For more information about Sandra White for Antioch City Council District 4 visit www.sandragwhite.com.

Two Antioch city council, two school board seats up

By Dawn Kruger, Community and Media Relations Coordinator, Contra Costa County, Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department 

The Candidate Filing Period for the November 3rd General Election will began, Monday, July 13, 2026, and nomination papers will be available for candidates running for office. The nomination period runs through 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 7, 2026.

A list of offices anticipated for the election can be found here: www.contracostavote.gov/wp-content/uploads/26Nov03_PositionsUpForElection.pdf.  Offices on this list are subject to change as resolutions are still being filed.

Antioch Elections

In Antioch, City Council seats for District 1, currently represented by incumbent Tamisha Torres-Walker, and District 4, currently represented by incumbent Monica Wilson, are up for election. So far only one challenger has announced for District 4, Sandra White, who is running and hoping her third time is a charm. Plus, on the Antioch School Board, the seats for trustees in Area 2, currently represented by Dr. Jag Lathan, and Area 5, currently represented by incumbent Mary Rocha, who recently told the Herald she will run again, are up for election.

Papers for offices that are up for election will be available at the Contra Costa Elections Office, 555 Escobar Street, Martinez. Papers for Municipal Offices will be available from the City Clerk’s office in the city the position represents.

For further information on the General Election and key dates, go to www.contracostavote.gov

“Our Candidate Services team is ready to work with Candidates who will be running in the November General Election,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa Registrar of Voters. “Our office is here to help potential candidates.”

If an incumbent does not file to run for office by the August 7th deadline, the filing period for that office will extend until 5:00 pm on Wednesday, August 12, 2026. This rule does not apply to incumbents that have reached their term limit and are unable to run again.

Interested candidates can schedule an appointment by emailing candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or by calling (925) 335-7800. Walk-ins are accepted, but service is subject to the availability of staff. Appointments are available on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Filing documents and information will be provided to interested constituents at their appointment. The process takes approximately 20 minutes.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit demands transit agencies address waste, alternative funding sources and non-binding oversight loopholes before locking in a 14-year tax hike.

WALNUT CREEK, CA — A five-county coalition of taxpayer advocates, transit reformers and civic leaders today announced Monday, July 6, 2026, a campaign to defeat the regional transit sales tax slated for the November ballot. The newly formed Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit warns that the 14-year measure will push total sales tax rates up to or over a crushing 11 percent in nine Bay Area cities across Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties.

Authorized by SB 63 (Wiener, 2025), the measure seeks to raise sales taxes by a half-percent in four counties and a full one percent in San Francisco. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) projects the tax, at inception, will extract roughly $1 billion annually from the local economy and rising with inflation to surpass $14 billion over its term. This funding would come on top of the estimated $6 billion in tax and toll subsidies regional transit operators already receive each year.

Campaign organizers highlighted a strategic maneuver by the tax’s proponents, who utilized a citizens’ initiative route rather than having the MTC or transit districts place it on the ballot directly. This path lowers the voter approval threshold from the standard two-thirds supermajority to a simple majority.

“Bay Area voters are being asked to approve more than $14 billion in new taxes at a time when transit agencies are carrying fewer riders and receiving enormous subsidies,” said Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and campaign committee member. “Before squeezing working families and seniors with sales tax rates of over 11 percent in some Bay Area cities and over 10 percent in many others, these agencies must explain why administrative overhead surged since 2019.”

“This measure locks taxpayers into an obsolete, pre-pandemic transit cost structure for 14 years, entirely ignoring how remote work and convenient, emerging transportation alternatives are reshaping regional mobility at no taxpayer expense,” said Gregg Dieguez of SHIFT-Bay Area, representing San Mateo County. “Furthermore, the oversight language in SB 63 is completely non-binding. It allows these agencies to continue wasteful business-as-usual operations with a guaranteed, unaccountable blank check.”

