In a recent post on her Instagram account, political newcomer Matty Alappat announced her campaign for Antioch City Council in District 4 to unseat incumbent Councilwoman Monica Wilson. According to the City Clerk’s report, she filed her required documents and qualified as a candidate on August 5th. Alappat’s campaign slogan is, “United as Americans. Committed to Antioch” and lists her priorities as, “Public Safety, Clean Communities and Economic Growth.”
Matty Alappat in an AI-generated photo on her campaign website.
Plus, her campaign website includes the slogan, “A Safer, Cleaner Antioch — For All of Us” and she offers “Practical, neighborhood-focused leadership. Replacing political noise with actionable solutions.” She also provides a list of her priorities of “Public Safety, Thoughtful Housing and Homelessness Solutions, Cleaner City and Downtown Revitalization and Local Jobs” and is temporarily using an AI-generated photo of herself on the “About Matty” page which she plans to replace once new photos are taken.
As previously reported, she is listed on the ballot as Metty Mathews Alappat, and according to her LinkedIn page, her most recent job was as a Senior Technical Account Manager for Amazon Web Services until July 2025.
In her Instagram post repeating what is written in her Candidate Statement, Alappat provided more details about herself and why she’s running. She wrote, “I am Matty Alappat and I am running for Antioch City Council, District 4, to help build a safer, cleaner and more prosperous community for all of us.
“For the last 15 years I have worked in the software industry, solving tough problems and leading successful initiatives. I am ready to bring that same practical approach to City Council.
“I was fortunate to be raised by a mom who was a science teacher and a dad who worked in banking. They taught me that success is built on hard work, integrity, respect for others, and giving back to your community — values I still live by today.
“If elected, my top priority will be public safety. I will make sure the police have the resources required to fight crime and protect our neighborhoods.
“We also have to take better care of our city. That means investing in city’s infrastructure, revitalizing downtown, maintaining clean pet-friendly public spaces and bringing in new businesses and good-paying jobs.
“Housing policies must be carefully planned to fit existing neighborhoods and should only move forward where our infrastructure can truly support them. We will partner with nonprofits to help unhoused individuals achieve long-term stability and self-sufficiency, while also focusing on short-term transitional housing options.
“Antioch deserves leadership that brings people together, spends taxpayer dollars wisely, and gets results. I am committed to making Antioch a place we can all be proud of.
“I look forward to earning your support.”
Alappat’s LinkedIn profile shows she has earned six licenses and certificates all in the tech industry. Asked about her education when reached for comment Alappat said she earned a Master’s Degree in History, in 2002 and a B.A. in History, Economics and Political Science, both from theUniversity of Kerala in India.
Alappat moved to Antioch four years ago from Hayward.
“I adopted a dog who is very high energy and my place in Hayward was very tiny,” she shared. “I thought it was time to move to a house with a backyard and looked in this area because it’s more affordable for me.”
Currently, Alappat is in between jobs saying, “I decided to take a break and that’s when I started to think about doing something different.”
Alappat is also running against third-time candidate Sandra White and another first-time candidate, Andrew Becker, who regularly attends and speaks during council meetings. Wilson is seeking her fifth term on the council.
In English and Spanish; for third term, faces Joy Motts for third time
By Allen D. Payton
Although she completed filing last month, in a post on her official Facebook page on Monday, August 24, 2026, incumbent District 1 Antioch City Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker announced her re-election campaign to a third term. Actually, if elected it will be her second-and-a-half term as she was elected in 2020 for a two-year term following council districting and for a full, four-year term in 2022. Once again, Torres-Walker faces former Councilwoman Joy Motts, for a third time, having first unseating Motts by 212 votes, then defeating her again in 2022 by just four votes following a recount. (Note: This reporter helped raise funds to pay for the recount).
However, in those races, there were three candidates running and splitting the vote. This time it’s a one-on-one contest.
Torres-Walker’s campaign slogans this year are, “Putting Working Families First” and “Leading with Clarity, Steadiness, and Care.”
In her candidate statement, Torres-Walker’s ballot designation is listed as Councilwoman/Nonprofit Executive, working as Executive Director for the Richmond-based Safe Return Project, according to her LinkedIn profile. The councilwoman is a Co-Founder of the organization according to their website, and describes it as “a campaign to secure the freedom and liberation of formerly incarcerated individuals.”
