PERHAPS DARK TIMES REMIND US OF HOW MUCH ELECTIONS MATTER. News from the White House is a daily list of assaults on American freedoms. For two years, Monterey County’s representatives to Congress have been on the front lines of that resistance (where they are producing limited results).
It’s not just at the highest levels of power but at the local level where public participation shapes our society. Local governments are not only pushing back against Washington’s worst instincts, but also doing the essential if mundane tasks of providing services that shape our lives – fixing streets and sidewalks, running an emergency room, delivering water to your faucet, keeping libraries open. Fortunately for voters, a range of people with different ideas about how to take on these challenges in a tough economic environment are running for office.
These endorsements reflect our take on who is best suited for these roles in this moment, even if we do not agree with everything in their platform – as always, democracy is messy, but elections give us a chance to vote for a whole candidate, not a list of priorities. (We did not make endorsements in unopposed races, but you can read more about many of those candidates in the news – and elections beyond those covered here, such as school boards – in ongoing coverage at montereycountynow.com/news.)
As this issue goes to print, ballots may have already arrived in mailboxes. You can return those ballots by mail until Election Day, Nov. 3, or vote in person. For details about how to vote, visit montereycountyelections.us.
The Weekly’s editorial board comprises Founder & CEO Bradley Zeve, Publisher Erik Cushman and Editor Sara Rubin. These determinations are made independently of the news reporting team.
Cities
Carmel
Mayor | David Boland
City Council | Alissandra Dramov, Bobby Richards
This is an unusual endorsement, because our argument for David Boland for mayor begins with praise for his opponent.
We really like Hans Buder, one of the most effective members of the current council. While we disagree with his housing plan that the council passed this summer, Carmel needs him. That is exactly why he should stay where he is – on council, where he has two years left of his four-year term.
If he wins the mayor’s race, that seat goes empty and likely will be filled by appointment. That means a vote for Buder for mayor is also, in effect, a vote to let only four Carmel citizens pick the fifth councilmember, someone whose name will never appear on a ballot. On a five-member council, that fifth vote swings decisions. That’s a bad prescription for a healthy democracy.
Boland, a banking executive who is new to politics, says outgoing Mayor Dale Byrne recruited him with what Boland called “an impassioned plea for democracy.” We concur.
While he will have a lot to learn, Boland is sharp and open-minded. He wants to see needed housing get built, possibly on city-owned lots. And he is enthusiastic about the industry that drives Carmel’s economy, instead of viewing it as a problem – he sees tourism as an asset (and rightly identifies the associated challenge as one that can be readily solved, which is parking).
For City Council, three candidates are running for two seats, and all three are worthy of consideration.
Alissandra Dramov has earned a second term. With Buder as leader, she was part of a council that finally took an honest look at the city’s books. That review found millions in deferred maintenance and produced a 10-year plan to deal with it. She supports both Measure M and Measure N, which we also endorse.
Bobby Richards served two terms, from 2016 to 2024, and he is back after a health challenge, bringing with him institutional memory. More than that, his support for getting new and more affordable housing built for the local workforce on city-owned parking lots is spot-on. Plus, he is an important voice to keep the resident-visitor economy in balance (even though we part ways with him on Measure M, a hotel tax increase that he opposes).
Stefan Karapetkov, an architect on the Planning Commission since 2023, is a thoughtful first-time candidate. We hope he stays involved.
Del Rey Oaks
City Council | Cheryl Parker, Shelley Cabanillas
Del Rey Oaks is a small city with some big challenges and big opportunities. There is a chronic budget challenge. Various failed projects on the city’s portion of the former Fort Ord never got built. A city property that could be a revenue-generating rental is vacant. Two years into construction, resident frustration has built around a massive regional transportation project (the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway, FORTAG).
In a field of three, first-time candidates Cheryl Parker and Shelley Cabanillas are best suited to take Del Rey Oaks forward through the next four years. They bring enthusiasm, a genuine love of their city and a positive attitude. Parker in particular has done her homework. Professionally, she is a civil engineer, but she does not want to engineer projects – she understands the role of a councilmember, and wants to guide processes in which city officials invite the right types of experts to help guide projects successfully and transparently from start to finish.
