10/16/2026
RPA Endorsements General Election November 2026
Candidates
Claudia Jiménez, Richmond Mayor
Mark Rendón, State Assembly District 14 (incumbent is Buffy Wicks)
Local Measures
Measure RTM - Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative
Recommendation: YES
Summary: Half cent sales tax increase in four Bay Area counties and one cent increase in San Francisco, for 14 years. Addresses potential service cuts for the largest operators, many facing fiscal cliffs: BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit. Provides roughly $1 billion a year in new funds for improvements for riders, some capital projects, and basic operating budget.
Rationale for Recommendation: The measure will protect major transit agencies from devastating service cuts and provide direct support to counties for transit improvements. Public transportation is a vital service that affects the economic and environmental health of the region. Reduction in service would mean longer commute times for workers, more congested traffic and increased air pollution.
Supporters: The Connect Bay Area Transit Committee is comprised of labor, business, and transit advocates, including Bay Area Council, SEIU 1021, ATU 1555, South Bay Labor Council, SPUR, and SAMCEDA, alongside an advocacy council of more than 20 organizations representing transit, housing, environmental, equity, senior, and disability organizations.
Opponents: Not sure, but there is general anti-tax feeling out there. Plus, this got forced into a sales, which is generally regressive.
Measure V - Parcel Tax Continuation for West Contra Costa Unified School District
Recommendation: Yes
Summary: Renews current parcel tax for school operations, which is due to expire at the end of the fiscal year 2026-27, to bring $10 million annually for nine years to the school system. The measure will need 2/3 of votes to pass. The tax will remain at the existing rate of 7.2¢ per building square foot (about $72/year for the average home owner). There are exemptions for seniors and disabled people. The community has previously supported the schools and programs by approving and re-approving, in 2004, 2012, and 2016, a local education parcel tax providing critical school funding. However, recent polling has shown only 65% support, below the 2/3 vote needed to pass.
Rationale for Recommendation: Education is the main way that people can escape poverty. Strong schools can strengthen community and democracy; better schools should be a top priority for everyone.
Supporters: United Teachers of Richmond (UTR), other unions, parents
Opponents: No organizations or well-known individual opponents identified, but there is anti-tax and anti-WCCUSD sentiment behind reported poll results.
Measure Q - Bond for Fire Station Upgrades
Recommendation: Yes
Summary: Will fund fire‑station seismic and code retrofit and energy-efficiency upgrades and improvements that include removing mold and asbestos, electrical and plumbing repairs, upgraded living quarters and apparatus bays, new emergency generators and communication systems and energy-efficiency upgrades. The upgrades are seen as updating the department’s advanced lifesaving capabilities. The bond amount is a ceiling amount, and the authorization does not obligate the city to issue the full amount.
Rationale for Recommendation: The state of the current stations appears to be substandard, with fire fighters living in moldy quarters and at least at one, using outdoor port-a potties for years. Richmond is the only city in the county whose fire department is not up to standard to provide paramedic-level services. A new tax is anticipated to repay the bond: $22.15 per $100k (for a $500k home, the tax would be $110.75 annually). The benefits extend to the full population of the city.
Supporters: City council members, who voted unanimously to place this on the ballot, Richmond firefighters' union, the Fire Chief's office.
Opposition: No organized group has emerged, but some voters may say no, and some council members may not fully support.
State Measures
Proposition 1 - Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond
Recommendation: YES
Summary: Issue $11.25 billion in bonds to fund Multifamily Housing Program, CalVet Home Loan Program, and youth housing. $10 billion of the funds is to focus on lower-income households while $1.25 billion is for CalVet Home Loan Program. Follows the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, that authorized the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4 million. Contra Costa County will receive $28.8 million in funding for the Homekey+ program.
Rationale for Recommendation: Currently, 1% of the state’s budget goes to housing. This is inadequate due to the ongoing housing shortage and un-affordability of housing. Funding from state sources is necessary particularly for the most vulnerable who include veterans, youths, seniors, black and brown, and more. The previously funded Bond Act of 2018 will cease if new funding is not provided. As a society, we must address this crisis.
Supporters: Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate Pro Tem Monique Limón, Assembly Member Buffy Wicks
Opponents: Republican legislators as a bloc, California Association of Realtors
Proposition 2 Rainy Day Fund – Increase allowable additions from General Fund – No position
Proposition 3 - Make the High-Earner Income Tax Permanent
Recommendation: YES
Summary: Would make permanent a temporary income tax — up to 12% — on high earners that voters approved in 2012. The tax applies to household income over $721,000 for couples and over $360,000 for individuals. The tax generates $5-15 billion each year for K-12 schools and community colleges. It is set to expire in 2031.