She first posted in English then in Spanish writing, “I’m running for re-election as Antioch City Council member representing District 1 this November.
“My leadership has been focusing on the people and the solution, not just the fight. We need local leaders who will run toward the difficulties facing our communities rather than turn a blind eye. Antioch needs a leader who won’t let inequity go unaddressed while others conduct business as usual.
In Spanish she wrote, “Me postulo para la reelección como miembro del Concejo Municipal de Antioch, en representación del Distrito 1, este mes de noviembre.
“Mi liderazgo se ha enfocado en las personas y en encontrar soluciones, no simplemente en la confrontación. Necesitamos líderes locales que den la cara a las dificultades que afectan a nuestras comunidades, en lugar de hacerse de la vista gorda. Antioch necesita un líder que no permita que las desigualdades queden sin atender mientras otros intentan seguir haciendo negocios como de costumbre.
“¡Soy esa líder!”
On her campaign website Torres-Walker offers additional messages of, “Proven leadership. Community-rooted change. A stronger Antioch for everyone” and “Leadership Focused on People and Solutions,” and a list of her accomplishments in office.
Under the title of “Building Antioch’s Next Chapter” she writes, “My vision is an Antioch where every neighborhood is safe, every family can afford a stable home, every young person has opportunities to succeed, and every resident can see themselves represented in their local government.”
Torres-Walker offers seven commitments if elected for another term. She writes, “I will continue working to:
Expand community-based violence prevention and youth programs
Protect renters and increase pathways to affordable home ownership.
Address homelessness through housing, services and long-term solutions.
Strengthen police accountability and improve community trust.
Support seniors, veterans, working families and people with disabilities.
Bring responsible development, good jobs and new economic opportunities to Antioch.
Make City Hall more transparent, accessible and accountable to the people it serves.
She summarizes her platform as, “Affordable Housing; Safe Neighborhoods; Good Jobs and a Strong Local Economy; Youth Opportunity; Transparent, Accountable Government; and One Antioch.”
Torres-Walker finishes her message with, “We have shown what is possible when residents organize, speak up and demand something better. Now, I am ready to build on that progress and continue moving Antioch forward—with courage, experience and a commitment to leaving no one behind.
“Let’s continue building an Antioch where every family has the opportunity to thrive.”
Her candidate statement shares more of her accomplishments and ends with, “There’s more work ahead, and I’m not backing down. I’m asking for your vote, so I can keep fighting for an Antioch that works for all of us.”
Says “the District Board wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”
By Allen D. Payton
The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) organized to oppose the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) on the November ballot filed a lawsuit, Monday, against Election Officials in the five included counties and Kimberly Ward, the Public Transit Revenue Measure District Elections Official. If approved by voters, the tax measure, known as Connect Bay Area Transit, will raise a half-cent in four of the five counties, including Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo and one-cent in San Francisco County for 14 years and raise an estimated $17 billion.
Labeled a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by 10 petitioners including former State Senator Quentin L. Kopp, Gregg A. Diéguez, President of CABAT and Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, as well as Brian Holtz, Thomas Rubin and five others listed as individuals and electors in the Public Transit Revenue Measure District.
Kopp is also President of the San Francisco Taxpayers Association; Holtz is President of the Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors in Santa Clara County and Secretary and Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County; and Rubin is Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, Inc.
Attorney Jason Bezis of Lafayette is representing them.
The District was formed to oversee the process for the transit tax measure. (Seerelated article)A separate oversight committee will be formed to verify proper expenditure of the funds should the measure pass.
The lawsuit was filed before “the final printing deadline date” of “Friday, August 28, 2026, by which all ballot language and County Voter Information Guides (CVIG) materials must be finalized, including resolving any legal challenges in court.”
Transit Officials Were Warned But Did It Anyway
According to Joffe, “Transit officials cannot claim they were blindsided. On the night of July 23, 2026, the eve of the board’s special meeting, attorney Bezis sent a detailed pre-litigation demand letter urging the board not to approve the question as drafted. The letter was acknowledged multiple times and the measure was placed on the ballot with the slanted wording anyway.”
