The United Democratic Club
Endorsement Guide 2026
Every election, the United Democratic Club evaluates candidates and ballot measures that will shape San Francisco and California. Our team researches, analyzes, discusses and votes on each race and measure before making recommendations. This guide explains our endorsements, the values and considerations behind them, and the concerns that shaped our recommendations.
​
LOCAL CANDIDATES
Assessor-Recorder
Joaquín Torres
UDC endorses Joaquín Torres
Serving since February 2021, Assessor-Recorder Joaquín Torres has modernized San Francisco's property-tax assessment system, made historical official records freely available online, and held real-estate planning forums across the city. We believe this record demonstrates the responsive, effective leadership San Franciscans deserve, and we strongly support Joaquín Torres for reelection.
Public Defender
No Position
UDC takes no position
The Public Defender's Office performs a vital function for public safety and our criminal justice system by protecting the constitutional rights of people facing criminal charges. However, we have serious concerns about the office's performance under incumbent Public Defender Mano Raju, including its refusal to accept certain cases because of workload and staffing shortages—a practice for which Raju was found in contempt and fined $26,000. We are also concerned that the office’s political activity diverts resources and attention from defending vulnerable San Franciscans in court. For these reasons, UDC takes no position in this race.
Board of Education
Autumn Brown Garibay, Phil Kim and Tim Tung
UDC endorses Autumn Brown Garibay, Phil Kim and Tim Tung
Strong financial oversight, parent relationships and practical experience are essential to SFUSD. Tim Tung brings professional financial experience that could strengthen district oversight. Autumn Brown Garibay has strong support among parents and substantial experience working with the Board of Education. Phil Kim has led as President of the BoE since January 2025 through much turmoil and transitions and he has been able to steer the BoE in the right direction.
UDC believes that Autumn Brown Garibay, Phil Kim and Tim Tung were the strongest candidates for the three available seats.
Community College Board - Full Term
Erwin Tam, Elijah Ball and Monroe Lace
UDC endorses Erwin Tam, Elijah Ball and Monroe Lace
Eight candidates are running for three seats, and Elijah Ball, Erwin Tam and Monroe Lace stand out for the range of experience they would bring to City College. Ball has extensive experience in campus planning, including community-college growth and master plans. Tam has deep knowledge of public financing and bond structuring, expertise that would support City College's fiscal health. Lace is a public-school teacher with experience in credit recovery and alternative educational pathways that can help grow enrollment. We endorse Elijah Ball, Erwin Tam and Monroe Lace for Community College Board.
​
Community College Board - Partial Term
Ruth Ferguson
UDC endorses Ruth Ferguson
Supervisor, District 8
No Position
UDC takes no position
Supervisor, District 10
Theo Ellington
UDC endorses Theo Ellington
Theo Ellington is a District 10 native who has fought for safer policing, housing rights, and environmental justice in the Hunters Point Shipyard litigation. He is committed to seeing the neighborhood he grew up in thrive. He has built strong relationships in diverse neighborhoods and consistently shown up for community organizations.
BART Board, District 8
Sara Barz
UDC endorses Sara Barz
SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT MEASURES
Regional Transit Measure
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Sales taxes disproportionately affect lower-income residents, and transit agencies must do more to adapt to post-pandemic realities. Even so, major service cuts would cause greater harm, particularly to lower-income residents who rely on public transportation.
Transit is a public service and an important part of San Francisco's economy. While the Bay Area's fragmented transit system needs reform, we believe reform and adequate funding are both necessary.
Proposition A - Charter Adjustments
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition A includes changes to San Francisco's Charter that grew out of a broader review of City government. Some reforms have already been adopted legislatively, while others require voter approval. We support placing these remaining charter adjustments before voters.
Proposition B - Public Bank
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition B would authorize San Francisco to establish a municipal finance corporation if the City has sufficient funding and resources. After three years, the corporation could become a public bank. The institution could finance priorities including affordable housing, small businesses and environmental projects.
We support expanding access to financing, but establishing a new municipal institution could require significant upfront spending. Because the measure authorizes rather than requires the City to create the institution, we do not believe its potential benefits justify those costs.