FORTAG construction is anticipated to end in late November. It will not only provide regional connectivity, but make Del Rey Oaks itself safer with an undercrossing to get across Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. Construction has been a headache for the community, but when it’s done Cabanillas and Parker plan to celebrate. Incumbent Jeremy Hallock says it will be a sigh of relief. His worst instincts came out on Sept. 22 at a council meeting when, following a presentation on the project, he said, “The community is disgruntled, there is resounding frustration, irritation and downright anger.”
We opt for councilmembers who want to be team players, not fighters, and who are excited about progress.
Gonzales
Mayor | Liz Silva
City Council | District 1 | Maria Orozco
City Council | District 4 | Connie Arellano
Gonzales is at the precipice of big changes with the 3,498-home Vista Lucia annexation recently approved. That means big potential for economic growth (that will take years to actually get built), but the city is also facing immediate fiscal challenges, particularly after a parcel tax to support fire and emergency response failed in June. That will require some creative thinking needed by the new council, with Jose Rios retiring as mayor.
The choices are clear. Liz Silva was first appointed to the Gonzales City Council almost 18 years ago and has served on a variety of regional boards. She knows the issues and wants to keep progress on track for essential city services, such as a new wastewater treatment plant. Silva does not offer up big ideas, but she is pragmatic and has proven herself capable of partnering with others for the long haul.
Similarly, Maria Orozco should return to council to continue her track record. Like Silva, she’s a diehard supporter of Vista Lucia, despite its flaws. We hope that Orozco can fulfill her plan to help working residents find a path to homeownership to be able to afford these homes once they’re built.
We are especially excited about Recreation Commissioner Connie Arellano, who wants to improve the city’s bilingual community outreach and transparency, diversify the types of small businesses and see a more inviting downtown. “Economic development shouldn’t depend on a single project,” she notes. “By supporting local businesses and revitalizing downtown, Gonzales can build a stronger, more resilient economy.”
Greenfield
City Council | District 3 | Rachel Ortiz
The City of Greenfield is a case study in why infrastructure matters. The city’s growth has outpaced its wastewater treatment plant, leading to water quality violations from excess flows. Faced with that reality, the City Council took extreme action to avoid any further problems, and in 2025 put a moratorium on any new development until a new plant is built. Then they took serious steps toward getting that new plant built and have hired an engineering firm to lead the project.
This is not usually the kind of thing someone running for public office is excited about, but incumbent Rachel Ortiz is such a person. She has worked alongside Mayor Bob White and District 1 Councilmember Belen Garcia, who are both unopposed. Ortiz is facing David Godoy, a DJ who has lived in Greenfield for over 38 years.
Ortiz deserves a second term. She wants to see continued diversification of housing, including seasonal farmworker housing as well as market-rate homes. She wants to prioritize getting a resource center to combine services such as mental health and support for victims of crime. These are not sexy projects, but Ortiz is a long-time volunteer dedicated to getting done things that matter.
Marina
Mayor | Liesbeth Visscher
City Council District 4 | Mike Simmons
Some cities would benefit from a changeup in leadership. Others would benefit from a steady hand continuing in the same direction. In the case of Marina, this is a both/and. With Mayor Bruce Delgado retiring after 18 years, it opens up the seat to someone new, and three strong candidates are running to take his place: Councilmember Liesbeth Visscher, health care professional Mike Moeller and Hartnell College professor Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera.
Visscher is the best option to lead Marina into its next chapters. All three demonstrate thoughtful advocacy for a city whose population has grown by 18 percent since 2010 and has seen residential and commercial neighborhoods rise over that period.
Visscher has a broad vision of economic development, linking the Dunes and potential hotel and Mercedes dealership with the manufacturing taking place at Joby Aviation and the opportunities that CSU Monterey Bay provides. She is also the only one of the three candidates who supports Measure Q, a utility users tax that is needed to help fund new police and fire stations suitable to this growing city. She strikes a good balance between economic development booster and neighborhood ambassador.