Lawsuit cover page. Source: CABAT
Legal Claims
The lawsuit “challenges biased, not neutral, untrue, partial, argumentative, and/or prejudicial wording in the RTM Ballot Question (also called ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) in violation of the Elections Code sections 9051(e) and 13119(c) standards and false and/or misleading wording in the RTM Ballot Question under the Elections Code section 9380/McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (‘McDonough’) standard. This lawsuit also challenges the Impartial Analysis authored by real party in interest DISTRICT Counsel KATHLEEN KANE as false, misleading, and/or not impartial in violation of Elections Code section 9380.”
The petitioners “seek a writ of mandate to compel amendment of the ballot question (also known as ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) and the impartial analysis that Respondents COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS and Ms. WARD are preparing for voter use in the Regional Transit Measure (‘RTM’) election to be held on November 3, 2026.”
Further, the lawsuit claims, “Petitioners assert that the DISTRICT and DISTRICT BOARD wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”
‘To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”
Challenges & Proposed Changes
However, the petitioners claim the adopted ballot language does not comply with state Elections Code and the amount is incorrect and should instead be $1.2 million per year. They claim the statement of the measure is not “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure,” is “argumentative” and “likely to create prejudice for or against the measure,” and that the “RTM Ballot question is inherently prejudicial” based on a survey MTC conducted last year. Furthermore, the petitioners “argue that components of the RTM Ballot Question are false and/or misleading.”
They want to make the following changes:
Amend the phrase “Preserving BART …” to read “Funding BART …”
Delete the phrase “for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities”.
Delete the phrase “To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit”.
Alternatively, strike the word “major” in the phrase “To prevent major service cuts …”
Delete the phrase “avoid increased traffic”.
Delete the phrase “reduce pollution”.
Strike the phrase “/potholes”.
Amend “Repairing targeted roads” to read “Repaving transit-served roads”.
Strike the words “affordability, reliability”.
Amend “enacting” to read “imposing”.
Amend the phrase “sales tax” to read “sales and use tax”.
Strike the word “oversight” in the phrase “Requiring … oversight”.
Strike the word “accountability” in the phrase “Requiring … accountability”.
Amend “$980,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimate) to an updated number (an August 2026 estimate) or “$1,200,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimates, averaged over 14 years).
Alternative Ballot Language
The lawsuit offers the following ballot language alternatives:
“If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, the RTM Ballot Question would read:
‘Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”
The lawsuit further reads, “If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, including use of the ‘Shall the measure … be adopted?’ format, the RTM Ballot Question would read:
‘Shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually; Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; be adopted?’”
The petitioners also claim the “RTM Impartial Analysis is partial, false, and/or misleading” and that it should be written by either the California Attorney General, a county counsel or district attorney instead of Kathleen Kane who is he legal counsel for the District.
“Supporters of the Transit Measure need to use misleading advertising because voters won’t pass the measure if they have the real story that it is a regressive tax falling hardest on seniors and low-income families for 14 years,” Dieguez stated.
“Voters deserve the honest description the law guarantees them, and if the district won’t provide it, a court should,” Joffe added
To oversee process for Bay Area transit tax on Nov. ballot
By Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OAKLAND, CA – Updated Aug. 17, 2026 – The Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) was established under Government Code Title 7.85, by Senate Bill 63 (2025), which also authorizes a regional transportation revenue measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot, known as the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative.
The PTRMD on Jan. 16, 2026, received a notice of intent from the Connect Bay Area Transit Committee to place a citizen’s initiative on the November 2026 ballot. Senate Bill 63, authored by state senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín of Berkeley, authorized a qualified voter initiative to impose a retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable to the entire district for a duration of 14 years, in an amount of 0.5% in each of the counties located within the district and 1% in the City and County of San Francisco, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.
On July 1, 2026, the District Elections Official issued a Certificate to Initiative Petition, certifying that proponents of the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative submitted sufficient valid signatures for the measure to qualify for placement on the ballot.
The District at its July 24, 2026, meeting formally approved a resolution accepting the District Elections Official’s certification of the Connect Bay Area Transit initiative measure and requesting the Boards of Supervisors in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to call a special election on the measure and to consolidate this special election with the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.