The committee emphasizes that defeating the measure will not shut down public transit. Instead, the coalition argues that the state should redirect a portion of the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funds currently flowing to high-speed rail. They also propose pausing the region’s two largest capital megaprojects—BART’s Silicon Valley Phase II extension and Caltrain’s Portal downtown extension—to free up existing state and local dollars directly for operations while a leaner funding mechanism is designed for 2028. The committee notes that BART could potentially save hundreds of millions annually through targeted management actions alone, adding that the San Jose VTA does not require this funding for operations, labeling the measure a fiscal “hidden ball trick” to cover a bloated BART extension recently criticized by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury.

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit is actively recruiting volunteers, distributing lawn signs beginning in August, and accepting contributions at transitaccountability.com. The campaign website features a localized household tax calculator where residents across all five counties can instantly check the tax’s impact on their family.

About the Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) is a campaign committee sponsored by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, a nonpartisan civic organization founded in 1937 and based in Walnut Creek. The committee has leadership and representation from all five counties affected by the so-called Connect Bay Area Transit sales tax:  Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Contributions to the committee are not tax-deductible. The committee expects to amend its formal name to incorporate the official alphanumeric ballot designation of the “Connect Bay Area Transit” measure once assigned by election officials.

Public speakers – not all from Antioch – name four companies the City should divest from or not invest in claiming they’re part of Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza; if investments sold now there would be a loss

Work group to bring back proposed policy additions in 6 months with progress report in 3 months, as world’s two largest investment firms abandon them

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council unanimously agreed to move forward for future consideration liberal activist or “woke” practices in the City’s investment policy. The proposal was brought back after the council members failed to adopt the current investment policy on a 2-2 split vote during the June 9th Council meeting. Mayor Ron Bernal and Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas voted in favor, Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker voted against, and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was absent.

Referred to as Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing, the practice would, according to the City staff report for the item, #8 on the agenda, “filter out and exclude sectors and/or companies the City does not want to invest in. The current Policy includes two such prohibitions in Section V.3:a. which reads, ‘The City will not invest in any companies that produce alcohol for public consumption or tobacco products.’”

During the June 23rd meeting, the council directed staff to meet with a group, that has labeled itself Divest Contra Costa, to further develop proposed language, despite the world’s top two investment firms moving away from the practice that limits in which companies they can invest.

The group, which has no website, social media presences or a list of members, proposed the following language it wants added to the City’s investment policy:

“The City of Antioch will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the wellbeing of our communities and our environment, favoring investment in entities that support the needs of peacetime daily life, in companies that offer renewable energy and other climate mitigation strategies, in companies with a strong environmental, labor, and social records, or in socially responsible community projects within our City.

“The City will refrain from investment in harmful industries such as tobacco, fossil fuels, mass incarceration or immigrant detention, and weaponry of any kind, or in companies with a consistent record of direct involvement in severe human rights violations such as slavery and prison labor, war crimes, illegal military occupation, racial segregation or apartheid.”

The challenge is how each of those categories will be defined and by whom, and the effort has specifically been to divest from companies based in Israel as the Left considers that country’s actions in Gaza an “illegal military occupation.”

In addition, space related companies use fossil fuels to power their rockets, and the Left is opposed to the world’s first trillionaire, Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, which just issued its first public offering. Such a policy could prevent the City from investing in that or other similar companies and enjoying returns on investment from its growth.

According to the National and Legal Policy Center (NLPC), the world’s largest asset manager, “Blackrock was one of the pioneers of ESG investing, but in early 2025 abandoned “the ‘woke’ policies.” It was “the biggest sign yet that the vibe has shifted against liberal activism in the private sector.” In addition, NLPC reported in May 2026, “Vanguard, the second-largest index fund manager with approximately $10 trillion in assets under management, has similarly retreated in public posture while its index funds.”

According to the City staff report, while “there is no cost to adopt the draft policy attached, should the City choose to adopt an ESG investment practice, additional investment advisory fees could be incurred.