Rational for Recommendation: People with high incomes should contribute proportionately more to the social good, and many K-12 schools and community colleges are in great need of funding.
Supporters: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers and California School Employees Association
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association
Proposition 4 Public campaign financing [no position]
Proposition 5 Recall elections [no position]
Proposition 37 – Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers [no recommendation]
Proposition 38 - Bonds for Immunology Research [no recommendation]
Proposition 39 - Voter ID and Citizenship Verification Requirements
Recommendation: NO
Summary: Constitutional amendment to require voters to present government-issued ID when voting in person or the last four digits of their ID number when voting by mail. Election officials would be required to attempt to verify citizenship statements.
Rationale for Recommendation: This proposal appears to be part of the wider right-wing effort to cast doubt on the validity of election outcomes and to limit participation by making it harder to vote–whether in person or by mail.
Supporters: Richard Uihlein, billionaire owner of Uline business supply company; the campaign committee (“Reform California”) of Carl DeMaio, San Diego Republican.
Opponents: League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action, and California Donor Table – self-described network of donors to liberal/progressive causes.
Proposition 40 - Billionaire’s Tax
Recommendation: YES
Summary: Would enact a one-time 5% wealth tax on the assets of roughly 200 California billionaires, to be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would go to pay for healthcare for low-income Californians and 10% toward education and food assistance programs. The tax would apply to taxpayers living in the state as of 1/1/2026.
Rationale for Recommendation: The wealth gap in California is large and growing. Taking on the problem of economic inequality is one of the goals listed in RPA’s Core Values statement. These 200 billionaires own so much wealth that a one-time 5% tax would raise about $100 billion, providing healthcare to our many low-income community members. Billionaires threaten to leave the state, but only one is reported to have done so before the 1/1/26 deadline, and this is a one-time tax.
Supporters SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, Bernie Sanders, Teamsters California, AFSCME California, California Nurses Association.
Opponents Billionaires. Gavin Newsom (says the issue should be handled at the federal level). California Teachers Association (opposed because the money would mostly go to healthcare, not education or other needs), and SEIU’s California leadership for the same reason.
Proposition 41 - Prohibit Excluding New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Require Special Tax Audits Initiative
Recommendation: NO
Summary: This is a billionaires’ response to Prop 40. It would apply revenue from new taxes to the state’s spending cap–sending the extra, new revenue back to taxpayers or to education and thus negating Prop 40. As well, programs funded by Prop 40 would be subject to audits.
Rationale for Recommendation: See rational for Prop 40. This initiative exists to confuse voters and overturn Prop 40.
Supporters: Billionaires and friends, including Cal Chamber of Commerce.
Opponents: Supporters of Prop 40
Proposition 42 - Prohibit new personal property tax and retroactive taxes
Recommendation: NO
Summary: Another attempt to block the billionaires’ tax, this would make the type of tax in Prop 40 illegal. If both pass, the one with more votes prevails.
Rationale for Recommendation: See above
Supporters: N/A
Opponents: N/A
Proposition 43 - Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives
Recommendation: NO
Summary: Under Prop 43, local tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative would need a two-thirds vote to pass rather than the current 50% plus one.
Rationale for Recommendation: Prop 43 would make it difficult for citizens' ballot initiatives to raise money for specific programs and services by raising the threshold for passage. Opponents say it would make California the hardest state in the country for local communities to raise funds for schools and public services.
Supporters: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Reform California (who also support the voter ID proposition)
Opponents: SEIU statewide, and the community group Evolve (dedicated to fully funding public schools.
Proposition 45 - Expedited Environmental Review Process
Recommendation: NO
Summary: Amend California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to create deadlines for environmental reviews of most housing, transportation, water, health and clean energy projects to speed up permitting, limit requirements about reducing environmental impacts, and limit the court’s ability to stop or delay developments.
Rationale for Recommendation: Prop 45 proposes a rollback of CEQA that would significantly reduce public agencies’ ability to enforce environmental protections and mitigate harms to communities. This proposal is beneficial to developers, at the expense of the public interest.
Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, PG&E
Opponents: Sierra Club, CBE Action, APEN Action, and hundreds more organizations
