Plus, get tips and reminders for voting in the November 3rd General Election
By Dawn Kruger, Community and Media Relations Coordinator, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department
Regional Early Voting Sites open today, Friday, October 30th with convenient times to vote in-person, and polling places are open on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3rd from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
Voters can still return their ballots by mail, postmarked on or before Election Day – to ensure mailed ballots are received on time, voters mailing their ballots should go into the post office and ask for a postmark. To avoid stress and ensure the Elections office receives their ballot on time, voters can drop their ballot off at one of the County’s 43 official drop boxes before 8:00 PM on Election Day.
“We want Contra Costa Voters to know that they can vote their way with confidence,” said Kristin B. Connelly, the County’s Registrar of Voters. “The Elections office is here to ensure that your vote is counted and your voice is heard.”
In-Person Voter Services
If you prefer to vote in-person or need in-person services to cast your ballot, Contra Costa County residents have early voting options at five Regional Early Voting sites throughout the county.
All Contra Costa registered voters will be able to vote at any of the Regional Early Voting locations, which will be open Friday, October 30th from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM; Saturday, October 31st from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM; and Monday, November 2nd from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Here are the locations of Contra Costa’s Regional Early Voting sites:
Oakley Recreation Center, 1250 O’Hara Ave, Oakley
Pittsburg Library-Community Room, 80 Power Avenue, Pittsburg
Richmond Memorial Auditorium, 403 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond
San Ramon Valley United Methodist Church, 902 Danville Blvd., Alamo
Center for Community Arts Auditorium, 111 N Wiget Lane, Walnut Creek
Voters can also come to the Elections Office at 555 Escobar St in Martinez, Friday, October 30th from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Saturday October 31st from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Monday November 2nd from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and Election Day, Tuesday November 3rd from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
Polling Places
Polling places will be open on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3rd from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Please go to our website and check “My Voting Information.” to find your assigned polling place.
Conditional Voter Registration
If you missed the voter registration deadline, you can still register and vote in-person using Conditional Voter Registration. It is a one-stop opportunity to register and cast your ballot and is available (1) at our office at 555 Escobar St in Martinez, (2) at Regional Early Voting sites, and (3) at all polling places.
Accessible Voting Equipment and Additional Language Access
Official ballots and voting instructions are provided in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Additional language resources are available through ballot translation guides which are available online and at all in-person voting locations. Ballot marking equipment with accessible features is available at every in-person voting location for voters who may need assistance.
Be Prepared
If you vote in-person, many voters find it helpful to come prepared. Make your choices ahead of time and bring your pre-marked Sample Ballot to the polls to help you save time. Copies of the Voter Information Guide are available at the polls and the information is also available online.
No Electioneering within 100 Feet of Polling Place – Leave Campaign T-Shirts, Buttons and Hats at Home
Please remember that voters have the right to cast a ballot free from intimidation or distraction. Under California law, electioneering is prohibited within 100 feet of any voting location. Anyone wearing items promoting any position in this election will be asked to remove or cover them while they are at the voting location. Please help our poll workers by refraining from electioneering and leave your campaign t-shirts, buttons, and hats at home.
For more information on voting options for the November 3rd General Election, visit www.contracostavote.gov or call 925.335.7800.
A voter casts a ballot during the presidential primary election on Super Tuesday in Oakland. Photo: Andrew Reed/EdSource
PRO: Teachers’ union leader says Prop. 3 would help lock in hard-won resources for student well-being
By Gloria Martinez, EdSource.org – republished with permission
When I was a special education teacher, I learned that one of the cruelest questions you can ask an underfunded school is: What can you afford to go without?
Before California voters passed Proposition 30 in 2012, this was not a hypothetical question. I saw firsthand how budget constraints affected students’ daily lives, especially in less affluent communities where resources were already stretched thin. Some schools lacked the counselors, school psychologists and social workers needed to recognize when a child was struggling. Teachers did what they could, but in classrooms of 30 or more students, we could not replace these trained professionals or meet every child’s needs alone.
By raising taxes on California’s highest earners (currently, couples earning more than $742,000), Proposition 30 generated additional revenue for public schools and higher education. In the years that followed, teachers across the state used collective bargaining to advocate for improvements that directly affected students and school communities: smaller class sizes, art and music programs, and mental health professionals who helped schools better support students’ overall well-being.
In Los Angeles, those resources also helped create conditions for educators to pursue further gains through common-good bargaining, including community schools, the Black Student Achievement Plan, and additional staffing. These were more than budget line items. They meant more readily available support for students, expanded opportunities for children from low-income backgrounds and from immigrant communities and communities of color, and greater capacity for schools to intervene when students and their families needed help.
Today, as voters consider Proposition 3, which would make these existing tax rates permanent for California’s highest-income earners, we must remember what it took to build that stronger foundation and what we stand to lose if it erodes.
If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue. This financial pitfall will make it harder for school districts to sustain the programs and staffing students rely on, including mental health and student support services. Counselors, school psychologists and social workers — positions we worked to expand in our schools — could be at risk.
“If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue.“
Protecting that investment is especially urgent as students face increasingly complex mental health challenges. For young people experiencing depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts, school-based mental health services reach more than twice as many as primary care or child welfare services. For many students, school may be the most accessible place to find help.
Students also bring fears into school that originate far beyond campus. Immigration raids across California have exacerbated students’ anxieties about family separation, fears for parents’ safety, and difficulty concentrating in class. In moments like these, psychiatric social workers have provided students with weekly check-ins, psychological counseling and information about legal support services. They have also facilitated community circles where students can discuss unfolding events and how those events affect them.
If schools lose these professionals, students and families will have fewer places to turn for help. Families with the means to do so may be able to pay for private counseling, but families without those means can lose access to critical support altogether.
The gains made possible by Proposition 30 demonstrate what sustained public investment can achieve. Without continued funding that would come from Proposition 3, it’s hard to see how schools can maintain those hard-won gains, preserve mental health services and build the capacity they need to respond to students’ changing needs.
Years from now, our students will have to live with the consequences of the choices we make during this election. Children need more than academic instruction to thrive. They need the stability and support that allow them to recover from setbacks, develop confidence and imagine a future beyond their immediate challenges.
Proposition 3 will not magically fix California’s schools. But without this revenue, schools will struggle to maintain the staffing and programs our students deserve. The question we must ask is not simply what California can afford to fund, but what we are willing to risk going without.
Voters at a polling place. Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
CON: Taxpayers leader says California doesn’t need another forever tax
As statewide student enrollment declines
By Robert Gutierrez, EdSource.org – republished with permission
Proposition 3 asks voters to approve a massive tax increase that would not take effect until 2031, when California’s finances may look completely different from how they do today. Voters should reject Proposition 3 and keep their options open.
In 2031, there will be a new president in the Oval Office, a new governor, and a different political landscape in California — especially if voters approve Proposition 40 to impose a wealth tax that could prompt an exodus of the taxpayers targeted by Proposition 3.
The state also will have significantly fewer students in our public schools. The Department of Finance projects a decline of 710,500 students from 2026 through 2036, and by the midpoint of this decline, we undoubtedly will see some major changes in the education structure.
This is only the beginning of the list of unknowns. Other questions include:
Will Californians still be paying billions of dollars per year for a nonfunctioning “high-speed” railroad system in 2031, rather than prioritizing schools for that spending?
Will taxpayers still be paying for ineffective programs that haven’t solved homelessness?
Will startups launch in California, or take their jobs and economic benefits to states with more competitive tax rates?
In short, it makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.
What difference could five years make?
California’s finances can change substantially in a short period. Total state revenue for the current fiscal year is projected to be $21.5 billion higher than the amount collected five years earlier. The Department of Finance also recently reported that general fund revenue was running $5.5 billion above the projection used to draft the 2026-27 budget just six months earlier. This means the education funding guarantee will go up, too.
“It makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.“
Timing is only one of the problems. While Proposition 3 is marketed as a “tax extension” that would only affect high-income residents, the truth is that it’s a major tax increase that would hit millions of small businesses as well as high-income individuals. The result: California’s affordability crisis gets worse.
The small-business aspect of Proposition 3 hasn’t received enough attention. California’s tax structure does not neatly separate business income from personal income, and many small businesses operate as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or S corporations that report business earnings on personal income tax returns.
This means the higher tax rates imposed by Proposition 3 would increase taxes on many small businesses, ultimately leading to higher prices for customers, fewer job opportunities for workers, or both.