Public Comments

During Public Comments, all who spoke supported adding such language to the City’s investment policy, with some wearing black-and-white checkered Palestinian and other keffiyehs, which are traditional head scarves worn in the Middle East and North Africa. They offered more details about the companies they don’t like, “in solidarity with Palestinians” and spoke against Israel’s military actions in Gaza as well as the U.S. military industrial companies that manufacture the arms being used. Others in the gallery held a Palestinian flag and wore a shirt with Palestinian flag colors. Three people held up a large poster showing a photo of children with the words, “Stop Investing in Our Genocide.” A speaker, who said his “family came from the West Bank where they currently reside” and runs a non-profit for Palestine, claimed those in the photo were in an orphan camp in Gaza.

“As a concerned world citizen, I have an obligation to stand up to injustice,” another speaker said.

A resident, who said he was “of Palestinian decent,” spoke of “specific exclusions” and mentioned companies he claimed “are tied to harm” that include some based or with operations in California: aerospace and defense contractor Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of construction and other equipment, Caterpillar, BP (British Petroleum) and Chevron, which relocated its headquarters from San Ramon to Houston, Texas at the end of 2024, due to the unfavorable government policies and opposition from those on the Left. He said his group wants the City instead “investing in” other projects such as the Homekey homeless hotel. That project will actually cost the City money and offer no return on investment for its portfolio.

The final man to speak and for a second time on the item, said he was from Concord and implored, “I think you need to realize that the litmus test for our humanity is what’s happening in Gaza and we’re funding it as well as Israel. Antioch has the choice…the chance the lead the way.” He said the Concord City Council “voted it down right away.”

Council Discussion and Decision

Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked staff about the amount the City receives from its investments. He mentioned a little over $2.1 million that the City will be receiving from “investments and rentals” in Fiscal Year 2027.

“That’s just in the General Fund,” City Finance Director Dawn Merchant responded. “All funds have investment income. But…every month the City Treasurer submits a Treasurer’s Report that lists all the investments, the security transactions and interest for that month, and a presentation twice a year from our investment advisor that gives portfolio earnings…year-to-date and from inception.”

“So, anyone who wants very detailed information about our investments they can look at our agenda, tonight?” the councilman asked. “Yes,” she stated.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker then asked about the current investments in three of the companies mentioned during Public Comments.

“The total, I assume this is cash value…Caterpillar, Chevron and Lockheed Martin…if the investments were sold there would be a loss. What is the total amount the City is making from these three investments…would it be a significant loss?” she asked.

“That’s the market value versus what the trade value would be,” Merchant responded. “There would be a loss.”

“There are two specific holdings for Caterpillar,” said the City’s investment advisor, Justin Resuello, Institutional Sales and Relationship Manager of PFM Asset Management (PFMAM). “The par value of both is…a little over $1.6 million and those mature in August 2028 and February 2029. Those currently present losses of approximately $1,274 and $17,103.”

“The two Chevron positions…both have a part of a little over $1.3 million,” he continued. “One matures Feb. 2028 and August 2028.” If sold now the City would lose about $500.

“The last position is one holding with Lockheed Martin that matures August 2028 with a par of about $600,000 and a current unrealized loss of about $5,000,” Resuello shared.

“So, these are all in that three-year end strategy. We’re pretty close to maturity,” he explained. “Our preference is still that the holdings are not sold at a loss. But…if that is what the Council wishes to do, we’ll act on your decision.”

“These amounts can change daily,” Finance Director Merchant interjected.

Torres-Wallker then said, “I think the question is, is the loss significant enough to not consider.”

“That’s up to Council discretion,” Merchant responded. “Any loss no matter what the amount, especially in our financial position. However,..if Council doesn’t want these investments…then that’s what we’re going to do.”

Torres-Walker then asked, “Is it possible to add additional language” to the section already prohibiting investments in tobacco and alcohol manufacturers. “I think this has already come up that we will not invest in companies that are involved in war crimes.”

“For the analytics that is used by investment companies, there’s no metric to say this company is involved in war crimes,” Merchant explained. “The language…that talks about apartheid, there’s not metric where they would be able to identify that. So, that’s where it gets a little bit tricky.” She then stated that the council could add sections from the proposed restrictions to the policy.

“As explained, this is not something that happens overnight. It’s taken some agencies up to a year to dial down on these investment strategies,” Merchant shared. “So, I don’t want to assume what the council majority will decide tonight.”