Moeller has impressed us for his commitment to volunteerism and understanding of the budget, getting very involved in Marina civic life. But his and Acevedo-Cabrera’s suggestions for how to get a police and fire station built without Measure Q left us nonplussed. Theirs are campaigns of opposition, despite generally positive trends we see in Marina with lively new businesses, new construction, new parks and a new city manager.
Visscher’s mayoral run means she is exiting her District 4 council seat, and three candidates are running to replace her. Planning Commissioner Mike Simmons is the best prepared to do that, with a keen understanding of the city’s fiscal needs – he is the only candidate who supports Measure Q. Like all three, he is opposed to Cal Am’s desal project. He wants to see workforce housing expanded, and points to Cypress Knolls as the best development opportunity for that.
We are impressed by Athena Burciaga’s passion and acute awareness of the challenges that rising costs pose to regular working people. She is the only candidate who shares our concern that Marina is at risk of becoming a bedroom community for Silicon Valley workers with Silicon Valley salaries. But we are puzzled by her hardline view that Marina residents should not be taxed (how else can Marina pay for the services its residents deserve?) and her dismissal of “the political establishment” when incumbent leaders are doing a good job.
Simmons says, “I am proud of the direction this city has taken and I think it needs to continue.” We agree.
Monterey
Mayor | Tyller Williamson
City Council | District 1 | Kim Barber
City Council | District 2 | Alec Manas
When we interviewed Vince Malfitano in a candidate forum in August, he came across as a well intentioned political neophyte who just wanted to get along. Our reporting since then has shown that he indeed has no political experience, but he does have a long history of business experience that’s resulted in official investigations of his work as a dentist, a casino operator and the owner of an assisted living facility. His response to that reporting has been to try and intimidate the reporter and editor. He clearly does not understand the role of the free press nor the responsibility for transparency from an elected leader. He is a deeply flawed candidate who has demonstrated both through his current conduct and his past that he is wildly unprepared to hold public office.
Incumbent Tyller Williamson has worked collaboratively as a member of the council from 2018-22 and as mayor since then. He has demonstrated leadership to tackle the housing crisis with a rental registry and a rental assistance program.
The next mayor faces a larger challenge in the coming term as the council must get out from under a $12 million structural deficit. We are supportive of the mayor’s willingness to confront this head-on, and Malfitano offers no counter-proposal. We are impressed by the new city manager, who is leading a series of public listening sessions to approach the budget realities.
But Williamson’s take that employee layoffs are essentially off the table is the wrong thinking. “This is our Monterey family,” he told us about city staff. Actually, they are not family but taxpayer-funded staff, and the responsibility of approaching this deficit may well require cuts. (It is no coincidence that his proudest endorsements come from organized labor.)
Incumbent Kim Barber is our choice for District 1. She demonstrates a commitment to the plight of renters, and doing the people’s business in the open. Her advocacy for the rental assistance program and affordable housing developments have produced tangible results and we think she deserves another term to continue this work. Her opponent, Tom Reeves, is a former city engineer and deeply invested in the community. He is thoughtful and smart, but we think his notion to privatize city assets like the Sports Center or dedicate $1 million from the city’s neighborhood improvement fund to workforce housing – not enough to build it – seems misaligned with the realities of the task at hand.
Three candidates are running for District 2 to replace outgoing Ed Smith. There is a clear front-runner here in Alec Manas, who in his day job works as a project manager for housing developer CHISPA and has experience working on constituent issues in the office of former Assemblymember Mark Stone. Manas knows he has a lot to learn but pledges to be open-minded and transparent and hopes to focus on what matters – he wants to see fewer polarizing culture wars issues, like painting crosswalks. “We should focus more on the meat and potatoes – the budget, clean streets,” he says.
Vicki Nohrden is a repeat political candidate for statewide office who has bashed California as a horrible place. We think she’s wrong.
Newcomer Jeff Whitmoyer is unprepared and does not seem to understand what the job entails.