Impartial Analysis of Regional Transit Measure
Legal counsel for the Public Transit Revenue Measure District has prepared an impartial analysis of the Regional Transit Measure pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code 67740. This text will also be included in each county’s voter information guide per state law.
Notices of Election Provided by Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters provided the following notices of election:
Established election dates related to the measure can be found on the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV) website. Please reference the most recently published Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) calendars, which may be accessed at the SantaClaraCounty.gov website. If you are unable to access the link, please contact the Santa Clara County ROV directly for assistance.
Staff Contact
Kimberly Ward, District Elections Official Phone: 415-778-5367 Email: kward@bayareametro.gov
¿Necesita que alguno de nuestros documentos sea traducido? ¿Necesita nuestras comunicaciones escritas en letra grande o en Braille? ¿Necesita un intérprete del lenguaje de señas o un intérprete que hable su idioma para poder participar?
Para solicitar asistencia, por favor llamemos al (415) 778-6757. Para telecomunicaciones para personas sordas y discapacitadas, favor de llamar al 711, el Servicio de Retransmisión de California (CRS) para TTY/VCO/HCO a Voz o para Voz a TTY/VCO/HCO al (800) 855-3000 y pedir que lo conecten al (415) 778-6700. Necesitamos aviso de al menos tres días hábiles de anticipación para proporcionar la asistencia adecuada.
Do you need one of our documents translated? Do you need written materials in large type or in Braille? Do you need a sign language interpreter or an interpreter who speaks your language in order to participate?
To request accommodation, please call (415) 778-6757. For TDD or hearing impaired, call 711, California Relay Service, or (800) 735-2929 (TTY), (800) 735-2922 (voice) and ask to be relayed to (415) 778-6700. We require at least three working days’ notice to accommodate requests.
New language bySenate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee chaired by Senator Scott Wieneralso exempts crimes against disabled victims and, in some cases, children under 14.
WARNING: Graphic content
By California Family Council
SACRAMENTO, CA — AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, could be voted on the Senate floor as soon as tomorrow morning, Thursday, Aug. 13, 2026. On August 4, the bill’s authors quietly rewrote its central definition. They did not fix the problem California Family Council (CFC) raised in June. They made it bigger, and harder to see.
Background
AB 2691, authored by Assemblywoman Dawn Addis (D-Dawn Addis), passed the Assembly floor 67 to 0. It would bar people convicted of felony sexual assault or human trafficking from holding public office, a policy CFC supports. On June 24, the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, chaired by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), added language exempting felony sodomy, oral copulation and sexual penetration when the victim is a minor age 14 to 17.
CFC Vice President Greg Burt testified against that exemption on June 30 and asked the committee to restore the bill to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. The committee advanced the bill anyway, 4 to 1, with only Senator Steven Choi (R-Irvine) voting no.
What Changed on August 4, and How California’s Sex Offender Registry Actually Works
The named exemption for ages 14 to 17 is gone from the bill text. In its place, Addis rewrote the bill to define “sexual assault” using California’s sex offender registration system, and only the most severe part of it.
California sorts every registerable sex offense into one of three tiers, based on how serious the offense is:
Tier 1 requires registration for 10 years. It covers misdemeanor sex offenses and the least serious felony sex offenses.
Tier 2 requires registration for 20 years. It covers felony sex offenses that state law separately classifies as “serious” or “violent”, along with a short list of specifically named crimes.
Tier 3 requires registration for life. It is reserved for the most serious sex crimes: forcible rape, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual assault of a child, and similar offenses.
Under the bill the Assembly passed, a felony conviction under any of six penal code sections covering rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration disqualified a candidate, full stop. Under the August 4 rewrite, a conviction only disqualifies a candidate if it happens to fall into Tier 3 of the sex registry list. A conviction that falls into Tier 1 or Tier 2, no matter how serious the underlying crime actually was, no longer counts.
That single change does not narrow the original exemption. It widens it.
Crimes against minors age 14 to 17 remain exempted. The specific carve-out is gone by name, but the conduct it covered, non-forcible sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration of a 14-to-17-year-old, is a Tier 1 offense. It still falls outside the bill’s new definition.
