $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for housing purposes. This amount consists of (1) a $10 billion bond for a variety of state housing programs that would be repaid by the General Fund and (2) a $1.25 billion bond that would be repaid by veterans’ payments on their home loans. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons. For more information on the state’s General Fund-supported bonds, please see “Overview of State Bond Debt” later in this guide.) State Housing Programs.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 14–17

Fiscal effectIncreased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 14

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForUS Vets; CA Federation of Teachers; Self-Help for the Elderly; Habitat for Humanity CA; CA Alliance of Child & Family Services

AgainstNone submitted

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 100–105)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 19 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 18 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 14 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 100–105 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 14–17 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5

Not sure? Three questions on 1 — find where you stand

Increases state’s rainy day fund.

State of California · Proposition 2

open

A YES vote meansRules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. As a result, state budget reserves would be higher. The state also would be required to make extra debt payments for longer.

A NO vote meansRules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5

What it doesIncreases California’s Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns. Doubles the budget reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, requiring savings until Fund’s balance equals 20% of General Fund.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 20

TodayHow Does the State Spend Its Money? This year, the state plans to spend about $250 billion from the General Fund to pay for services to the public. The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services. About half of this spending is for schools, community colleges, and the state’s public universities.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 20–23

What changesSave More in the Rainy Day Fund. Proposition 2 requires the state to make deposits into the rainy day fund until it reaches 20 percent of General Fund taxes (instead of 10 percent of General Fund taxes). In addition, the state would make even larger deposits in years when revenues from taxes on investment gains are very high, like when the stock market is booming. Extend and Expand Extra Debt Payments. Proposition 2 also requires the state to make extra debt payments through 2040 (instead of through 2030). These debt payments would be the same as the amount initially deposited into the rainy day fund each year.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 20–23

Fiscal effect

State budget reserves would be higher.

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForCA Professional Firefighters; LA Chamber of Commerce; Gavin Newsom; Xavier Becerra; Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel

AgainstNone submitted

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 106–109)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 25 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 24 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 20 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 106–109 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 20–23 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5

Not sure? Three questions on 2 — find where you stand

Provides permanent funding for schools and health care by extending existing tax on high incomes.

State of California · Proposition 3

open

A YES vote meansAn income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.

A NO vote meansAn income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6

What it doesMakes permanent the existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates for high- income Californians, currently set to expire in 2031. Rates apply to income over about $371,000 for single filers, $742,000 for joint filers, and $505,000 for heads of household (2025 levels; adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues 89% to K–12 schools, 11% to community colleges.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 26

TodayMost State Money Comes From the Income Tax. The income tax is the state’s largest tax. It pays for most spending from the state’s main operating account, the General Fund. The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 26–27

What changesProposition 3 makes the higher income tax rates established by Proposition 30 permanent instead of letting them expire in 2031. Figure 1 shows what income tax rates would be if this measure passes and what they would be if it is rejected.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 26–27

Fiscal effectMaintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 26

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForCalifornia Teachers Association; CA School Nurses Organization; California State PTA; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA

AgainstCalifornia Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 109–115)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 29 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 28 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 26 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 109–115 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 26–27 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6

Not sure? Three questions on 3 — find where you stand

Repeals prohibition against public funding of election campaigns.

State of California · Proposition 4

open

A YES vote meansState and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them.

A NO vote meansState and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6

What it doesCurrent law prohibits state and local governments from using public funds for election campaigns except in charter cities and counties. 4 • This measure repeals that prohibition and allows state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to specified spending limits and meet eligibility criteria.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 30

TodayThe Political Reform Act. Many people, groups, and businesses spend money to support or oppose candidates for public office and ballot measures. California’s Political Reform Act sets rules for how money can be used in politics and requires public reporting of political spending.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 30–31

What changesLifts Ban on Use of Public Funds to Pay for Candidates’ Campaigns. Proposition 4 lifts the ban on using public funds for political candidates’ campaigns. Removing the ban allows state and local governments to create public campaign financing programs in the future if they wish. Proposition 4 does not create a public campaign finance system for the state or local governments directly. Sets Rules for Future State and Local Public Campaign Finance Programs.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 30–31

Fiscal effectOngoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 30

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForLeague of Women Voters of CA; California Nurses Association; Mental Health Advocacy; Social Security Works; Consumer Watchdog

AgainstCalifornia Taxpayers Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; Family Business Assn of California; United Latinos Action

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 115–118)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 33 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 32 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 30 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 115–118 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 30–31 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6

Not sure? Three questions on 4 — find where you stand

Changes recall election process for statewide officers.

State of California · Proposition 5

open

A YES vote meansRecall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy. Instead, vacancies typically would be filled through special elections or appointments, depending on the office and timing.

A NO vote meansVoters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7

What it doesUnder current law, voters decide at the same election whether (1) to recall a state officer, and (2) who will replace that officer if recalled. Under this measure:

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 34

TodayElection of State Officials. The State Constitution establishes legislative, executive, and judicial state offices. Some state officials represent parts of the state, known as districts. Other state officials, like the Governor or Attorney General, represent the entire state. Voters elect people to represent them in state offices for set terms. For example, a state Assembly Member is elected to a two-year term and the Governor is elected to a four-year term. To run for a state office, candidates must submit specific nomination documents before the election. State law sets when this “nomination period” occurs. Recall of State Officials.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 34–37

What changesAs described below, Proposition 5 changes the recall process to make it like the existing process for filling 5 vacant state offices, except for the process to recall the Governor. Removes Second Question From Recall Elections. Proposition 5 removes the second question—who should replace a recalled official—from a recall election. This means, in future recall elections, voters would only decide whether to remove an elected official from a state office, not who would replace the official. Specifies Steps for Filling Vacant Offices. If a state official is recalled, Proposition 5 makes the office of the recalled official vacant.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 34–37

Fiscal effect

Net fiscal effect unknown.

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForNone submitted

AgainstNone submitted

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7

Read the measure · the official text (p. 118)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 39 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 38 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 34 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 118 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 34–37 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7

Not sure? Three questions on 5 — find where you stand

Creates loan program for middle-income buyers of qualified new homes.

State of California · Proposition 37

open

A YES vote meansThe state would create a new homebuying assistance program. The state could sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund the program. Bonds would be paid back by homeowners’ payments on their home loans.

A NO vote meansThe state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7

What it doesAuthorizes up to $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a “qualified new home” (new construction or first sale of converted nonresidential property, priced below about $1 million–$1.5 million, depending on county, adjusted annually).