​
Proposition C - Housing Fund
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition C would increase San Francisco’s required annual contribution to the Housing Trust Fund until it reaches at least $125 million per year. The fund supports affordable rental and ownership housing, down-payment assistance, housing stabilization and related infrastructure. The measure would also extend the life of the fund and allow temporary freezes or reductions under specified fiscal conditions.
Proposition D - Ballot Measure Process
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition D would raise the number of signatures required for voter initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered San Francisco voters. It would also change who can place measures on the ballot, including eliminating the Mayor's ability to independently place a measure on the ballot.
San Francisco's current 2% signature threshold is too low. Raising it could make qualifying measures more difficult for smaller or less-funded organizations, but we ultimately support a higher threshold for placing measures before voters.
Proposition E - City Contracting
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition E would centralize more of the City's purchasing and contracting authority under the City Administrator, change when contracts require Board of Supervisors approval, and extend the City Administrator's term from five years to ten years.
San Francisco's contracting responsibilities are currently spread across multiple departments and decision-makers. We believe greater centralization could reduce duplication and bureaucratic hurdles and make City contracting more streamlined. We acknowledge concerns about concentrating authority in an unelected City Administrator, but ultimately believe the proposed changes would improve how the City operates.
Proposition F - Executive Branch Management
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition F would expand the Mayor's authority over the executive branch, including the ability to reorganize responsibilities among most City departments, hire deputy mayors, and hire and remove most department heads.
Voters hold the Mayor accountable for the performance of City government, but the Mayor does not currently control many of the departments responsible for delivering City services. We believe the Mayor should have greater authority to implement the agenda voters elected them to carry out.
We acknowledge concerns about concentrating appointment and removal authority, including the potential for unqualified or politically connected appointments. Ultimately, we believe clearer executive authority would improve accountability and make City government more responsive.
Proposition G - Upper Great Highway
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition G would reopen the Upper Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park to private vehicles on weekdays while retaining recreational use on weekends and holidays.
Supporters of reopening the roadway argue that weekday vehicle access could coexist with recreational use on weekends and better serve residents affected by the closure. Opponents argue that reopening the road would reverse the creation of Sunset Dunes Park and point to relatively modest average increases in commute times after the closure.
The Great Highway’s usefulness as a road is rapidly diminishing as climate change erodes the shore, and Sunset Dunes Park encourages more healthful, climate friendly solutions to getting outside and moving around. We believe that the best use of this space is to keep it as a permanent park to support walking, biking, and playing outdoors. We also strongly encourage the city to continue investing in more transportation options in the Sunset to help people get around.
​
Proposition H - San Francisco Muni Parcel Tax
UDC recommends YES
What it does: This measure scales the tax based on property size, with larger properties paying more, and would fund approximately half of Muni's projected deficit alongside the Regional Transit Measure. An additional tax raises affordability concerns, but we ultimately believe the consequences of insufficient funding for Muni outweigh our concerns about the additional tax.
​
Proposition I - Social Housing
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition I would dedicate a portion of real-estate transfer-tax revenue to social housing programs.
The measure would divert real-estate transfer-tax revenue from the General Fund while the City faces a significant budget deficit. Some dedicated funds could also support programs beyond housing production, potentially creating confusion with existing housing funding.
Proposition J - Foreclosures
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition J would raise an estimated $50 million for the General Fund through a transfer tax on foreclosures and is supported by the Mayor and every member of the Board of Supervisors.
​
CALIFORNIA BALLOT MEASURES
Proposition 1 - Housing Affordability Bond
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in state bonds for housing programs, including affordable rental housing, veterans' mortgages, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing and down payment assistance.
Proposition 2 - Rainy Day Fund
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition 2 would require California to continue making deposits into its main rainy day fund until the fund reaches 20% of General Fund tax revenues, rather than the current 10%, and would extend requirements for additional state debt payments.
Proposition 3 - Tax on High Incomes
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition 3 would make permanent existing higher state income tax rates for high-income earners that are currently scheduled to expire in 2031. The revenue supports public education.
The tax has been in place since 2012 and provides billions of dollars annually for public education. We believe allowing that revenue to expire would be detrimental to an education system that is already underfunded.