“I’m not saying that would be the direction of the council because it’s been a year people have been coming…asking,” Torres-Walker responded. “Your recommendation is that we take more time to develop a p policy. People are asking we immediately divest.”

“The recommendation would be to include language that investments that…fall from an exclusions list are either held until there is no loss or maturity, whichever occurs first,” Merchant stated.

Freitas then repeated what a member of the public said, who, “articulated what I think is part of the challenge for the city council…to adopt a clear, ethical investing policy, that we need to establish standards, that we need to have accountability. The word that I would use is making it doable.”

The councilman spoke of serving on the Contra Costa Water District Retirement Committee “back then in the “70’s, 80’s and 90’s apartheid was the issue. We needed to develop a policy…that can be followed…for accountability.”
“Sometimes, one person’s opinion is not necessarily factual,” Freitas stated. “The investor needs to have clear, articulated standards so that he or she does not get crosswise with the council. Time and time again, people would come with their interpretation of some of the things. Some are very easy to understand what the situation is.”

“This is not an easy policy,” he continued. “It’s not finger pointing and saying, ‘no,’ to you and ‘yes,’ to you.’ It’s much more difficult. Because as a city council we have a legal and a fiduciary responsibility with regards to investments.”

“So, frankly, I believe…adopting a clear, ethical investing policy that has standards and accountability and from my perspective, doable…that should be the direction to City staff, to PMF (PFM) and I think Divest should identify two or three people on a periodic basis that there are discussions, so we hear some of the concerns…and those are taken into consideration…to develop a policy that we can live with.”

“I do think this is a situation that we need to take a look at. But we should not do it quickly,” Freitas stated. “I think we should do it methodically, I think it should be inclusive. I think this is a very, very important issue.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked, “Can you add to that, a working group?”

“Two weeks ago, I suggested the City Manager, the Director of Finance, PFM and representatives from Divest,” Freitas responded. “That was, to me, a working group…so, they know what’s happening, questions can go back and forth and I have to believe a good, workable policy will have to come back to the City of Antioch.”

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said, “I think the City Treasurer should be part of this collaborative.”

“I agree,” Freitas said.

“I would like to know…what makes the most sense for the City of Antioch and what aligns with what we heard tonight,” Rocha continued. “There’s the SRI option and…the ESG option. One’s more complex than the other.”
“What was suggested to me, was that we adopt the Treasurer’s Report, but that we are open to hearing, looking into and adopting some of the policies that have been discussed tonight. So, I think we would want to do a blend.”

Mayor Ron Bernal then asked City Treasurer Jorge Rojas, Jr., “to give us his thoughts on the policy.”

Rojas said, “We have the two options from PFM. We never said anything regarding potentially adopting an ethical investment policy. Pretty much Council is the one that makes that decision. We either wait for maturity dates, take the loss right now and go from there.”

Bernal asked him, “What would be your recommendation?”

Rojas responded, “My recommendation would be to adopt the policy that was recommended, last meeting, the investment policy, and like Louie was saying, take a look at it. Get back to it, revise it, perhaps…have that committee, take a look it perhaps every six months or so and then go from there.”

Torres-Walker then said, “I’m also getting the sense from the community, we’re under the gun, we need to pass this right now. I believe the council was made to believe there would be some outside penalties and that was clarified there are not any outside penalties and we do have discretion.”

“I do agree that the language we really want, and I hope the community agrees with this, and that is we do move forward with the recommendation, and we pass the (existing) policy,” the councilwoman continued. “Because it’s the City’s ordinance and we can change it any time.”

“There’s a legal requirement by the State that we have a Statement of Investment Policy with guidelines that meet State mandates,” Merchant explained.

“I do agree with putting some group together,” Torres-Walker stated. “I also agree with passing the policy as is while this group works together. But I will say government often pacifies people with ad hoc committees and work groups that lead nowhere. We can be back here in a year, two years, three years with still no…ethical investment language…no…policy and with no intent to ever have done so and that is not a process that I want to agree to tonight, if it is not something that City staff is going to commit to move forward and actually work with the community on because it would be doing a disservice to the residents and the public who showed up here, tonight.”

“So, I guess I’m curious to understand is there an intent to come back with a timeline…that things will start to move?” she asked. “So, that this is not just a way to get them out of the room.”

Freitas responded, “Let me just take a crack it” and made a motion to adopt a resolution to approve the Statement of Investment Policy, form the committee to start developing an ethical investment policy, and the council receives quarterly reports and at the end of six months, it comes back as a presentation to the city council, “where are we at, what are the issues and how do we move forward.”

Torres-Walker then asked to add to the motion, “I hear six months.”

“Quarterly, that’s what I meant,” Freitas said.

Rocha then seconded the motion.

“Select your three folks, and immediately, I mean tomorrow morning send an email saying these are our representatives that we would like to meet. Do not let this sit,” Torres-Walker implored those in the audience.

Without further discussion, the motion passed unanimously to applause from the public.

See complete Agenda Item 8.

Watch from the 3:32 mark of Council meeting video.

Will appear on Bay Area ballots across five counties including Contra Costa

By Jeff Cretan, West Advisors

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA — The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has announced that the Connect Bay Area regional transit funding measure has officially qualified for the November 2026 ballot after elections officials confirmed the campaign submitted enough valid signatures across Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

The announcement follows the Connect Bay Area campaign’s submission of more than 305,000 signatures in May, far exceeding the 186,000 valid signatures required to qualify the measure. The MTC’s official certification sent on June 30 declared that the registrars of voters across the five counties each conducted their individual county counts and submitted the results to the MTC and the total submitted far exceeded the qualification threshold. 

The measure if adopted would increase the sales tax in Contra Costa, Alameda San Mateo and Santa Clara counties by a half cent and one cent in San Francisco County for 14 years. As previously reported, the measure would generate approximately $980 million annually across the five counties.

The success of this effort was built on one of the largest grassroots transit organizing efforts the region has ever seen and unprecedented support from business, labor, and community organizations across the Bay Area.

The Connect Bay Area five-county sales tax measure would provide long-term operational funding for major Bay Area transit agencies while supporting projects to strengthen and better connect transit systems across the region. It will protect major transit agencies like BART, Muni, Caltrain and AC Transit from devastating service cuts, help VTA grow to better serve residents, workers, and businesses, and provide direct support to counties for transit improvements. 

Connect Bay Area also strengthens accountability for transit agencies. SB 63 – the legislation authored by Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín that enabled Connect Bay Area – requires independent financial reviews, continued efficiency improvements, and stronger regional coordination before the measure even appears on the ballot.

Unprecedented Grassroots, Labor and Business Support

The Connect Bay Area campaign has grown in support over the last several months with more than 80 elected officials and more than 90 labor, business, and advocacy organizations signing on in support. Major businesses from across the region helped raise more than $5.5 million to qualify the measure and prepare for the November election.

Since launching in January, Connect Bay Area mobilized more than 1,000 volunteers and advocates across Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Supporters gathered signatures at transit stations, farmers markets, community events, neighborhood meetings, and major public gatherings throughout the Bay Area.

The overwhelming signature total that led to the measure’s qualification for the ballot reflects broad public support for transit and growing awareness of the urgency surrounding the future of Bay Area public transportation.

Without sustainable transit funding, the Bay Area could face catastrophic service reductions:

• BART: Up to 15 station closures, elimination of two lines, and service cuts of up to 70%
• Caltrain: Hourly train service, no weekend service, and weekday shutdowns after 9 p.m.
• Muni: At least 20 bus routes eliminated and service reductions of 30% or more
• AC Transit: Service cuts of at least 16%

The campaign will now turn its full attention toward the November election, building on the unprecedented coalition of volunteers, businesses, labor organizations, transit riders, and community advocates who helped qualify the measure.

About Connect Bay Area

The Connect Bay Area campaign is a five-county Regional Transit Measure on the November 2026 ballot. The measure would establish a 0.5% sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties and a 1% sales tax in San Francisco to provide additional support for Muni. It would provide long-term operational funding for major Bay Area transit agencies while supporting regional projects that strengthen transit throughout the region.

The Regional Transit Measure will:

• Protect and improve service on BART, Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and AC Transit.
• Prevent catastrophic transit service cuts across the Bay Area.
• Reduce traffic congestion and emissions while supporting California’s climate goals.
• Support the Bay Area economy by strengthening downtown recovery and regional mobility.

The measure includes strong accountability and oversight provisions, including independent financial reviews for every transit operator, regional coordination requirements to ensure systems work better together, and a citizen oversight committee to monitor spending and performance. A recent independent study required under SB 63 found Bay Area transit agencies have already achieved approximately $1 billion in operational efficiencies while identifying additional opportunities to improve service and reduce costs.

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.

For more information about the Connect Bay Area campaign or to get involved, visit connectbayarea.com.

By Contra Costa Elections Division

Have you ever considered running for office? Learn the basics of running for office at the Contra Costa Elections Division’s Candidate Workshops.

This engaging candidate workshop is designed to remove the mystery from running for office. Experts will cover what’s involved with running for office, including how to file and appear on the ballot, campaign finance disclosure requirements, strategies for spreading your message (including social media), and what happens when you’re in the public eye.

The first one will be held in Antioch on Monday, June 22 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:300 p.m.

Location: Antioch Community Center, 4703 Lone Tree Way

Organizer: Dawn Kruger, (925) 335-7805, outreach@vote.cccounty.us

Last call to reserve a free ticket – Antioch: https://ow.ly/A0WJ50YYv5P

The Contra Costa Elections Division is part of the County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar’s Office.

No changes in new leaders elected, countywide ballot measures

But lead change in 14th Assembly District second place for November run-off

By Allen D. Payton

According to the Contra Costa Elections Division, with the seven-day deadline to receive mail-in ballots passed on Tuesday and only 2,100 ballots remaining to be processed and 4,000 ballots to be cured, the results are confirmed as of June 10th at 3:23 p.m.: three new leaders have been elected, three re-elected, one ballot measure passed and two failed.  A total of 323,422 ballots were cast in the county resulting in a 44.21% turnout.

Plus, according to the California Secretary of State as of 7:25 p.m., second place in two of the closest races in the state have been determined, including one lead change since last Friday’s update.

County Leader Elections

In the four contested races for countywide positions no changes occurred. Dr. Dana Eaton defeated Dr. Jag Lathan for Superintendent of Schools; Vince Robb defeated his two opponents, Nick Spinner and Kismat Kathrani, for Assessor; Peter Karumbi defeated Deepika Naharas for Auditor-Controller; and incumbent County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Kristin Connelly was re-elected having defeated challenger Pratima Sonavne.

Countywide Ballot Measures – A Passes, B & G Fail

In the three countywide ballot measure elections, Measure A, the Urban Limit Line renewal, passed overwhelmingly while Measure B, the County’s sales tax increase and Measure G, the college district’s bond, were defeated.

Measure A increased its margin of victory to 70.2% of the vote in favor to 29.8% opposed.

In the Measure B contest, while more “no” than “yes” votes were counted since last Friday’s update and the margin of defeat increased from 36,562 votes to now 41,093, the percentage of defeat decreased from 57.41% to 56.93% of the vote against. Yet, there are not enough votes remaining to be counted in the county for it to pass.

Although the “yes” votes overtook the “no” votes in the Measure G contest and currently lead by 253 votes, it requires 55% of the vote to pass. There are now 50.03% of the vote in favor to 49.97% opposed. Yet, even if all the remaining 6,100 ballots in the county included favorable votes, the bond measure would still fall about 12,000 votes short of passing.

Lead Change in 14th Assembly District

In the race for second place to determine who will face incumbent Democrat Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks in November in the 14th Assembly District, which includes most of West County and portions of Alameda County, a lead change occurred. Green Party candidate Mark Rendon has overtaken Republican Borgar Solnordal by 1,251 votes, a reversal of 2,201 votes since last Friday’s update and 3,336 votes since Election Night.