Pacific Grove
Mayor | Nick Smith
City Council | at-large member | Lori McDonnell
City Council | District 1 | Cynthia Garfield
City Council | District 3 | Tara Leweling
For a small city of just 15,000, Pacific Grove has a lot of political participation. This is generally a good thing, but in P.G., it also has a tendency to turn nasty. People get involved in issues they care about and too often, we’ve seen it become a polarizing battle, even over something like whether or not to build a skate park in an existing park. Those dynamics mean we want to see not just candidates who bring forward good ideas, but also who we think can be even-tempered, cooperative leaders. As downtown has come to life in recent years, growing tension between live entertainment and residents is a conflict that needs thoughtful leadership, and we endorse the candidates we think are most able to strike that balance – not just on noise but other thorny issues.
For mayor, incumbent Nick Smith deserves another term.
Luke Coletti, a former councilmember who lost his reelection bid in 2024, is super smart and he’s chosen to apply his smarts to city government – he can cite city code sections from memory. As a watchdog, he is often on point (and always nitpicky). But watchdogs do not necessarily make good or inspiring leaders.
When he served on council from 2020-24, Coletti’s meddlesome style resulted in the exits of qualified staff from City Hall, with real consequences to Pacific Grove. His pursuit of an inquiry ordinance may be a hair-splitting technical exercise, but would codify his bullying style to demand information from city staff, instead of following the chain of command that enables them to simply do their jobs.
A better choice is a mayor who boosts P.G. rather than searching for flaws in every new idea, from a proposed roundabout at a horrible intersection to a hotel project in the American Tin Cannery site. Smith has grown into the leadership role in his first term, and he deserves another.
On council, for a two-year, at-large position (this is P.G.’s first district-based election, a cycle that needs to phase in), we recommend staying the course with incumbent Lori McDonnell, who wants to lean into ecotourism and walkability, a smart way to promote the city’s main economic driver.
In District 1, incumbent Cynthia Garfield has taken on some unwieldy projects and wants to continue her progress on things like clarifying rules about city parks and city signage about littering and no-smoking, and to demystify the city budget process. Her opponent, Kevin Hanley, is a past councilmember in Auburn. He got involved in P.G. politics by joining a successful effort to vote down a compensation increase for council (an increase we believe would’ve been fair, and made the role more welcoming to a more diverse set of residents). He wants to create a Shop Local Program, an arts commission and an art walk – nice ideas, but it’s not clear they would have an economic benefit, and may be projects better suited to the Chamber of Commerce than the Council.
In District 3, we are excited about newcomer Tara Leweling, a former Naval Postgraduate School student who was first introduced to the region that way, and then served for about 22 years in the Air Force. Especially compared to her two challengers, Andrew Kubica and Susan Goldbeck, Leweling has fresh ideas and describes a vision for a thriving, fun city.
“We need vibrant business districts downtown,” Leweling says, recognizing it benefits residents and tourists who might otherwise decamp to Carmel or Monterey to eat and drink. “We want tourists to spend their dollars here, to stay and spend money at a wine bar after dinner.” She is willing to think outside the box at solving budget problems by exploring potential consolidations with neighboring municipalities (like they already do for the fire department).
In District 5, first-time candidate Chris Thomas is running unopposed and we are enthusiastic about his energy and dedication to understanding the issues.
Salinas
Mayor | Dennis Donohue
City Council | District 2 | Tony Barrera
City Council | District 3 | Cary Swensen
City Council | District 5 | Andrew Sandoval
There’s been a profound shift in Salinas leadership in recent years. Big ideas about empowerment and self-determination through initiatives like Building Healthy Communities, a $1 billion initiative launched in 2010, joining longer-standing advocacy organizations in Salinas. And they have shown they can lead to real change. A new generation of leaders have been elected and appointed to positions of power. In Salinas, a progressively minded council in 2024 enacted rent stabilization and other tenant protection ordinances over the objections of property owners and business leaders. It was one policy issue that’s become a proxy for how voters (and officials) feel more broadly about who should hold power. But the well-funded backlash was swift, and in the 2024 election cycle, an entire slate of candidates aligned with the former leadership was voted out, and a new, more old-school council was voted in.
If anything, that sweeping loss, followed by the repeal of rent stabilization (also on the ballot as Measure H), has drawn even more energetic participation in local government. Unfortunately, that energy does not quite translate to the ballot – there are many flawed candidates in these races. Nowhere is that more true than mayor, where we struggled to make an endorsement in this four-way race.