Proposition 4 - Public Campaign Financing
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition 4 would repeal California's prohibition on state and most local governments offering public funding for candidate campaigns. It would allow, but not require, governments to create public campaign financing programs.
Public financing can make it easier for candidates without significant financial resources to compete. Using public funds for campaigns raises legitimate concerns, including whether those dollars always make a meaningful difference. This measure leaves the decision to establish public financing with state and local governments rather than requiring them to do so.
​
Proposition 5 - Recall Elections
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition 5 would eliminate the second question on state recall ballots asking voters to choose a replacement. If a statewide official other than the Governor is recalled, the existing process for filling a vacancy would generally apply. If the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would serve as Governor, with the duration depending on when in the term the recall occurs.
We support simplifying the recall process. A Lieutenant Governor could have an interest in a Governor's recall, but the Lieutenant Governor is independently elected by voters.
​
Proposition 37 - Homebuyer Assistance
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition 37 would create a state homebuying assistance program financed by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds. Eligible middle-income buyers of qualifying newly constructed homes could receive fixed-rate financing for part of the purchase price, with the bonds repaid through mortgage payments rather than the State General Fund.
Proposition 38 - Immunology Research
UDC recommends YES
What it does: Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. Half would be dedicated to cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease research. The measure would split funding between a qualifying UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute and research grants to public or nonprofit institutions.
Proposition 38's structure raises legitimate concerns, including whether its pricing requirements could discourage drug makers from participating and whether a significant share of the funding would be concentrated in one research institute.
We also recognize the loss of other research-funding sources and the potential value of establishing a California institution dedicated to medical research. On balance, we recommend supporting the measure.
Proposition 39 - Voter Identification
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition 39 would require voters to provide additional government-issued identification information when voting. In-person voters would need to present government-issued identification, while mail voters would need to provide identifying digits from a designated government-issued identification number on the ballot envelope.
Proposition 39 would place unnecessary burdens on voters and election departments. Not every eligible voter has an acceptable form of identification, and the measure does not address a demonstrated problem with California elections.
Proposition 40 - One-Time Wealth Tax
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition 40 would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on certain California taxpayers with covered assets valued above $1 billion. Ninety percent of the revenue would be allocated to health care, with the remaining 10% allocated to food assistance or education-related programs.
We share concerns about cuts to health care funding, but we do not believe a one-time tax is the right approach. We also have concerns about how the measure is written and the precedent it could set for future proposals with similar goals.
Proposition 41 - State Tax and Audit Rules
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition 41 would prohibit new state taxes from excluding their revenue from California's constitutional spending limit. For new statewide special taxes proposed by voter initiative, it would also require a pre-election audit of programs that would receive the revenue and recurring audits after enactment. The measure could invalidate conflicting measures on the same ballot if Proposition 41 receives more YES votes.
Proposition 41 would have consequences beyond its interaction with Proposition 40 and could restrict future state tax measures. We do not believe those broader, longer-term restrictions are warranted.
Proposition 42 - Restrictions on New State Taxes
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition 42 would prohibit California from creating new state taxes on personal property, including financial assets, business interests and intellectual property. It would also prohibit certain new state taxes that apply retroactively based on conduct, activities or status occurring before the tax took effect.
Proposition 42 is an overly broad response to Proposition 40. It could constrain future tax measures and make the use of tax revenue less flexible.
Proposition 43 - Local Revenue Measures
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition 43 would require a two-thirds vote to approve any new, increased or extended local special tax proposed through the citizen initiative process. Those measures currently can pass with a simple majority; the two-thirds requirement already applies when a local government places a special tax on the ballot.
​
Proposition 44 - Community Health Clinic Spending
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition 44 would require certain nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health care services. Clinics that do not meet the requirement could face financial penalties, with exceptions available in certain circumstances.
Proposition 44 is opposed by Planned Parenthood. The central issue is how “health care services” is defined: the Attorney General would decide which expenses count toward the 90% requirement, using clinics’ existing federal reports as a starting point. Expenses classified outside that category—including administrative costs—would have to fit within the remaining 10%, which could limit how clinics manage necessary support functions.
Proposition 45 - