10/14/2026
California Peer Watch (CPW) has interviewed a number of candidates and had a meeting on the ballot initiatives for the November 2026 ballot.
We are taking positions only on candidates with whom we have met.
Since no candidates for major statewide offices have met with us, none will receive our endorsement.
Here are our positions and endorsements:
Proposition 1 (Bonds for Affordable Housing) YES
More affordable housing is desperately needed in California. Some public investment is absolutely needed to spur the growth of this housing.
We recognize that tens of billions of dollars spent by California on this issue have been wasted, providing little actual affordable housing for Californians, and especially with those with mental and behavioral health challenges. If we have a budget surplus, we would prefer that the surplus money be used for this purpose rather than borrowing he money and paying interest on it.
That said, we urge the legislature to ensure that this money is actually used efficiently and effectively.
Proposition 3 (continuation of upper middle class income tax increase) YES
This is the sustaining of a tax on the upper middle class. It was passed before with a sunset provision. This would make that tax permanent. It does not change the tax rates or the income thresholds/brackets for the high-income taxes it addresses.
We want to continue to fund education at the current levels and it may result in additional health care funding. It indicates that “excess” revenues would go to health care but doesn’t seem to indicate detail on this.
Proposition 39 (Voter ID) NO
This is a proposition to require voter ID to vote.
California Peer Watch objects to this requirement as it may depress the vote among less affluent voters, individuals who move and other factors.
Proposition 44 (Health Clinic Finances) NO
While CPW wants to use money efficiently in a patient-focused manner, we are concerned about how this will actually affect patient care. . And the Attorney General will define how the ratios will be determined. This proposition does not specify this – we want more specificity before we support an initiative such as this.
Assembly District 5: Neva Parker
CPW interviewed Neva, who is running against a Republican whom we have worked well with in the past. This was a difficult decision but we feel she will be a big support of the peer movement which was not Patterson’s focus.
Assembly District 36: Mark Gonzalez
Mark has worked with us previously on issues of mental health and recently helped to prevent cuts to IHSS program. He is running for reelection
Assembly District 74: Laurie Davies
Laurie also worked with us to prevent IHSS cuts. She supports the peer support concepts. Also running for reelection.
Send a message to learn more