Peter Szalai strikes us as reasonable, and he has some smart ideas, but his participation in public life to date does not suggest he’s prepared to be the kind of coalition builder Salinas needs to get things done. Hezekiah Gonzalez, 20, is running simply on a promise that youth is an asset, without studying the issues. Daniel Muñoz has soared into the spotlight for two recall attempts he is leading, against District 1 Councilmember José Luis Barajas and County Supervisor Luis Alejo, which is the opposite of coalition building and productive policy engagement. His main campaign idea is an agriculture tax, hitting Salinas’ biggest industry, while he opposes Measure G, a critical extension of an existing sales tax.
That leaves us with the incumbent, Dennis Donohue. We wish he were a different kind of leader, from generating fresh policy ideas to leading meetings differently, from an inclusive posture rather than cutting the public’s speaking time shorter. But what we do know is that he is a steady presence. His campaign platform is as dull as they come, but shows a real understanding of Salinas’ immediate needs: He wants to see more investment in infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, potholes) and he supports untapped potential to promote more day-tripper tourism from the Monterey Peninsula to Salinas to help generate some of those dollars. He’s sincerely interested in economic development, both in agriculture and beyond (we like his idea to feature art more prominently in that strategy), and he believes in the potential of Salinas.
Despite Donohue’s shortcomings, he strikes us as the best prepared candidate who is up for the task.
For council, District 2 incumbent Tony Barrera has long been a supporter of the ordinary working person and is also willing and able to work with detractors. He stands up for what he believes is right, then can shake hands and cooperate at the end of the day. He’s invested in his community and proud to point to accomplishments that take a long time, like the revamped Closter Park.
Challenger Jose Guerra is a case study in getting involved in local government. He saw problems in his Monte Bella neighborhood and became a persistent figure in civic processes. We respect his involvement, but he does not offer a credible plan to lead. He wants to axe all of City Hall’s top leadership and opposes the necessary extension of Measure G.
In District 3, we are excited about the energy and commitment of educator/small business owner Cary Swensen, who is running for a third time. She is deeply involved in civic life and has done her homework (we hope she comes around on Measure G – the city needs the revenue). She is thoughtful and has some creative ideas about strengthening partnerships outside of City Hall to solve problems, and proposes a credible savings on expenditures by cutting back on the use of costly consultants.
We were also impressed by political newcomer Brent Bagley in District 3, who has a positive vision for Salinas and wants to leverage his youth. “I think Salinas is a town that is stuck a little in the past,” he told us. We agree, and hope he stays involved and solidifies his plans for how to get it unstuck.
As to District 3 incumbent Margaret D’Arrigo, who has two years under her belt (after previously serving on the boards of Hartnell College and Salinas Valley Health), she mostly parrots Donohue’s perspectives. Her proposal to solving the housing crisis is that the city should get out of the way, which is a non-strategy.
In District 5, Andrew Sandoval has been a lightning rod as much for his style as for his policies. We wish he would view his role differently – after serving as a watchdog over public agencies, he was elected to lead one – but he continues to be a fly in the ointment, antagonizing people who could be his partners. Still, he is persistent as an outspoken champion for his district, and a consistent, dedicated presence in the community. We can’t tell if his opponent, Hartnell Trustee Irma Lopez, is even serious – she has ignored all of our inquiries over several months. That does not bode well for even acknowledging constituents’ concerns.
Seaside
Mayor | Ian Oglesby
City Council | Annalisa Mitchell, Lacey Raak
Ian Oglesby has earned another term as mayor. He has been on the right side of the regional questions that will shape the Peninsula for decades, including those where a Seaside mayor has a real seat at the table. On the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Monterey County, he was one of only two commissioners who voted to let the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District move forward with a public buyout of Cal Am, and he has backed Pure Water Monterey. That project is the most practical path to a water supply that doesn’t depend on costly, unneeded desalination.
He runs meetings effectively. He has been a consistent voice in support of diversity and welcoming all community members. He is steady.