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 40

TodayState Revenue Bonds. Bonds are a way that governments borrow money, most commonly for public projects such as schools or bridges. The state sells bonds to investors to receive up-front funding for these projects. Over time, investors are repaid with interest. The state sells two main types of bonds: general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. The state usually repays general obligation bonds using the state General Fund.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 40–41

What changesRevenue Bond to Pay for a New Down Payment Assistance Program. Proposition 37 allows CalHFA to sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds. CalHFA would use the bond funds to create a down payment assistance program called the “middle-class homeownership loan.” Each loan would cover up to 17 percent of the home price. (Homebuyers would need to provide a down payment of at least 3 percent of the home price.) Homeowners’ monthly payments on their loan would be designed to repay the bonds over time and cover the program’s administrative costs. CalHFA also would be required to keep interest costs for homebuyers as low as possible.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 40–41

Fiscal effect

No direct state or local costs.

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForUnited Nurses Associations of California; California Conference of Carpenters; California State Treasurer Fiona Ma

AgainstNone submitted

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 118–123)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 43 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 42 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 40 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 118–123 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 40–41 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7

Not sure? Three questions on 37 — find where you stand

Authorizes bonds for immunology medical research.

State of California · Proposition 38

open

A YES vote meansThe state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.

A NO vote meansThe state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8

What it doesAuthorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research (technologies that use body’s immune system to treat disease), with half dedicated to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 44

TodayMedical Research and Development (R&D) Is a Multi- Stage Process. The first stage of this process is basic research, which focuses on discovering new knowledge about how the human body works. The next stage is applied and clinical research, which aims to develop and test treatments for specific diseases. Universities do most of the basic research, while companies do most of the applied and clinical research. The third R&D stage is to have regulators review new treatments to make sure they are safe and effective.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 44–45

What changesNew Bond for Specified Medical Research. Proposition 38 allows the state to issue an $8.4 billion general obligation bond for research in immunology and immunotherapy. Immunology is the study of the body’s immune system and how it protects the body from abnormal cells and other causes of disease. Immunotherapy develops treatments that help the immune system fight diseases more effectively. The measure requires that at least $4.2 billion of the bond funds be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 44–45

Fiscal effectIncreased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the medical research bond.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 44

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForMichael J. Fox Foundation; Alzheimer’s Los Angeles; Kidney Cancer Assoc; American Nurses Assoc\CA

AgainstRobert M Kaplan Ph.D.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 123–133)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 47 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 46 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 44 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 123–133 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 44–45 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8

Not sure? Three questions on 38 — find where you stand

Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.

State of California · Proposition 39

open

A YES vote meansVoters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote.

A NO vote meansA voter’s identity would continue to be established with the voter’s signature.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8

What it doesProhibits voting by mail unless voter designates a government-issued identification number for their voter registration.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 48

TodayElections Administration. County elections officials administer most elections in California. As part of this work, they print and mail ballots and other voting materials to registered voters. Some state agencies also have workload related to voting. For example, the Secretary of State oversees elections across the state and prepares and mails the state Voter Information Guide. United States Citizenship Required to Vote in Federal, State, and Almost All Local Elections. A person must

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 48–51

What changesRequires State and Local Elections Officials to Verify U.S. Citizenship Status of Registered Voters. Proposition 39 requires state and local elections officials to make “best efforts” using government data to verify that voters on the rolls are U.S. citizens. Proposition 39 requires elections officials to report every year the percentage of registered voters in each county whose citizenship status has been verified. Requires Voters to Select Government- Issued Identification for Voting by 39 Mail. Proposition 39 requires new and existing voters to select a government- issued identification in their voter registration to vote by mail. Requires Voters to Provide Additional Identifying Information to Vote. Proposition 39 requires voters to provide additional identifying information each time they cast a ballot in any election in California.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 48–51

Fiscal effectState and local government costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 48

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForThe Transparency Foundation; Latino American Political Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; CA Women’s Leadership Assn

AgainstACLU California Action; Common Cause; League of Women Voters of California

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 133–134)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 53 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 52 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 48 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 133–134 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 48–51 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8

Not sure? Three questions on 39 — find where you stand

Imposes one-time tax on certain taxpayers.

State of California · Proposition 40

open

A YES vote meansThe state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

A NO vote meansThe state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9

What it doesImposes one-time tax of up to 5% on certain taxpayers with covered assets valued over $1 billion; covered assets include businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, but exclude real property and some pensions and retirement accounts.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 54

TodayCalifornia Is Home to Many Billionaires. Several of the wealthiest people in the world live in California. Wealth is the value of all the things a person owns. Wealth is different from income, which is how much a person earns in a set period of time, like one year. A person’s wealth typically is measured by their net worth. A person’s net worth is the value of all the things they own, like stocks, businesses, or other investments, minus their debts.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 54–55

What changesEstablishes One-Time Wealth Tax on Billionaires. Under Proposition 40, billionaires who were residents of California on January 1, 2026 would have to pay a one-time state tax equal to 5 percent of their net worth. The tax would be due in 2027. Taxpayers would have the option to spread the payments over five years but would have to pay more to do so. Real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts generally would be excluded from the tax. Most of the Money Must Be Spent on Health Care.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 54–55

Fiscal effectPossible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in state income tax revenue collected from billionaires.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 54

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForUS Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

AgainstCalifornia Primary Care Association; California School Boards Association; California Taxpayers Association

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 134–147)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 57 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 56 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 55 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 54 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 134–147 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 54–55 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9

Not sure? Three questions on 40 — find where you stand

Prohibits new state taxes that exclude revenues from state spending limit. Requires audits for new state special taxes.

State of California · Proposition 41

open

A YES vote meansWhen special taxes are proposed by voter initiatives, the California State Auditor would review programs funded by the tax before the initiative appears on the ballot. The California State Auditor also would regularly review programs funded by special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature.

A NO vote meansThe California State Auditor’s responsibility to review government programs would not change. The state spending limit requirements would not change.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9

What it doesProhibits any new state taxes that exclude their revenues from the state spending limit approved by voters in 1979. For statewide special taxes, requires (1) a pre- election audit of programs that would receive funding from a voter-proposed special tax, and (2) recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 58

TodayElections Administration. The Secretary of State oversees elections across the state and prepares and mails the state Voter Information Guide (VIG). Voter Initiative Process. California citizens may propose state laws and constitutional amendments through the statewide initiative process. Supporters of an initiative collect signatures from registered voters to qualify their initiative for the ballot. State law sets how many valid signatures supporters must collect to qualify their initiative for the ballot.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 58–59

What changesRequires One-Time Audits Before Special Taxes Appear on the Ballot Through the Voter Initiative Process. Proposition 41 requires the State Auditor to review each program that would receive funds from a new or increased special tax proposed through the voter initiative process. This audit would occur after supporters collect 25 percent of the signatures needed to qualify a measure for the ballot, which is before it is known whether the initiative will qualify for the ballot.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 58–59

Fiscal effect

Unknown net fiscal effect.