The Public Policy Institute of California reported in February that sole proprietorships accounted for more than 3 million California businesses in 2023. But the number of those businesses whose owners would be impacted by Proposition 3 depends on their taxable income.
To the extent that Proposition 3 would hit high-income earners, it would make California more reliant on the most volatile source of revenue, while simultaneously making it even more volatile by giving high-income residents a new incentive to leave the state.
California already imposes the nation’s highest personal income taxes and would have a top personal income tax rate of 10.3% on income over $1 million without Proposition 3. The state also imposes a 1.3% State Disability Insurance tax on all income from salaries and wages, bringing the top tax rate to 11.6% on those forms of income, without Proposition 3.
As for the issue of an “extension” versus an “increase,” the fact is clear: If Proposition 3 is approved, Californians will pay $5 billion to $15 billion a year more in state income tax than if the initiative is defeated (according to estimates by the Legislative Analyst’s Office). That’s an increase — and a very large one, at that.
Finally, the measure would continue the trend in which “temporary” taxes in California never seem to go away. As the proponents of Proposition 40 are discovering, voters are extremely distrustful of taxes described as temporary. Why? In large part because of Proposition 3 and its predecessor, Proposition 55 of 2016, asking voters to renew a tax originally described as a temporary charge to cover an emergency.
The ballot argument for the original initiative, Proposition 30 of 2012, said the taxes “are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety” — one of the argument’s five mentions of the allegedly temporary nature.
With revenue arriving above projections and the state spending billions on questionable programs without proper controls or a review of effectiveness, it can no longer be said that California has a fiscal emergency.
The voters should give much-needed relief to small businesses and their customers, avoid making fiscal decisions prematurely, and let the “emergency tax” expire on schedule. Vote NO on Proposition 3.
Robert Gutierrez is president of the California Taxpayers Association, which is celebrating its 100th year of serving as the state’s largest and oldest association representing taxpayers in this state.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view.
By Dawn Kruger, Community and Media Relations, Coordinator, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department
The first report of results will be released shortly after 8:00 PM on Election Night, Tuesday, November 3rd, and posted to the Elections website immediately afterward. The initial posted results will include counted Vote-by-Mail (VBM) ballots and in-person ballots from Regional Early Voting Sites.
The second report, with results from the polls, will be issued at approximately 9:30 PM with subsequent updates at least once an hour until all precincts have reported their votes from in-person voting. The final Election Night report is expected to be issued by 12:00 AM.
Typically, the Election Night report only represents approximately half of the total vote that our office ultimately will receive.
The first interim report will be posted by 5:00 PM on Friday, November 6th, and will contain additional results from Vote-by-Mail ballots received on or after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Additional results will be posted twice a week, by 5:00 PM until canvass activities have been completed. Any final signature cures submitted by the deadline will be included in the final report at certification on December 3rd, 2026.
The availability of updated reports will be communicated via X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, using the hashtag #CoCoVote. Changes to the reporting schedule, if any, also will be communicated on these social media sites.
The Contra Costa Elections Division social media pages are:
Local election results will also be available throughout Election Night on Contra Costa Television (CCTV) beginning at 8:00 PM on Comcast channel 27, Astound channel 32, and AT&T U-Verse channel 99.
I live in Walnut Creek, and I’m voting for Jeff Frese for Congress in District 10. I recently posted on Nextdoor to ask my neighbors to give Frese a look before they fill out their ballots.
Mark DeSaulnier has been in Congress for twelve years. In that time, two of his bills became law. One named a post office. The other moved a park boundary. Twelve years is long enough to judge someone’s work, and that is the work.
Jeff Frese lives in Moraga. He isn’t a career politician, and the first thing on his list is one every parent in this county can get behind: no federal income tax on public school teachers. The people we trust with our kids all day shouldn’t need a second job to live in the towns where they teach.
Frese has challenged DeSaulnier to a debate. DeSaulnier won’t debate him. When you’ve never had to earn the vote, you never have to show up.
One party has held every statewide office in California since 2011. We pay the highest gas prices in the country. More people are leaving this state than any other, and the U-Haul one-way exodus is the receipt. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result hasn’t worked.
I’m not asking anyone to change parties. I’m asking them to consider hiring someone who will actually show up and do the job. Someone who will prioritize the interests of his constituents over his self-interest or his allegiance to any political party. Someone who is determined to act and to create a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Talk is cheap. The time to act is now.