Our support comes with a major concern too: his continued, seemingly unconditional support of the city attorney. In 2025 the council voted to give itself a raise from $400 a month to roughly $2,400, relying on Sheri Damon’s reading of state law. That reading was wrong, both in the math and that the raises took effect immediately. Each councilmember now owes back about $26,000. The error went unnoticed for a year until a resident caught it. The council has since reset the correct pay at $1,180 a month, but the damage to public trust is done.
That is more than embarrassing. Damon’s judgment has been questioned before: In 2024, then-city manager Jaime Fontes accused her of facilitating investigations of city staff without the authorization city code requires. Where else is she making errors? The City Attorney was the highest-paid Seaside official last year, earning $317,371, including benefits. Yet Oglesby continues to stand behind her.
His opponent, Councilmember Alex Miller, has called for her dismissal. Miller is right on this issue, and has some good ideas, but his bull-in-a-china-shop approach does not demonstrate an ability to build coalitions and get support to advance those ideas effectively. We are unsettled by his unwillingness to vote to make Seaside a sanctuary city for transgender people.
On council, two at-large seats are open: Miller’s, as he runs for mayor instead of a second term, and Rita Burks’, who is seeking reelection. Burks, a school principal, is a positive cheerleader for Seaside but we are disappointed by her lack of specific ideas for how to move Seaside forward.
Lacey Raak served as founding chair of the city’s Environmental Commission and has a career in sustainability. Her platform calls for attainable housing, easier paths for small businesses, and streets that work for pedestrians and cyclists.
Annalisa Mitchell is a substance abuse counselor but more importantly, a lifelong volunteer deeply invested in her community. She works with veterans, unhoused people, prisoners and other constituencies and cares about making Seaside work for everyone.
Other candidates in this race, Ken Fittro and Karla Lobo, have some good ideas about economic development and promoting athletic facilities and the downtown that we hope the next council advances.
Soledad
City Council | District 2 | Eugene Ivey
Compared to a contentious redistricting process, Soledad is quiet this year as voters go to the polls in the city’s first district-based elections. Fernando Ansaldo, who was elected two years ago to fill a vacant seat, is running unopposed for District 1. His council colleague, Fernando Cabrera, is running unopposed for mayor. The only position up for grabs is in District 2, where patient care navigator Don Bolin and retired correctional officer Eugene Ivey are facing off.
Ivey originally moved to Salinas for his job at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, then when it was time to buy a house about 10 years ago, he chose Soledad enthusiastically. He wants to expand retail opportunities for more shopping in town, and he’s excited about initiatives already underway, like the container village concept.
He endorses the already-approved Miramonte development, but says going forward, affordable housing should always be a priority: “It should be done in the first or second phase, not at the end of development.”
Bolin seems active mostly on social media. Ivey is already engaged with the community and attends council meetings. We respect his past participation and endorse him as the new face on council in this growing city.
Special Districts
Salinas Valley Health
Board of Directors | Zone 4 | Catherine Carson
With four open seats on the Salinas Valley Health board of directors, only Zone 4 is contested. While this health care district faces challenges in the coming years, its leadership is steadily going in a positive direction, so there is no need for a changeup. In this case, we endorse Catherine Carson, a registered nurse, for a second term over James Dacus, a physician. Both are smart and capable health care professionals, but only Carson highlights specific ideas for what she’d like to implement, with a focus on both patient-centered and provider-centered improvements. On the former, she cites a 30-percent increase in patients at the Nancy Ausonio Breast Care Center since expanding hours. On the latter, physician recruitment remains a work in progress.
A capital campaign is underway for a needed emergency department expansion, but there are bigger challenges as cost pressures butt up against federal policy changes that will lead to a major drop in reimbursement from insurance – plus, Kaiser’s entrance into the market poses a challenge to the business model.
“The biggest challenge to SVH over the next four years will be to keep our doors open,” Carson acknowledges.
Dacus’ biggest distinction is that he is well connected and could help fundraise for capital projects, a worthy effort that we hope he supports regardless of the election outcome.
The current board and the CEO they hired, Dr. Allen Radner, seem well equipped to handle potentially existential challenges ahead.
Marina Coast Water District
Board of Directors | Gail Morton, Jan Shriner, Matthew Zefferman
A braintrust of three experienced water board candidates who are genuinely motivated by public service are all running again for at-large positions on Marina Coast Water District. Voters should send all three back to continue to leverage their knowledge of hydrological constraints, the regulatory landscape and local water politics.