Sex crimes against disabled victims are now exempted. Non-forcible sodomy and sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent because of a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability are Tier 2 offenses and fall below the bill’s new threshold.
Under certain circumstances, so do sex crimes against children under 10. A first-time, non-forcible conviction for molesting a child under 14, which includes children under 10, is a Tier 2 offense and no longer disqualifies a candidate under the bill’s new language, unless the act specifically involved intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or penetration, which remain covered under a separate, Tier 3 statute.
“We asked this Assemblywoman Addis in June to send this bill back to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. Instead, she took the exemption we objected to, deleted the sentence that named it, and buried the same result inside a much bigger loophole,” said CFC Vice President Burt. “Sex crimes against 14 to 17-year-olds are still exempted. Now sex crimes against people with disabilities are exempted too. And under the right circumstances, so is molesting a child under 14. This bill was supposed to keep sex offenders out of public office. As written, it tells some of them they’re still welcome to run.”
Call to Action
The Senate could vote on AB 2691 as early as tomorrow morning. California Family Council urges senators to vote no on the bill as currently written and urges Californians to contact their state senator today.
About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.
APPENDIX: Affected Crimes, With Penal Code Citations
This list is limited to items independently confirmed against the text of Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c). Additional items appear in supplemental research from a California State Senate office; those are not included here pending independent confirmation.
No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 1 Offenses (10-Year Registration)
Penal Code 286(b) — sodomy, non-forcible, victim under 18
Penal Code 287(b), or former 288a(b) — oral copulation, non-forcible, victim under 18
Penal Code 289(h) and (i) — sexual penetration by foreign object, non-forcible, victim under 18
Penal Code 289.5 — fleeing to California to avoid prosecution or custody for a registerable sex offense committed in another state (misdemeanor)
No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 2 Offenses (20-Year Registration)
Penal Code 285 — incest
Penal Code 286(g) — sodomy of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability
Penal Code 286(c)(1) — sodomy of a victim under 14, where the offender is more than 10 years older, without force
Penal Code 288(a) — a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, first offense, without force. This is California’s basic child molestation statute.
Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, specifically when the underlying intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)
Penal Code 289(b) — sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability
Penal Code 647.6 — annoying or molesting a child, second or subsequent offense
Still Disqualifying: Tier 3 Offenses (Lifetime Registration)
Penal Code 236.1(c) — human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act
Penal Code 266h(b) — aggravated pimping of a minor
Penal Code 266i(b) — aggravated pandering of a minor
Penal Code 266j — procuring a child under 16 for a lewd act
Penal Code 269 — aggravated sexual assault of a child
Penal Code 286(c)(2) and (d) — forcible sodomy of a child under 14, including in concert
Penal Code 287(c) and (d), or former 288a — forcible oral copulation of a child under 14, including in concert
Penal Code 288(b) — a lewd act on a child under 14 committed by force
Penal Code 288(c) — a lewd act on a 14- or 15-year-old, where the offender is at least 10 years older
Penal Code 288.2 — sending harmful matter to a minor with intent to seduce, felony
Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, except when the intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)
Penal Code 288.5 — continuous sexual abuse of a child
Penal Code 288.7 — sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a child age 10 or younger
Penal Code 289(a) — forcible sexual penetration
Penal Code 653f(c) — soliciting another person to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or a lewd act on a child
A felony sentenced to a mandatory life term under Penal Code 667.61 (“One Strike” law)
Designation as a habitual sex offender under Penal Code 667.71
A second, separately tried conviction under Penal Code 288(a)
Sources: California Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c), both available at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
Antioch School Board incumbent Mary Rocha will face off against newcomer Brandon Dawkins for Area 2 Trustee in the November election. Sources: Official and campaign photos.
Deadline is Wed. Aug 12 at 5:00 p.m.
By Allen D. Payton
In the elections for the two seats on the Antioch School Board, the race for Area 5 Trustee is set as of last Friday, while the filing period for Area 2 Trustee has been extended until Wednesday, Aug. 12th at 5:00 p.m. because incumbent Dr. Jag Lathan did not seek re-election.