Ballots are due Tuesday, November 3. I’m voting for Jeff Frese, and I hope you’ll join me. For more information visit https://freseforcongress.com.
The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union and one of the largest funders of California political campaigns, has spent more than $65.5 million this election cycle, campaign finance records show.
Most of that money — $58.3 million — has been spent in support of Proposition 3, a ballot initiative to make permanent a temporary tax on high earners that helps fund public schools and community colleges. CTA’s contributions account for 87% of the Yes on 3 campaign’s funding. Records show the No on 3 effort has raised a total of $5,500, meaning CTA alone has spent nearly $9,700 for every dollar spent opposing the proposition.
CTA is also a major source of independent support for State Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Richard Barrera, having spent $8.4 million as of Oct. 27. That includes spending in support of Barrera and spending in opposition to his opponent, Sonja Shaw.
The union is by far the biggest Barrera supporter in terms of spending, with 96% of independent spending to support Barrera having come from CTA through various committees. The union also contributed $39,200 directly to Barrera’s campaign.
Other causes CTA has spent on include $1.5 million to oppose Prop. 39, an initiative to add stronger voter ID; $500,000 to oppose Prop. 43, which aims to require voter-proposed tax increases meet the two-thirds majority required for Legislature-proposed taxes; and $481,000 in support of local bond measures across the state.
Unlike in previous elections, CTA has mostly stayed out of the race for governor. Records show $39,200 in contributions to Xavier Becerra’s campaign or independent expenditure committees supporting him.
Race pits independent long-timer against activist newcomer
Dawkins claims he’s running because Rocha encouraged him to, but she says she only said he should – someday but not against her
By Allen D. Payton
With a week to go in the Trustee Area 5 race for the Antioch Unified School District Board election, I’ve decided to endorse Mary Rocha for re-election for a third and most likely final term in a row. The long-time, local elected official, who first served on the school board, when she served as Board President, then on the Antioch City Council, including one term as mayor, and has been serving on the school board again since 2018.
She faces newcomer Brandon Dawkins as her only challenger.
Reasons for Rocha
I served with Mary for four years on the council. We worked together well during the final two years of my term and her first two as mayor and I know I can trust her as she does what she says she will.
More importantly, Rocha is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in even if it means being the odd person out when voting on major issues. For example, she was the only trustee to vote against hiring the current superintendent who has since been placed on paid leave and is now suing the District and Rocha. (See related article)
She voted against staff salary increases due to concerns about budget impacts this past year. Rocha also said no to painful cuts, but she did support some budget cuts. Because of her leadership in that area, two of the other trustees joined her to form a new board majority.
Rocha said no to painful cuts, but she did support some necessary staff and budget reductions. She said her efforts help win other board members to her side.
As previously reported, during their meeting on May 13, 2026, on a vote of 3-1-1 with Rocha voting “no”, the Trustees approved the Budget Reduction Plan including the concessions that saved several specific jobs. The Board then voted 3-1-1, again, on final layoffs of 78 Certificated employees which, were mainly teachers, also with Rocha voting against. Finally, after Rocha was able to get the other board members to agree to saving the jobs of the Behavior Support Specialists (3 FTE), Board Certified Behavior Analyst (1 FTE) and Bilingual Instructional Assistants – (12.4275 FTE), the Trustees voted 4-0-1 with Rocha voting in favor, on final layoffs of a little over 81 Full-Time Equivalent Classified Services employees.
Rocha has the backing of almost 20 current and former elected officials in or who represent Antioch, district and community leaders and also one union, the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council.
Dawkins’ Background
According to his website, Dawkins has worked for the City and County of San Francisco for the past 18 years, currently as a health worker with the San Francisco Department of Public Health. He is a member of SEIU Local 1021, where he previously served as Vice President of Organizing. Dawkins also holds a bachelor’s degree in Africana Studies with an emphasis in Behavioral Sciences from S.F. State.
He does have some experience with Antioch schools, having served on the AUSD Safety Committee and as a parent representative on the district’s Community Schools Steering Committee, according to his website which his good.
Rocha and Dawkins participate in the NAACP Candidate Night moderated by the League of Women Voters on Sept. 24, 2026. The photo by Allen D. Payton posted on the Antioch Herald Facebook page that night then used by the Dawkins campaign without permission or attribution.