Gail Morton, Jan Shriner and Matthew Zefferman (after a break from his first term) all bring up the need to address multiple challenges – chiefly sustainable water supply and ratepayer affordability – and specific ideas on how to do that (and all three also note progress the district has already made).
“Seawater intrusion and over-pumping pose grave problems for our water supply, and on the legal front, the battle against Cal Am’s invasion of our aquifer continues,” Morton notes. “Countering these threats will require development of new water sources, smarter conservation and use of recycled water, alert investment in infrastructure and technologies, strong alliances with state and regional agencies and community buy-in.”
We think this group of three known quantities is capable of pursuing that long list of strategies, while challenger Dalila Epperson appears to have no experience in water.
State of California
Governor | Xavier Becerra
We did not endorse Xavier Becerra in the primary because we felt that he hadn’t demonstrated the type of leadership needed to tackle big problems facing the state. Since he won that crowded primary in June with 28 percent of the vote, all Becerra has done is essentially hide out from the press and voters. He has held one debate and one press conference since June. This may prove to be an effective electoral strategy, but it is certainly not confidence-infusing leadership.
Becerra has long legislative history, albeit most of it in Washington, D.C. as a member of the House and as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He also served as California’s Attorney General.
We are endorsing him as the best candidate in this race. While Republican Steve Hilton is much more actively engaging with everyday Californians, his policies on immigration, education and social services for the neediest Californians are out of step with the mainstream in 2026 and would turn our state backward.
State Assembly
District 29 | Robert Rivas
Robert Rivas has wielded the power of the position of Speaker of the Assembly with particular impact. His stature is about to be enhanced. With his eight years in the Assembly, three of them as Speaker, Rivas will be the savvy Sacramento old-timer that a new governor is going to have to negotiate with to move his legislative agenda forward.
Rivas has had a number of successes this term. He put a $25 million stash of money aside to sue the Trump administration, which he reports preserved $188 billion in federal money destined for California. He led the legislative push to draft Proposition 50, the state’s redistricting initiative to counter Trump’s Republican-friendly gerrymandering, in time for this year’s midterm elections. He capped the number of bills that can be introduced each session and has launched a legislative oversight tool so that lawmakers can assess current laws instead of drafting new legislation if it isn’t needed.
And unlike previous speakers, he has also continued to push legislation of his own. Last session, he co-authored Assembly Bill 1454, a landmark literacy education bill that included $200 million for implementation.
Dennis Sanchez, a Republican from Castroville, has offered few specifics on his platform other than a commitment to the Salinas Police Department, which is not a state agency.
District 30 | Dawn Addis
Two years ago when we endorsed Dawn Addis for reelection, we commended her for having swiftly gotten up to speed on Monterey County issues in her first term. She proved to be a good listener and a strong advocate for locals. That remains the case and was on display last winter as Addis was everywhere after the Vistra battery storage fire in Moss Landing.
Since that endorsement in 2024, Addis has drafted two bills to grant local authority precedence over state policies on energy infrastructure. Assembly Bill 3233, passed in 2024, grants local control over oil and gas exploration. AB 303 was introduced in 2025 to give local governments control over the siting of battery storage facilities. (That bill died in committee.)
While advocating for local control may play well at a town hall, in the wrong hands or on the wrong issue, it might look a lot more like cronyism or NIMBYism. We again endorse Addis for reelection because of her commitment to her district, but we urge a little more restraint and perspective as far as local control goes.
Republican Shannon Kessler would take it dangerously further, with an endorsement from California Cities for Local Control. The parental rights advocate also talks about protecting fairness in girls’ sports, a disqualifying dog whistle for an anti-trans agenda. The district deserves an inclusive, open-minded leader.
United States
Congress
District 18 | Zoe Lofgren
Zoe Lofgren is one of the longest-serving members of the House of Representatives, first elected to represent San Jose in 1994. After redistricting in 2023, her territory extends down the length of the Salinas Valley and she has quickly lent her seniority and legislative skill to bringing a bunch of infrastructure projects to the region. She secured $3.4 million federal funds to match state money to help kickstart new, desperately needed water supply in the South Monterey County town of San Lucas. It has been 15 years since the residents there were informed that the tap water was not safe to drink.
