Kira Davis (Just Kira Davis) 2026 voter guide

En el Distrito 40 se postulan dos republicanos: Young Kim y Ken Calvert. El Partido Republicano ha decidido dejar esta decisión en manos de los votantes. Elijo respaldar a Ken Calvert. Young Kim ha sido una buena representante, pero creo que me gustaría ver a un republicano diferente en ese escaño en particular. Vote según su conciencia.

How I’m voting: NO. Always NO on any spending. California should not ask for any more money from the taxpayers when they can’t account for billions and trillions already. As always, the key to sussing out intentions is to see who supports a measure. Prop 1 was not a taxpayer measure, but one produced by our monopolized LEGISLATURE. STRIKE ONE. The California Federation of Teachers is also a key sponsor. STRIKE TWO. I’m voting NO on PROP 1.

How I’m voting: NO. This one is a little complicated but the gist of it is that California legislators want more more money in General Fund. Why? Because money that goes to the General Fund can be allocated for anything. As Vice Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee David Tangipa said in the rebuttal statement, “Supporters claim Prop 2 will protect education, healthcare, and public safety. Currently it doesn’t dedicate any new dollars to any of those priorities. Sacramento politicians will continue to decide how much to spend each year, not you. Prop 2 only allows for politicians to spend more on pet projects.”

How I’m voting: NO. I do not want to extend this tax. The fiscal impact estimate gives the game away. Combine this prop with a potential billionaire tax and a crushing business environment and there is no way to tell how many high-income earners will exit California once Prop 3 is passed. This never should have been a tax in the first place. Let us be. Key supporters of this prop: Planned Parenthood, California Teachers Association…enough said.

How I’m voting: NO. What the hell is this? My taxes go to all manner of ridiculous waste in this state. The state now wants to force me to support the political campaigns of people who may be actively running against my own preferences and interests? NO THANK YOU. This is a ridiculous and dangerous prop. They are playing in our faces. NO.

How I’m voting: NO. This is the Democrat supermajority trying to make it harder to recall terrible elected officials because they keep getting recalled. It is an end-run around the will of the people. Absolutely NO from me. Do your jobs and you don’t need to worry about recalls.

How I’m voting: NO. I know it says “middle income” but the devil is in the details. The math hidden in the prop adds up to “low-income” not middle. In my opinion, this is another way to finance illegal immigrant home ownership. Our home ownership problem is not a mortgage problem, it is a cost-of-living and cost-of-construction problem. We need to end the red tape, not create more of it. This is just another loan we all have to pay back for people we don’t know while our own kids who have the misfortune to look better ‘on paper’ will continue to struggle. NO.

How I’m voting: Can you guess? Just do the math on the loan repayment. NO. Let the researchers get their money from private benefactors like the rest of us or just work within the budgets of the money they already have. We already support research at our UC facilities. Heavily. This is simply another increase. NO. Definitely not in this economy. Please note: I part from some Republicans on this prop; some Republicans like LAGOP are supporting this; OCGOP does not; I remain resolute in rejecting almost all new spending until we can rein in the current budget

How I’m voting: Easy one…YES. This initiative is a true bipartisan initiative, with nearly 70% support throughout California. Democrats don’t want Republicans cheating and Republicans don’t want Democrats cheating. Everyone wants this. The state is playing games with the initiative title, so it’s up to us to make it clear to everyone what this is. I AM VOTING YES FOR VOTER ID IN CALIFORNIA.

How I’m voting: NO. Even just the whisper of this tax has sent businesses scrambling to leave the state. No. We’re stupid if we believe this would be temporary or even beneficial. Newsom wants to run as the DSA-backed President for 2028 on this measure and he has no care for what it will do to the state once he leaves. NO.

How I’m voting: YES! Obviously I agree that we need the State Auditor to actually perform audits on our spending. I had to laugh when I read the Fiscal Impact Statement. The Secretary of State has the nerve to suggest the prop will increase costs for audits. The only reason the cost might “increase” is because we don’t do the constitutionally mandated auditing right now. The “increase” would just be the State Auditors finally doing their jobs.

How I’m voting: YES. Do you want the government to tax your savings accounts even though you’ve already had that money taxed as income? Seriously…this is ridiculous. Let’s ban that option for good. YES on 42.

How I’m voting: YES. Of course. Prop 13 is the bane of every California Democrat legislator’s existence and they have been plotting to sink it since it passed. Prop 43 hedges against the latest attempt to reduce the power of voters to control their own taxation. YES ON 43.

How I’m voting: NO. We get at least one of these props every cycle, in some form or fashion. These are always just attempts to exert more control over the medical industry and push us to universally funded healthcare. They claim this prop will help monitor fraud (ha ha ha ha) but in reality it just creates a new bureaucracy and new red tape for the healthcare industry. Do we want that? No. It’s a NO.

How I’m voting: YES! It’s a no-brainer. I guffawed at the fiscal summary that claims it could take hundreds of millions of dollars to “implement”…just stop doing stuff! That costs no money at all. These people, I swear…