Describes himself as California’s “fighter and protector, ” saying government should make life affordable and ensure hard work yields a stake in prosperity.
Says she would be the “accountability governor, ” bringing fiscal responsibility, data-driven oversight, transparency, and Californians’ lived experience into state decisions.
顶级背书人尚未找到背书人
Will you make a voter guide?Your picks can help neighbors find candidates they trust.
Voting "yes" on the Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond means supporting $535 million in critical infrastructure upgrades for fire and emergency services, while maintaining existing property tax rates without additional financial burdens on residents.
A "no" vote on the Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond will result in the continuation of aging emergency infrastructure, leaving the community vulnerable during major disasters without the proposed improvements.
A "yes" vote on the measure to impose lifetime term limits for the Mayor and Board of Supervisors would promote new leadership and diverse ideas in San Francisco, but it may limit voter choice and remove experienced advocates permanently.
A "no" vote on the Lifetime Term Limits measure means the current system will remain in place, allowing elected officials to serve two consecutive terms followed by a break, enabling potential re-election after a hiatus.
A "yes" vote on the Decreases to Business Taxes measure means small businesses will be exempt from certain taxes, potentially aiding local economic recovery, but it will also reduce city revenue by $30–$40 million annually, impacting public services.
A "no" vote on the Decreases to Business Taxes measure will maintain the current $5 million exemption for small businesses, allowing the scheduled tax rate increase for larger companies to occur in 2028, which could impact city revenue by approximately $30–40 million annually.
A "yes" vote on Proposition D means large companies with high CEO-to-worker pay ratios will face significantly increased taxes, potentially generating $250–$300 million for city services, but may also lead to higher consumer prices and deter business investment.
A "no" vote on the measure will maintain the current tax structure for large companies, preventing a significant increase in business taxes based on executive pay ratios, which could limit potential city revenue for public services.