Challenges with Dawkins
But during the night of the NAACP Candidates forum on Sept. 24th, I met and spoke to Dawkins for the first and only time and I gave him my business card with my phone number and email address. But I’ve never heard from him. Plus, his campaign website does not include either his phone number or email address. In order to contact him, I completed a form on the website and provided my phone number and email address last Wednesday. Yet, I still haven’t heard from him, or anyone associated with his campaign in order to speak with Dawkins to ask him a few questions. That’s not good for someone who wants to serve in public office. Candidates and elected officials need to be accessible to the public they’re wanting to or do represent. I finally saw his email address on his campaign Facebook page late Sunday night and sent him a message. But as of Tuesday he still hasn’t responded or contacted the Herald.
Worse, in introducing himself during that forum Dawkins embellished a conversation he had with Rocha a few years ago when he said the reason he’s running is because she encouraged him to at that time. But when asked about it, Rocha said, “I only met him two years ago at the Democrat Central Committee dinner when Louie (her son) was running for city council. I told him, ‘You sound good. You would make a good school board member.’”
She never expected Dawkins would run this year or against her.
Plus, he or someone on his campaign posted on his campaign Facebook a photo from that forum taken by this reporter that had been posted on the Herald’s Facebook page without permission and without mentioning where it was obtained.
When informed of it, either he or someone from his claimed, “Actually, this photo was taken by another community member who was in attendance and it was posted on their page.” But it is the exact same photo and that person obviously obtained it from the Herald’s Facebook page and posted it on theirs. On Tuesday prior to publication time, I asked them to either give credit to the Herald or remove the photo.
Brandon Dawkins in his official campaign photo (top left), in a photo by SEIU (bottom left) with unionized Starbucks workers and their allies celebrating Pride month at a store in Antioch, Thursday, June 27, 2024, and (top right) in a photo wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf posted on his Facebook page on Sept. 14, 2026, (top center) speaking at an anti-ICE rally in favor the County’s non-cooperation policy, (bottom center) speaking at an SEIU rally and (bottom right) speaking at what appears to be an anti-Trump political rally. Sources of all photos except by SEIU: Dawkins’ campaign website and Facebook pages.
Opposed to School Safety Officers on Antioch Campuses
Also, on Dawkins’ website, he claims to have “helped lead efforts to replace armed police officers in Oakland schools with unarmed school safety staff.” So, he’s against School Resource Officers like the six AUSD high school and middle schools could have had and Rocha supported in a 3-2 vote on August 6, 2020 after she endured being almost knocked to the ground the night before by protesters against the SRO’s who twice interrupted to the Board meeting. But the new council majority, which included District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, voted to rescind the federal grant that the previous council majority voted to accept after the hiring process had already begun. The councilwoman is the only local elected official or community leader who has endorsed Dawkins. Plus, a post on Torres-Walker’s Instagram account shows a photo of him standing between her and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson revealing with whom he’s politically aligned, especially since they’re all backed by many of the same groups.
He’s also endorsed, of course, by SEIU Local 1021, plus, the Contra Costa Central Labor Council, as well as by a variety of Democrat organizations, injecting partisan politics into what is supposed to be a non-partisan office.
While Dawkins seems like a nice man and his campaign platform is good, being an advocate is one thing, but being an activist is another. The last thing the Antioch School District or Board needs right now is an activist, especially on international and other matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Antioch or our local students. Nor do we need a union organizer who would be torn between representing the taxpayers’ interest and those of the district’s unionized staff during salary negations.
Rocha’s the Right Trustee to Represent Us for Responsible Leadership
Plus, we need a trustee who has the experience, now and will continue leading on fiscal responsibility, not someone who will be learning on the job for the first six months to two years, along with the other new school board trustee who is running to replace Dr. Jag Lathan and without opposition will be automatically elected. Antioch also needs a trustee who will focus on helping the students who desperately need so much of it, especially in the areas of math and English, based on the information from the latest California School Dashboard that was released last week. Mary Rocha is the right trustee at the right time to represent us who will do just that.
On her campaign website she writes, “I remain committed to transparency, accountability, academic excellence, and working collaboratively with families, staff, and the community to prepare every student for a successful future.” That’s what Antioch needs.