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForCA Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPAs); CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; California Taxpayers Association (CalTax)

AgainstUS Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 147–150)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 61 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 60 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 59 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 58 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 147–150 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 58–59 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9

Not sure? Three questions on 41 — find where you stand

Prohibits new state personal property taxes and certain retroactive state taxes.

State of California · Proposition 42

open

A YES vote meansThe state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

A NO vote meansThe state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10

What it doesProhibits new state taxes on personal property, including business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets (including assets in retirement and investment accounts). Prohibits new state taxes that apply retroactively based on the taxpayer’s conduct, activities, or a status that occurred before the new tax’s effective date.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 62

TodayCertain Personal Property Is Taxed in California. Both the state and local governments tax the ownership of certain personal property. These taxes are based on the property’s value. Personal property is all the things that people own other than real estate. One example of these kinds of taxes is the vehicle license fee that car and truck owners pay to the Department of Motor Vehicles each year. Another example is the property taxes owners of business equipment pay to the county each year.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 62–63

What changesProhibits New Taxes on Financial Assets or Other Personal Property. Under Proposition 42, new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property would not be allowed. Limits Retroactive Taxes. Proposition 42 limits the situations that a ballot measure or the Legislature can raise any tax retroactively.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 62–63

Fiscal effectPossibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 62

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForCA Professional Firefighters; State Building & Construction Trades Council of CA; AMVETS Department of CA

AgainstUS Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 150–153)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 65 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 64 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 63 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 62 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 150–153 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 62–63 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10

Not sure? Three questions on 42 — find where you stand

Limits voters’ ability to raise revenues for local government services.

State of California · Proposition 43

open

A YES vote meansCertain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.

A NO vote meansCertain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10

What it doesCurrently, local governments must obtain two-thirds voter approval to impose, extend, or increase special taxes (taxes dedicated to a specific purpose) that they place on the ballot. However, this two-thirds vote requirement does not currently apply to special taxes put on ballot by voter signature gathering.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 66

TodayLocal Governments in California. California has many local governments. These include cities, counties, special districts, and school districts. Vote Thresholds for Local Taxes. The State Constitution allows local governments to increase taxes with local voter approval. Tax increases can be put on a ballot by voters or a local governing board (such as a city council or board of supervisors).

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 67

What changesRequires Certain Local Taxes Receive Two-Thirds Approval by Voters. Under current law, local taxes that are used for a specific purpose require a two-thirds vote to be approved. These are called special taxes. However, recent court decisions have allowed For the full text of Proposition 43, see page 153. special taxes that are proposed by voters to be approved with a majority vote. Under Proposition 43, beginning on January 1, 2027, any new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by voters would require a two-thirds vote.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 67

Fiscal effectPossibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 66

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForCalifornia Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

AgainstCalifornia Professional Firefighters; California Federation of Teachers; Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10

Read the measure · the official text (p. 153)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 69 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 68 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 66 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 153 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 67 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10

Not sure? Three questions on 43 — find where you stand

Requires community health clinics spend 90% of revenue on program services.

State of California · Proposition 44

open

A YES vote meansCertain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue each year on providing health care services.

A NO vote meansThe new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11

What it doesImposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Department of Public Health may waive spending requirements in exceptional circumstances.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 70

TodaySafety Net Clinics Serve Low-Income People. Clinics are places where people can access certain health care services, such as doctor’s visits. Many clinics are considered “safety net,” as they mainly serve low-income and uninsured people. The care they provide is often low cost or free to patients. There are about 2,000 safety net clinics in California. Most are private nonprofits, and the rest are run by public entities (such as counties).

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 70–71

What changesSets Minimum Spending on Health Care at Private Nonprofit Safety Net Clinics. Proposition 44 requires private nonprofit safety net clinics to spend at least 90 percent of their total revenue each year on providing health care services. This means that spending on other expenses, such as administrative costs, would be limited to no more than 10 percent of revenue.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 70–71

Fiscal effectIncreased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year to enforce the new requirements on certain private nonprofit health care clinics, covered by fees charged to the affected clinics.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 70

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForNone submitted

AgainstAmerican Academy of Pediatrics CA; CA School Nurses Org; CA Academy of Family Physicians; CA Medical Assoc.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 153–157)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 73 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 72 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 70 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 153–157 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 70–71 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11

Not sure? Three questions on 44 — find where you stand

Modifies environmental review for certain projects.

State of California · Proposition 45

open

A YES vote meansCertain public and private projects would be eligible for new project review and court challenge procedures. For example, new procedures would tighten time limits for environmental review and reduce the scope of what courts can consider when reviewing legal challenges.

A NO vote meansPublic and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11

What it doesAmends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for specified project categories (including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access, and clean energy projects). For these types of projects, this measure: Sets deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 74

TodayState Law Requires Government Agencies to Review the Environmental Impacts of Proposed Projects. State and local government agencies are responsible for reviewing and approving certain projects before they can be built. As part of this 45 process, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an agency to consider how a project might negatively affect the environment before approving it.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 74–77

What changesProposition 45 creates new procedures for reviewing certain types of projects that it defines as “essential.” Figure 1 lists the types of projects eligible for the new procedures. The proposition (1) tightens time limits for CEQA review, permits, and court challenges; (2) changes parts of the CEQA review process; and (3) changes the court’s review process for CEQA lawsuits.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 74–77

Fiscal effectInitial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually—potentially exceeding $100 million annually—to implement new project review and court challenge procedures for eligible projects.

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 74

Passes with

A majority (more than 50%)

Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

ForCalifornia Children’s Hospital Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing

AgainstCoalition for Clean Air; CA Environmental Voters; Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA; National Wildlife Federation

Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 157–173)

Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 79 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 78 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 74 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 157–173 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 74–77 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11

Not sure? Three questions on 45 — find where you stand

Who's running

The people on your ballot

The statewide offices are on every California ballot; their candidates are the same everywhere in the state (cited here to the Secretary of State's Certified List of Candidates, in the list's own order, not your ballot's). Congressional and legislative seats depend on your address: your sample ballot has yours.

Statewide

Governor

Xavier Becerra (Democratic)Steve Hilton (Republican)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2

Statewide

Lieutenant Governor

Fiona Ma (Democratic)Gloria Romero (Republican)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2

Statewide

Secretary of State

Shirley N. Weber (Democratic)Donald P. (Don) Wagner (Republican)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2

Statewide

Controller

Malia M. Cohen (Democratic)Herb W Morgan (Republican)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2

Statewide

Treasurer

Eleni Kounalakis (Democratic)Jennifer Hawks (Republican)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2

Statewide

Attorney General

Rob Bonta (Democratic)Michael E. Gates (Republican)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 3

Statewide

Insurance Commissioner

Ben Allen (Democratic)Jane Kim (Democratic)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 3

Statewide

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Richard Barrera (State Superintendent Advisor)Sonja Shaw (School District President)

Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 3

North Orange County Community College District

North OC College Dist, Trustee Area 1

BARBARA DUNSHEATHRAMA R. MALINE (State Prosecutor/Professor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 25

North Orange County Community College District

North OC College Dist, Trustee Area 3

LARRY ANDRE (Business Owner)CHLOE SERRANO (Education Policy Advisor)PAUL GONZALES (Staff Specialist/Businessman)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 26

North Orange County Community College District

North OC College Dist, Trustee Area 6

PAULETTE CHAFFEE (Educator/Nonprofit Boardmember)JESUS SILVA (Teacher/Business Owner)JEFFREY P. BROWN (NOCCCD Boardmember/Engineer)ZONYA TOWNSEND (Educator/Parent/Nurse)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 27

Coast Community College District

Coast Comm College Dist, Trustee Area 1

JOE KALMICK (City of Seal Beach City Councilmember)ASHTON KAUWE (Office Administrator)AUSTIN J. EDSELL (Educator/Finance Commissioner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 29

Coast Community College District

Coast Comm College Dist, Trustee Area 3, Short Term

KIM CARRJAMES CAMERON (Businessman/Recording Artist)CONRAD MAZEIKA (Nonprofit Executive)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 30

Coast Community College District

Coast Comm College Dist, Trustee Area 5

XERXEZ MEGINO CALILUNG (Dentist)ELIZABETH "LIZ" DORN PARKER

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 31

Rancho Santiago Community College District

Rcho Santiago Coll Dist, Trustee Area 2

JOHN R. HANNASTEVE ROCCO

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 32

Rancho Santiago Community College District

Rcho Santiago Coll Dist, Trustee Area 4

BEATRIZ MENDOZA (Parent/Businesswoman)DAISY TONG

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 33

South Orange County Community College District

South OC College Dist, Trustee Area 4

GILA JONES (Board Member, Capistrano Unified School District)JOHN BLACK (Military Officer/Educator)NARGES RAKIN (College Dean/Educator)KARIMA FELDHUS (College Administrator/Educator)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 34

Brea Olinda Unified School District

Brea Olinda Unified Sch Dist, Trustee Area 4

WENDY CRINER (Teacher)NATALIE JOHNSON

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 35

Capistrano Unified School District

Capistrano Unified Sch, Dist, Trustee Area 4

MELISSA CALDWELL (Parent/Businesswoman)MARCO CARRALERO (Parent/Orange County Businessowner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 36

Capistrano Unified School District

Capistrano Unified Sch, Dist, Trustee Area 6

MANDY BOURNE (Parent/Educator)JEANNA EMMONS (Parent/Businessowner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 37

Capistrano Unified School District

Capistrano Unified Sch, Dist, Trustee Area 7

LINDA SHEPARD (Educator/Orange County Businesswoman)RON RUEF (Youth Sports Director)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 38

Garden Grove Unified School District

Garden Grove Unified School, Dist, Trustee Area 2

CHARLENE CUELLAR (Community Volunteer)LAN QUOC NGUYEN

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 38

Garden Grove Unified School District

Garden Grove Unified School, Dist, Trustee Area 4

TRACY LA (Nonprofit Director)JOHN GIANG NGUYEN (Small Businessowner/Parent)QUAN VUONG (Attorney/Educational Coach)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 39

Irvine Unified School District

Irvine Unified Sch Dist, Trustee Area 2

RON SCOLESDANG (Businessowner/Youth Coach)KATIE MCEWEN

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 40

Irvine Unified School District

Irvine Unified Sch Dist, Trustee Area 4

JEFF KIMJANE WOOD (Teacher/Businesswoman)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 41

Laguna Beach Unified School District

Laguna Beach Unified Sch, Dist · vote for 3

DEE NAMBA PERRY (Incumbent)SHAHEEN SHEIK-SADHAL (Attorney/Parent)KIMBERLY SMITH (Tech CEO/Parent)ELIZABETH BATES (Fiduciary/Businesswoman/Mother)JOAN MALCZEWSKI (Professor/Parent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 42

Newport-Mesa Unified School District

Newport-Mesa USD, Trust Area 2

CRAIG HOLIDAY (Attorney)MICHELLE MURPHY (Newport-Mesa Unified School District Trustee, Area 2)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 44

Newport-Mesa Unified School District

Newport-Mesa USD, Trust Area 7

GRACE DAÑINO HICKOK (Spanish Teacher/Businesswoman)ANDY GODINEZ (Parent/Code Officer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 45

Orange Unified School District

Orange Unified Sch Dist, Trustee Area 1

IVAN KOKOS (Parent/Orange County Businessman)ANDREA YAMASAKI

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 45

Orange Unified School District

Orange Unified Sch Dist, Trustee Area 4

SARA J. PELLYARMANDO "MANDO" PEREZ-SERRATOCRYSTAL K. MILES (Councilmember/Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 46

Orange Unified School District

Orange Unified Sch Dist, Trustee Area 5

CHIP AHLSWEDE (Parent/Businessman)KRISTIN "KRIS" ERICKSON

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 47

Orange Unified School District

Orange Unified Sch Dist, Trustee Area 7

JACK CHANG (Business Executive/Parent)STEPHEN GLASS

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 48

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District

Placentia-Yorba Linda USD, Trustee Area 4

CHRIS LOWE (Educator/Businessowner/Parent)BARBARA "BARB" BUCKLEY (Business Owner)TODD FRAZIER

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 49

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District

Placentia-Yorba Linda USD, Trustee Area 5

JUSTIN AGUIRRE (Parent)CARRIE BUCK

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 50

Rowland Unified School District

Rowland Unified School Dist, Trustee Area 5

KEVIN T. HAYAKAWA (Governing Board Member, Rowland Unified School District)FALYNN LOVE THOMPSON (Parent/Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 51

Saddleback Valley Unified School District

Saddleback Valley USD, Trustee Area 5

KRIS SPOWART (Community Volunteer)EDGAR MONTES (Parent/Educator/Counselor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 52

Santa Ana Unified School District

Santa Ana Unified School District, Trustee Area 4

KATELYN BRAZER ACEVESSYLVIA IGLESIAS (Parent/Teacher/Educator)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 53

Santa Ana Unified School District

Santa Ana Unified School District, Trustee Area 5

HECTOR BUSTOSALEJANDRA RODRIGUEZ (Mother)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 53

Tustin Unified School District

Tustin Unified School Dist, Trustee Area 3

LYNN DAVISKELLY FELTON (Educator/Professor/Parent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 54

Tustin Unified School District

Tustin Unified School, Dist, Trustee Area 5

JONATHAN ABELOVEZIGGY MCBRIDE (Educator/Librarian/Parent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 55

Anaheim Union High School District

Anaheim Union High Sch, Dist, Trustee Area 1

GERMAINE NEUMANN (Mother/Businesswoman)ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ (Teacher/Parent)JESSICA GUERREROLINDA MARTINEZ QUIJANO (Parent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 56

Anaheim Union High School District

Anaheim Union High Sch, Dist, Trustee Area 2

ANNEMARIE RANDLE-TREJO (Governing Board Member Anaheim Union High School District)ROBERTO GARCIA (Engineer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 57

Fullerton Joint Union High School District

Fullerton Joint Union, HS Dist, Trustee Area 1

REGINA CUADRA (Parent/Teacher)MATTHEW MATIAS (Financial Planning Consultant)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 58

Fullerton Joint Union High School District

Fullerton Joint Union, HS Dist, Trustee Area 5

AMY DUDICH (Operations Manager/Parent)MARILYN BUCHI

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 59

Anaheim Elementary School District

Anaheim Elementary School, Dist, Trustee Area 2

JEFF COLE (Special Education Teacher)JUAN GABRIEL ALVAREZ

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 60

Anaheim Elementary School District

Anaheim Elementary School, Dist, Trustee Area 4

ALVA ALVAREZMARK LOPEZ (Special Education Teacher)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 61

Cypress School District

Cypress School District, Trustee Area B

JON PEAT (Community Volunteer)JACK TOROSSIAN (Father)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 61

Cypress School District

Cypress School District, Trustee Area C

MEGHNA PARIKHSTEVE BLOUNT (Community College Trustee)VERNON MILLER (Realtor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 62

Fountain Valley School District

Fountain Valley School, Dist · vote for 3

DENNIS COLE (Governing Board Member, Fountain Valley School District)RICK NICHOLS (School Principal/Parent)CARL BLANKENHORN (Math Teacher/Parent)EUGENE M. MURRAY (Physicist/Information Technologist)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 63

Fullerton School District

Fullerton School District, Trustee Area 3

AMY CHOI-WON (Parent/Foundation Boardmember)JORDAN ABUSHAWISH (Parent/Healthcare Advocate)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 65

Huntington Beach City School District

Huntington Beach City SD, Trustee Area 4

LAURA COSTELLOE (Technical Education Advisor)DIANA MARKS (Incumbent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 66

La Habra City School District

La Habra City School, Dist, Trustee Area 4

ADAM ROGERS (Governing Board Member, La Habra City School District)BERTHA MANZANARES (Social Services Manager)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 66

Lowell Joint School District

Lowell Joint School Dist, Trustee Area 4

KAREN SHAW (Lowell Joint School District, Trustee)YOONY TAKEUCHI (Esthetician/Notary Public)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 67

Magnolia School District

Magnolia School Dist, Trustee Area 5

ANNIE WARNE (Incumbent)GARY SHIELDS (Retired Deputy Sheriff)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 68

Ocean View School District

Ocean View School Dist., Trustee Area 5

DAVID CLIFFORD (Planning Commissioner/Businessowner)JENNIFER L RANK (Appointed Governing Board Member, Ocean View School District)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 69

County of Orange

Supervisor, 4th District

TIM SHAW (Orange County Board of Education Trustee)CONNOR TRAUT (Mayor/Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 70

County of Orange

Supervisor, 5th District

DIANE DIXON (California State Assemblywoman)KATRINA FOLEY (Orange County Supervisor/Businessowner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 70

City of Aliso Viejo

City of Aliso Viejo, City Council, District 2

MAX DUNCAN (Mayor of The City of Aliso Viejo)STEVEN VON DER PORTEN (Father/Aerospace Engineer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 71

City of Aliso Viejo

City of Aliso Viejo, City Council, District 3, Short Term

GARRETT DWYER (Appointed Incumbent)MARIE TSAASAN (Teacher/Mother)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 72

City of Anaheim

City of Anaheim, Mayor

ASHLEIGH AITKEN (Mayor of Anaheim)IMRAN SHARIEF (Doctor/Businessman)ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ (General Manager)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 73

City of Anaheim

City of Anaheim, City Council, District 2

CARLOS A. LEON (Anaheim City Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 75

City of Anaheim

City of Anaheim, City Council, District 3

ELIA RENTERIA-GARCIA (Nonprofit Development Director)NATALIE RUBALCAVA (Anaheim City Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 75

City of Anaheim

City of Anaheim, City Council, District 6

NATALIE MEEKS (Anaheim City Council Member, District 6)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 76

City of Brea

City of Brea, Member, City Council · vote for 3

ANDREW HERRERA (Consumer Relations Manager)CECILIA HUPP (Councilmember/Business Owner)BLAKE PEREZ (Public Affairs Manager)BLAIR STEWART (Retired Firefighter/Councilman)STEVEN C. VARGAS (Councilman/Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 77

City of Buena Park

City of Buena Park, City Council, District 2

YONG "CHUY" CHOI (Construction Businessowner)CARLOS FRANCO (Buena Park Councilmember/Businessowner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 79

City of Buena Park

City of Buena Park, City Council, District 5

SHARENA WALKER (Director of Marketing)BRANDON SCHOONER (City of Buena Park Commissioner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 80

City of Costa Mesa

City of Costa Mesa, Mayor

MIKE BULEY (Councilmember/Attorney/Parent)LOREN GAMEROS (Instructor/Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 81

City of Costa Mesa

City of Costa Mesa, City Council, District 3

CARA STEWART (Businessowner/Startup Adviser)DANIEL MORGAN (Business Owner/Parent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 82

City of Costa Mesa

City of Costa Mesa, City Council, District 4

ANGELY ANDRADE VALLARTA (Nonprofit Director)FISHER DERDERIAN (Business Owner/Parent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 83

City of Costa Mesa

City of Costa Mesa, City Council, District 5

STEVE SMITH (Technology Consultant)KELLY BROWN (Communications Director/Educator)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 84

City of Cypress

City of Cypress, City Council, District 1

ANNE HERTZ MALLARI (Non-Profit CEO)DAVID BURKE (Cypress City Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 85

City of Cypress

City of Cypress, City Council, District 2

BONNIE PEAT (Council Member)HELEN LE (Community Volunteer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 86

City of Cypress

City of Cypress, City Council, District 5

RANDY HARPER (Emergency Manager/Firefighter)RACHEL STRONG CARNAHAN (Appointed Council Member)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 87

City of Fountain Valley

City of Fountain Valley, Member, City Council · vote for 3

DAN HAY (Orange County Commissioner/Businessowner)KATY WRIGHT (Speaker/Artist/Writer)KIM CONSTANTINE (Businesswoman/Council Member)JIM CUNNEEN (Fountain Valley Mayor/Businessman)ELIZABETH ANDRADE (Community Services Executive)MARK LEONARD (Entrepreneur)HARRISON F DIBBLEE (Educator)JOHN NGUYEN (Engineer/Environmentalist)PATRICIA ODETTE NEAL (Registered Nurse)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 88

City of Fullerton

City of Fullerton, City Council, District 3

DANIEL KIM (Fullerton Commissioner/Businessman)SHANA CHARLES (City of Fullerton Councilmember/Professor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 92

City of Fullerton

City of Fullerton, City Council, District 5

OSCAR VALADEZ (Fullerton Commissioner/Businessowner)DAVID FISCHBEIN (Quality Assurance Inspector)JOZEF MALDONADO (Chemist)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 93

City of Garden Grove

City of Garden Grove, Mayor

STEPHANIE KLOPFENSTEIN (Garden Grove Mayor/Mom)THU-HA NGUYEN (Cancer Scientist/Teacher)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 94

City of Garden Grove

City of Garden Grove, City Council, District 1

WILLIAM ZYLLA (Retired Emergency Technician)LONG NGUYEN (Urgent Care Doctor)ROGER FLANDERS (Court Investigator)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 95

City of Garden Grove

City of Garden Grove, City Council, District 3

AMANDA NGUYEN (Senior Paralegal)THOMAS QUOC THAI NGUYEN (Media Businessman)CINDY NGOC TRAN (Garden Grove Councilwoman/Engineer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 97

City of Garden Grove

City of Garden Grove, City Council, District 4

JOE DOVINH (Garden Grove Council Member)HIEU NGUYEN (Social Worker/Businessman)PATRICK PHAT BUI (Businessowner/Nonprofit Chairman)AMANDA MOHR (Student/Astrophysicist)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 98

City of Huntington Beach

City of Huntington Beach, Member, City Council · vote for 4

AMORY HANSON (Historic Resources Boardman)TARYN TADDEO PALUMBO (Nonprofit Executive/Parent)ROSALIND "ROZ" PRICE (Operations Manager/Commissioner)BEN DAVIS (Civil Rights Attorney)ERIN SPIVEY (Retired Librarian)BRIAN BURLEY (Trustee, Huntington Beach City School District)PAT BURNS (Retired Policeman/Councilmember)BRENDA GLIM (Business Woman)ANDREW GRUEL (Appointed City Councilmember)CASEY MCKEON (Mayor of Huntington Beach/Businessowner)BRIAN THIENES (Small Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 100

City of Huntington Beach

City of Huntington Beach, City Attorney

MIKE VIGLIOTTA (Huntington Beach City Attorney)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 105

City of Irvine

City of Irvine, Mayor

LARRY AGRAN (Mayor of Irvine)MAKSIM V EGOROV (Software Engineer/Businessowner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 106

City of Irvine

City of Irvine, City Council, District 1

SUKHEE KANG (Small Businessman/Educator)JOHN PARK (City of Irvine Commissioner/Businessowner)MELINDA LIU (City of Irvine Councilmember/Attorney)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 107

City of Irvine

City of Irvine, City Council, District 5

ANTHONY KUO (City of Irvine Commissioner)STEVEN ALVES (Small Businessowner/Dad)BYRON SALVATIERRA (Cybersecurity Manager/Father)JULIE GLOSSBRENNER (Housing Specialist)BETTY MARTINEZ FRANCO (Councilmember/Businessowner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 108

City of Irvine

City of Irvine, City Council, District 6

SCOTTY HONG (City of Irvine Sustainability Commissioner)KATHLEEN TRESEDER (Councilmember, City of Irvine/Educator)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 110

City of Laguna Beach

City of Laguna Beach, Member, City Council · vote for 3

SUE KEMPF (Laguna Beach City Councilmember)ASHLEY CINTAS (Local Business Owner)LAURA PARISI (City Treasurer/CPA)MARK ORGILL (City Council Member, Laguna Beach)NICK ARONOFF (Small Business Owner)EDWARD BAYUK (Retired Business Entrepreneur)JOY BERRY (Small Business Owner)ALEX ROUNAGHI (Laguna Beach City Councilmember)KAREN MARTIN (Urban Planning Entrepreneur)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 111

City of Laguna Hills

City of Laguna Hills, City Council, District 1

HARRY HUGGINS (Laguna Hills Non-Profit President)LAURA THIES

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 115

City of Laguna Hills

City of Laguna Hills, City Council, District 4

MICHAEL CAPUTO (Traffic Commissioner/Businessman)TIFFANY BOCCIERI (Attorney/Mother)VALERIE ANNE GELLER (Educator/Music Director)SCOTT MILLER (Laguna Hills Traffic Commissioner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 116

City of Laguna Woods

City of Laguna Woods, Member, City Council · vote for 2

SUE QUAMANNIE MCCARY (Mayor City of Laguna Woods)CAROL MOORE (Council Member City of Laguna Woods)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 118

City of La Habra

City of La Habra, Member, City Council · vote for 2

SUSAN PRITCHARD (Retired Teacher)JAMES "JIM" GOMEZ (Businessman/Councilmember)MILES C. MATIAS (IT Analyst/Instructor)JOSE MEDRANO (Mayor City of La Habra)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 120

City of Lake Forest

City of Lake Forest, City Council, District 2

BECKY KEENE (Systems Analyst)BRANDON COUNCIL (Mechanical Engineer)"GEORGE" GIURGUIS AZER (Small Business Owner)BENJAMIN YU (Councilmember, City of Lake Forest/Businessman)BRITTANY THOMPSON (Community Volunteer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 121

City of Lake Forest

City of Lake Forest, City Council, District 3

ANIL D. PATEL (Project Manager/Businessowner)TOM GRABLE (Planning Commissioner/Businessowner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 124

City of Lake Forest

City of Lake Forest, City Council, District 4

AMY STEVENS (Mother/Communications Consultant)SHARI M RHODES (Lake Forest Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 125

City of La Palma

City of La Palma, City Council, District 2

ANDREW KIM (Public Safety Manager)NITESH P. PATEL (Council Member, City of La Palma)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 126

City of La Palma

City of La Palma, City Council, District 4

MARY PANINGSORO (Community Volunteer)JONATHAN DINWIDDIE (Small Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 127

City of Los Alamitos

City of Los Alamitos, City Council, District 4

SHELLEY HASSELBRINK (City of Los Alamitos, Councilwoman/Businesswoman)JOE HASTIE (Maintenance Operations Director)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 128

City of Los Alamitos

City of Los Alamitos, City Council, District 5

EMILY HIBARD (Councilmember/Business Owner)JOHN M. DELAVIGNE (Consultant)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 129

City of Mission Viejo

City of Mission Viejo, Member, City Council, District 1

KRISTEN WILCOXROBERT "BOB" RUESCH (Incumbent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 130

City of Mission Viejo

City of Mission Viejo, Member, City Council, District 2, Short Term

SAGA CONROY (Community Outreach Director)PETER MOLINARI (Small Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 131

City of Mission Viejo

City of Mission Viejo, Member, City Council, District 3

BRYAN ZAHN (Retired City of Mission Viejo Supervisor)CYNTHIA VASQUEZ (Incumbent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 132

City of Mission Viejo

City of Mission Viejo, Member, City Council, District 4, Short Term

LAURA LACKO (Community Volunteer)JAMES MORRISON (Human Resources Professional)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 133

City of Mission Viejo

City of Mission Viejo, Member, City Council, District 5

STEVEN THORNTON (Defense Acquisition Contractor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 134

City of Newport Beach

City of Newport Beach, City Council, District 1

JOE STAPLETON (Newport Beach Councilmember/Businessman)TINA BABAJANIANS (Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 134

City of Newport Beach

City of Newport Beach, City Council, District 3

ERIK WEIGAND (Newport Beach City Councilmember, District 3)TIM STOAKS (Retired Construction Executive)WALTER STAHR (Author)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 135

City of Newport Beach

City of Newport Beach, City Council, District 4

ROBYN GRANT (Newport Beach Council Member)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 137

City of Newport Beach

City of Newport Beach, City Council, District 6

LAUREN KLEIMAN (Mayor/Businesswoman)ANDREW P. GERKEN (Retired Surgeon)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 137

City of Orange

City of Orange, Mayor

DAN SLATER (Orange Mayor/Businessman)ARIANNA BARRIOS (City Councilmember, City of Orange)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 138

City of Orange

City of Orange, City Council, District 1

JONATHAN ST CLAIR (General Manager)BRANDY ROMERO (Orange Business Owner)ALBERT "AJ" RICCI (City of Orange Businessman)ERNIE GLASGOW (Contractor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 139

City of Orange

City of Orange, City Council, District 4

DENIS BILODEAU (Orange City Councilmember, District 4)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 141

City of Orange

City of Orange, City Council, District 6

BRENDON MOELLER (Small Businessman)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 142

City of Placentia

City of Placentia, City Council, District 2

MATT WAUGH (Business Executive/Parent)SANTOSH SABNIS (Business Owner/Father)JULIE SUCHARD (Community Volunteer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 142

City of Placentia

City of Placentia, City Council, District 4

CHAD WANKE (Mayor/Businessman)JAMES BURANDT (Public Service Professional)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 144

City of Placentia

City of Placentia, City Clerk

ROBERT S. "BOB" MCKINNELL (Placentia City Clerk)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 145

City of San Clemente

City of San Clemente, Mayor

SHANE HIRSCHMAN (Art Director)KATHY WARD (Certified Shorthand Reporter)VICTOR CABRAL (Councilmember/Attorney/Businessman)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 145

City of San Clemente

City of San Clemente, City Council, District 1

AARON WASHINGTON (Deputy Program Manager)STEVE CAMP (Architect/Business Owner)DONNA VIDRINE (Nurse/Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 147

City of San Clemente

City of San Clemente, City Council, District 2

STEVE KNOBLOCK (Mayor Pro Tem)MARK ENMEIER (Teacher/Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 148

City of San Juan Capistrano

City of San Juan Capistrano, City Council, District 2

ERIN BEYER (Business Operations Manager)JEFF MOORE (City of San Juan Capistrano Planning Commission Chairperson)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 149

City of Santa Ana

City of Santa Ana, Mayor

VALERIE AMEZCUA (Mayor)DWAYNE SHIPP (Caregiver/City Commissioner)DAN SHIMELL (Attorney)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 150

City of Santa Ana

City of Santa Ana, City Council, Ward 2

SELICA DIAZ (Community Volunteer)BENJAMIN VAZQUEZ (Teacher/Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 151

City of Santa Ana

City of Santa Ana, City Council, Ward 4

SANDRA DE ANDA (Immigrant Rights Director)PHIL BACERRA (Santa Ana City Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 152

City of Santa Ana

City of Santa Ana, City Council, Ward 6

GIOVANNI CHAVEZ (Housing Commissioner/Lawyer)ISURI S. RAMOS (Nonprofit Executive Director)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 153

City of Seal Beach

City of Seal Beach, City Council, Dist 1

SCOTT DAVIS (Real Estate Entrepreneur)MATT SMITH (Sports Broadcaster)PERLA MENDOZA (CEO/Nonprofit Boardmember)MATTHEW TERRY (Architect)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 154

City of Stanton

City of Stanton, City Council, District 1

THOMAS M. FRAZIER (Planning Commissioner City of Stanton)DONALD TORRES (Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 156

City of Stanton

City of Stanton, City Council, District 3

DEBORA DONATHAN (Educator)DEWAYNE A. NORMAND (City of Stanton Planning Commissioner)MARLON-RAY VELASCO (City of Stanton Commissioner/Supervisor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 157

City of Tustin

City of Tustin, Mayor

LETITIA CLARK (Community College Director)AUSTIN LUMBARD (Tustin Mayor/Businessman)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 159

City of Tustin

City of Tustin, City Council District 3

RAY SCHNELL (Councilmember/Business Executive)THOMAS JAMES "TJ" REED (Assistant Professor)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 160

City of Westminster

City of Westminster, Mayor

KIMBERLY HO (Entrepreneur)NGUYEN PHUONG HUNG (Retired)CHI CHARLIE NGUYEN (Mayor/Business Owner)CHARLES S. SHIPP (Account Executive)CARLOS MANZO (Westminster City Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 161

City of Westminster

City of Westminster, City Council, District 1

AMY PHAN WEST (Councilwoman/Businessowner)DAVID JOHNSON (Governing Board Member, Westminster School District)MIKE FENTON (Educator/Entrepreneur)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 163

City of Westminster

City of Westminster, City Council, District 4

KHAI DAO (Business Owner/Administrator)KELLY DANIELS (Businesswoman)LOAN NGUYEN (Financial Consultant/Mother)NAMQUAN NGUYEN (Westminster City Councilmember)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 164