Similar earmarks for Rancho Cielo, the Salinas Regional Soccer Complex, Hartnell College and Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas demonstrate engagement with her new geography.
Lofgren chairs the California delegation in the House, and serves on the judiciary and science, space and technology committees. If the Democrats were to win control of the House, she would be in line for a leadership position to reign in the worst abuses of the Trump administration and to craft guardrails and regulations for the AI industry. We think she is up to the task.
District 19 | Jimmy Panetta
In May, we endorsed Jimmy Panetta in the primary “with an asterisk.” That asterisk has gotten bigger.
On Sept. 3, Panetta was one of 33 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass H.R. 4795, which would make federal student aid conditional on a college’s promise not to join a commercial boycott of Israel. Hartnell, Monterey Peninsula College and CSUMB would have to write a no-boycott promise into the agreements that keep their students’ Pell grants and loans flowing. That is a vote against free speech. Panetta broke with most of his party, including Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who voted no. Instead, he joined the hard right, voting with Lauren Boebert and Jim Jordan.
His defense is that the bill targets only “nonexpressive commercial boycotts”: conduct, not speech. We know that argument, because it hit a longtime friend of ours. In 2018, a public college in Arkansas told Alan Leveritt, publisher of the Arkansas Times, to pledge not to boycott Israel or lose the college’s state-funded advertising. Leveritt refused. A newspaper, he said, doesn’t take political positions in exchange for ad money. He sued and lost. In 2022, the Eighth Circuit ruled that a boycott is commercial conduct, not speech, and in 2023 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The committee that wrote H.R. 4795 relies on that ruling. The court was wrong, and Panetta is wrong to lean on it.
Boycotts are how Americans put their money where their conscience is, from supporting farmworkers with the grape boycott to ending apartheid by divesting from South Africa. You don’t have to support BDS to see the danger of Washington, D.C. politicians deciding which boycotts are acceptable and taking away students’ financial aid over the rest.
The bill draws no line between Israel and its West Bank settlements. Panetta has said annexation violates international law, yet he voted to penalize colleges that won’t do business there. Five days after his vote, France, the U.K. and Canada announced they would ban imports from Israeli settlements, which they call illegal under international law. Panetta is out of step not only with his district but with a growing share of the world. That isn’t standing with Israel. It’s underwriting Netanyahu’s violent government.
Let us be clear. Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, and the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, was an atrocity. But Netanyahu’s government has turned self-defense into something else. The UN counts more than 73,000 Palestinians killed since then. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest on war-crimes charges. Standing with Israel shouldn’t mean underwriting that.
When we pressed Panetta, he told us people who haven’t been to Israel don’t understand the issue. Many of his constituents haven’t, and their conscience doesn’t depend on a passport stamp. He said Israel ranks about 10th among their concerns, and that the bill won’t pass the Senate anyway. That made us cringe. Free speech comes first in the Bill of Rights, and a symbolic vote against it is still a vote against it.
Then there’s the money. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is Panetta’s biggest donor, giving more than $558,000 since 2022. He vehemently states it doesn’t affect his votes. But the appearance of a conflict is real, and in a safe seat, he doesn’t need it.
Everything else we said in May still holds. He’s a workhorse for farmworkers and growers, military families, veterans and disaster recovery, and maintains a presence in the district. This year, as a member of the minority party, he got bills signed into law that extend tax relief to disaster victims, give early childhood educators the same tax deduction as K-12 teachers, and crack down on Medicare Advantage “ghost networks.”
His Republican opponent is not a credible alternative, making Panetta the only reasonable choice, who will continue to be a buffer against authoritarianism. But we’re asking him to come back in two years with a new mandate: 1. Reject AIPAC’s donations; 2. Support free speech, absolutely. Students, and all of us, should be able to petition and boycott without fear of losing federal aid or contracts.
If he digs in, he should expect a serious challenger in 2028. We genuinely like Panetta, but this district deserves a representative who stands up for free speech and answers to constituents, not donors.