With “sound judgment, respectful leadership and consistent follow-through”
By Sandra White, Candidate for Antioch City Council, District 4
For 16 years, Antioch has been my home. Like many of my neighbors, I want to see our city thrive, a place where families feel safe, businesses succeed, young people have opportunities, and residents have confidence in their local government.
I am running for City Council because I believe we can do more to turn those shared hopes into results. We need leadership that is proactive not reactive. Leadership that focuses primarily on what the people of Antioch need and take action.
My commitment to Antioch began long before this campaign. Through my service with the Rotary Club of Antioch, the Crime Prevention Commission, local education organizations, and youth initiatives, I have worked alongside residents who give their time and energy to strengthen our community. Those experiences have shown me what is possible when people work together. They have also reinforced the importance of city leadership that listens, follows through, and treats residents with respect.
As a Vice President of Human Resources, I work through difficult decisions, evaluate competing needs, and help people resolve problems. My background in counseling psychology informs how I listen and approach conflict. I would bring those same skills to the City Council: asking thoughtful questions, reviewing the facts, considering financial consequences, and holding myself accountable for results.
A Safer Antioch Starts with Leadership
Public safety must be a promise our city delivers on every day. Every Antioch resident deserves to feel safe at home, walk through a park without fear, not have their neighborhood taking over by side shows and shop at local businesses with confidence. I will prioritize adequate police staffing, responsive emergency services, rigorous training, and accountability that builds public trust. I will also champion crime prevention through youth programs, better street lighting, well-maintained public spaces, and behavioral health professionals who can respond when appropriate. My commitment is clear: safer neighborhoods, stronger community trust, and measurable results.
Local Business Growth and Opportunity
We also need a stronger local economy. Residents regularly ask why storefronts remain empty and why they must leave Antioch for shopping, dining, and entertainment. City Hall must understand the barriers facing businesses and work to address them. Our planning decisions should consider appropriate housing needs alongside jobs, traffic, infrastructure, public services, and the commercial activity that helps fund them.
Pathways to Housing and Recovery
Addressing homelessness requires compassion, clear expectations, and sustained coordination. I support a treatment-first approach that connects people with mental health care, substance use treatment, and pathways toward stability. Residents also deserve safe, accessible sidewalks, parks, and public spaces. We need to measure whether our efforts are helping people and improving conditions, not just implementing an expensive short-term fix.
These priorities require responsible financial decisions. Every dollar the city spends should serve a clear purpose. I will ask what proposals cost, how we will pay for them, and how residents will know whether they are working.
Above all, I want residents to feel heard. People should be able to ask questions, express disagreement, and participate in city government without being dismissed or intimidated. Public service requires the humility to listen, acknowledge mistakes, and correct courses.
I am running because I care about Antioch’s future and am prepared to do the work that serving this community requires.
My commitment is to bring preparation, sound judgment, respectful leadership and consistent follow-through to District 4. Together, we can build a stronger, safer Antioch.
To learn more and to offer your support, please visit my website at www.sandragwhite.com.
Please vote for Joy Motts for the District 1 Antioch City Council seat. She has the experience, cares about Antioch, and I believe she is the better candidate versus the current incumbent.
The current incumbent asks to be recycled back to that District seat but has not served the public as she has has a responsibility to do. As an elected council member she has really failed to abide by some critical required actions, instead has ignored such and been silent when pressed to carry them out.
During her past six years on the City Council she has, failed to work for and enforce our serious need for the General Plan’s required full complement of police manpower (Sections 3 and 8 dictated 1.2 per thousand sworn officers per thousand residents), and failing to provide a safer and less dangerous Antioch.
We do not need to recycle her back in! We need Joy Motts to be the replacement, which she will work to correct if elected.
Our sworn police manpower is 85 (a deficit of 60 sworn officers in accordance with our General Plan). it should be about 145 sworn officers, proof that she has ignored and therefore continues to endanger our community during her tenure! She needs to be shown the exit door, via instead voting for Joy Motts.
As 50-plus years (about 75,000 hours) of my direct experience in public safety, I have personally brought this to the full Council for years and the incumbents Walker, Wilson and others have instead voted in projects that have further created the public safety issues we have been put under! No way Jose, do not recycle Tamisha and Monica just to get the same ole, same ole!
Also, as a past sworn Officer/investigator/Inspector/Supervisor/Police Trainer, etc., I know what needs to be done! First….do not vote for them just to be recycled. Joy Motts should be voted for in District 1.