City of Yorba Linda

City of Yorba Linda, Member, City Council · vote for 2

SEAN PHAYAKAPONG (Engineer/Yorba Linda Commissioner)RAYMOND POTTER (Entrepreneur)ROBERT R. PEASE II (Professional Chemical Engineer)JANICE LIM (City Councilmember/Businesswoman)CARLOS RODRIGUEZ (Mayor/Business Executive)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 166

City of Rancho Santa Margarita

Rancho Santa Margarita, City Council, District 1

JOSH BASTIAN (Planning Commissioner, City of Rancho Santa Margarita)NICHOLAS REESE (Financial Operations Manager)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 168

City of Rancho Santa Margarita

Rancho Santa Margarita, City Council, District 2

ROD GANJIFARD (Technology Executive)NATALIE GUSE (Businesswoman/Mother/Entrepreneur)ANNE FIGUEROA (Councilmember, City of Rancho Santa Margarita)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 169

City of Rancho Santa Margarita

Rancho Santa Margarita, City Council, District 4

BRAD MCGIRR (Councilmember, City of Rancho Santa Margarita)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 171

Rossmoor Community Services District

Rossmoor Community, Services Dist · vote for 2

JO SHADE (Incumbent)JODY L. ROUBANIS (Professor)KONYA VIVANTI (Environmental Programs Manager)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 171

Serrano Water District

Serrano Water Dist, Div. 4

PATRICK O'HARA (College Vice President)FREDERICK FASCENELLI (Attorney)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 173

Silverado-Modjeska Recreation and Park Dist.

Silverado-Modjeska, Recreation and Park Dist, Short Term

MARK LEVY (Retired Sheriff Lieutenant)KIRSTEN RIESER (Real Estate Agent)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 173

Midway City Sanitary District

Midway City Sanitary, Dist · vote for 3

SERGIO CONTRERAS (Director, Midway City Sanitary District)DONALD J. LANK (Retired EEO Manager)MICHAEL LIU (Independent Recruiter)ANH "ANDY" NGUYEN (Businessowner/Planning Commissioner)ANDREW NGUYEN (Director, Midway City Sanitary District)MARK NGUYEN (Director, Midway City Sanitary District)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 174

El Toro Water District

El Toro Water Dist, Full Term · vote for 2

ALFREDO CARDENAS (Retired Operations Director)MIKE GASKINS (Director, El Toro Water District)KATHRYN FRESHLEY (Director, El Toro Water District)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 176

Irvine Ranch Water District

Irvine Ranch Water Dist, Div. 5

JEFFREY HARLAN (Attorney/Planning Commissioner)PEER A. SWAN (Director, Irvine Ranch Water District, Area 5)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 178

Moulton Niguel Water District

Moulton Niguel Water District, Full Term · vote for 3

PATRICIA "TRISH" KELLEY (City Councilmember)MICHAEL CRUIKSHANK (Hydrogeologist)BRIAN PARKER (Appointed Moulton Niguel Water District Director)KURT LIND (Water Business Manager)LEENA RAY (Family Caregiver)JENNIFER ENGLE (Utility Project Manager)WILLIAM "BILL" MOORHEAD (Director, Moulton Niguel Water District)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 178

Moulton Niguel Water District

Moulton Niguel Water District, Short Term

DAVID PETTY (Retired Cybersecurity Professional)PATRICIA C. "PAT" BATES (Water Policy Advisor)JOEL BISHOP (Business Owner/Consultant)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 181

Mesa Water District

Mesa Water Dist, Div. 5

SHAWN DEWANE (Director, Mesa Water District, Division 5)MIKELLE FISH (Business Owner)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 182

Trabuco Canyon Water District

Trabuco Canyon Water, Dist · vote for 3

BRAD WEISKITTEL (Professional Engineer/Educator)JILL COSS (Financial Service Professional)CFOGLENN ACOSTA (Director, Trabuco Canyon Water District)MIKE SAFRANSKI (Director, Trabuco Canyon Water District)CHAD BROWN (Landuse Planner/Developer)EDWARD MANDICH (Director, Trabuco Canyon Water District)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 183

Municipal Water District

Muni. Water Dist of O.C., Div. 2

ARMANDO "MANDO" PEREZ-SERRATOBOBBY LAPOINTE (Retail Investor)LARRY D. DICKMIKE MARKUS (Water Resource Engineer)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 185

Buena Park Library District

Buena Park Library Dist, Div. 2

BRIAN CARVER (Firefighter/Teacher)BRENDA ESTRADA (Trustee, Buena Park Library District, Division 2)

Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters, p. 187

How to vote

The official pages

Where and when to vote, and your own sample ballot, are the elections office's to say. These are its pages.

Orange County Registrar of Voters, 2026 General Election

Drop boxes, vote centers and your sample ballot. Open the page.

Orange County Registrar's Contest/Candidate Proof List

Open the page.

Where's My Ballot

The Secretary of State's ballot tracking: when your ballot is mailed, received and counted. Open the page.

California Secretary of State, Elections

Registration and the statewide dates. Open the page.

Why we made this

Keep your whole ballot in one place.

This page is the public version. Inside WayVote, each measure is a card you can decide on. Your choices are saved.

No endorsements. Ever.

Join the beta See the Registrar's election page

Additions23 Oct — Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Francisco, New York City, Washington, D.C., Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William. 16 Oct — San Diego County.

We, the represented

What's on your ballot, San Diego

34 ovals. One Tuesday

The loop

Vote on real bills

Civic DNA

Alignment

Civic Twin

Civic intelligence for a brighter tomorrow

Six articles

Be in the San Diego beta

City measures

School and college measures

State propositions

The people on your ballot

The official pages

Keep your whole ballot in one place.

Vote on real bills

Real bills, one at a time

Why it matters

Where it leads

Bill Breakdown

Why it matters

Where it leads

Forty swipes to a first shape

Why it matters

Where it leads

Take your bearings

Why it matters

Where it leads

Different doors, one record

The Atlas

The Current State

If You Ran Congress

Happening now

Why it matters

Where it leads

Find your alignment

Know your Civic DNA

Why it matters

Where it leads

One number. Both directions

Why it matters

Where it leads

Discover your Civic Twin

Why it matters

Where it leads

Match yourself to the Capitol

Why it matters

Your First Term, kept apart

A district that can see itself

Say versus vote

Said. Voted

Why it matters

Where it leads

Hear every perspective

Why it matters

Paid is marked

Take a sounding

Hear your district

What you get

What you cannot do

Where it leads

What we hold, and what holds us

Where do you stand

County

City measures

School bonds

Districts

State propositions

Who's running: what to look for

Your leanings

Representation

The principle

What WayVote builds for it

Held to it by

The Record

The principle

What WayVote builds for it

Held to it by