10th Congressional District

In the second-place contest to determine who will take on incumbent Democrat Rep. Mark DeSaulnier in November in the 10th Congressional District, which includes most of Contra Costa and portions of Alameda County, Republican Jeff Frese has 3,077 more votes than third-time candidate Katherine Piccinini. He increased his lead by 121 votes since the last update and 233 since Election Night.

The mystery candidate has a website, Facebook page with two followers, X/Twitter feed with zero followers and an Instagram account with one post and one follower as of June 10th. But Frese does not provide a photo of himself or description of what he does for work as a Small Business Owner, which is his ballot designation. Only an email address is provided. An effort to reach him comment about his advancing to the General Election and details about his business were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Estimated number of unprocessed ballots in Contra Costa County:

Ballots voted at a voting location – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received on or before Election Day – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received after Election Day – 0

Provisional ballots – 100

Conditional Voter Registration Provisional ballots – 1,000

Other (In Review, Damaged) – 1,000

Total – 2,100

Ballots Left to Cure – 4,000

Next Results Expected (date and time): Friday, 6/12/2026, 4:00PM

Estimated number of unprocessed ballots in Alameda County:

Ballots voted at a voting location – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received on or before Election Day – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received after Election Day – 18,058

Provisional ballots – 233

Conditional Voter Registration Provisional ballots – 1,467

Other (In Review, Damaged) – 293

Total – 20,051

Ballots Left to Cure – 1,600

Next Results Expected: Friday, 6/12/2026, 4:00PM

According to the Secretary of State, “State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to the Secretary of State by July 3, 2026. The Secretary of State has until July 10, 2026, to certify the results of the election.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

By Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

The latest election results show Contra Costa Measure B trailing with less than 43% of the vote in favor. A relatively small number of late arriving votes are unlikely to change the outcome, given the 36,562-vote gap between the NO and YES totals.  Measure G is also likely to fail.

Measure B would have raised sales taxes by 0.625% around the county, would have cost consumers more than $750 million during its five-year life, and would have pushed total sales tax rates over 10% in most of the County.   Measure G was yet a fourth bond measure for the county colleges, adding to our indebtedness and long-term payment of interest.  The bond measures appear not to have ever been enough and with falling student numbers, huge investments make no sense.

As the official ballot opponent to Measure B, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association (CoCoTax) showed voters the deceptiveness of the proponents’ case, which included exaggerated claims about Medi-Cal funding losses, alarmism over emergency room overcrowding, and the false assertion that the tax did not apply to groceries (prepared foods, OTC medications, and non-food groceries would have been subject to the tax).  For Measure G, we showed the math behind it and how the only people looking to support it with money were unions whose contracts expire this month.  The unions also planned to take advantage of Measure B funds.

CoCoTax rallied volunteers to get the message out with signage, verbal appeals, videos, text messages and more. The organization made its first set of campaign finance expenditures, reporting approximately $20,000 of independent expenditures to the County’s campaign finance system. This spending paled in comparison to the $450,000 raised by the Yes on B campaign, mostly from unions seeking to maximize dues revenue.

Denise Kalm, a CoCoTax Executive Committee who agreed to serve as the group’s President Pro Tem this Spring led the successful effort against Measures B and G.

Reacting to the results, Kalm said, “Measure B would have given the Board of Supervisors another big infusion of cash; they already had burdened us in 2020 with Measure X and haven’t even found ways to spend/waste it all.  And yet, they came back with a 0.625% increase in sales tax demand, purportedly to fix the healthcare shortfall they claim President Trump caused.  None of it was true; none of their math added up.“

Though CoCoTax initially started only going after B, we made an effort to get G to fail, which worked.

CoCoTax welcomes more Contra Costa residents to join us and volunteer. We’re expecting many tax and bond measures in November and then again in 2028. While some may be reasonable, others, like the regional transit tax, require informed and active opposition. Neighbors who want to join us in “Fighting for Good Government at Affordable Cost in Contra Costa,” are encouraged to check out our website at https://www.cocotax.org.