In Trustee Area 5, incumbent Mary Rocha will face only one opponent, Brandon Dawkins, as Brandon William Lawson did not complete the filing process. As previously reported, according to his campaign Facebook page and his campaign website, Dawkins is a “Healthcare Worker, Labor and Community Organizer” and “a father of five, with four of his children attending Antioch Unified schools.” His campaign slogan is “Whole Student, Whole Community.”
In Trustee Area 2, Oakley resident Roxanne Reece so far faces no opponent. But because the incumbent didn’t file to run for re-election by last Friday’s deadline, the filing period has been extended five days until 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 12th.
According to Reece’s campaign Facebook page she is a “Parent, Advocate, Community Voice” and is “Committed to students, families, educators, accountability and a stronger future for Antioch schools.” A portion of Oakley is within the Antioch School District boundaries.
Registered voters who live within the light green area shown in this Antioch School District Trustee Area 2 map can run for the school board. Source: AUSD
To run, candidates must live within the Trustee Area, acquire nomination papers at and submit them to the Contra Costa Elections office, 555 Escobar Street in Martinez. 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. For more information visit www.contracostavote.gov/elections/candidates-campaigns-measures/run-for-office.
With the close of filing on Friday, August 7, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., according to Appointed City Clerk Michael Mandy, all those who pulled nomination papers, except for Diane Gibson-Gray, have filed them to run for the Antioch City Council. Incumbent Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker will face former Antioch Councilwoman and School Board Trustee Joy Motts for a third time in District 1 and incumbent Monica Wilson will face three challengers in the race for District 4. Gibson-Gray announced earlier Friday in a letter to the editor she will not be running in District 1, again.
Torres-Walker defeated Motts who ran for re-election in 2020, then Motts lost again to Torres-Walker in 2022 by just four votes following a recount.
Former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair Sandra White will run for a third time against Wilson, having also run in 2020 and 2022. First-time council candidates Andrew Becker, a local homeless advocate and regular public speaker at council meetings, as well as Metty Mathews Alappat have also entered the race. According to her LinkedIn page, Alappat was a Senior Technical Account Manager for Amazon Web Services until July 2025.
Wilson is running for a fifth term, or a rather fourth-and-a-half term. She was first elected in 2012, then re-elected in 2016, then re-elected in 2020 for a two-year term following the City’s move to district elections, and again re-elected in 2022 for another full, four-year term.
Former Antioch School Board President Diane Gibson-Gray will not run for the Antioch City Council again. Photo source: 2022 campaign
“This isn’t stepping away from the fight for accountability in Antioch.” – Diane Gibson-Gray
To the Editor:
In 2022, I ran for Antioch City Council, District 1, because I believe in serving the greater good of this community. That race came down to four votes — Tamisha Torres-Walker’s margin of victory over Joy Motts. I finished just 128 votes behind Torres-Walker myself.
I’ve thought hard about what that result actually tells us. Together, Joy and I represented roughly 60% of the vote in that race. We split it, and a three-vote margin decided the outcome for all of District 1.
I fully intended to run again in 2026. My commitment to fiscal accountability and transparent government in Antioch hasn’t wavered. My reason for running was, and always has been, the greater good — making sound decisions for District 1 and for Antioch as a whole.
Yesterday, Joy Motts and I had a conversation about the race. We talked through the reasons each of us is qualified to serve, and the reasons we each felt called to run. The call ended the same way it began, with both of us still in the race.
I’ve seen comments on social media about vote-splitting, and I’ve had conversations with valued friends and family who share that concern. After a great deal of thought, I’ve decided to withdraw — for the greater good. Joy Motts and I have real differences in experience, style and approach, and in many ways have similar ideas and values. District 1 voters deserve to hear those differences clearly, head-to-head with Tamisha Torres-Walker, not blurred across a three-way field.
This isn’t stepping away from the fight for accountability in Antioch — it’s making sure that fight is decided by voters, not by how the numbers happen to fall. I’ll continue doing the work I’ve always done in this community, watching the budgets and asking hard questions, from outside the ballot box this time.
I wish both candidates a hard-fought, honest campaign. District 1 deserves nothing less. The outcome is theirs to decide.
Finally, I want to thank everyone who signed my nomination papers, and everyone who encouraged and supported me along the way. Your belief in me and in this community means more than I can say.
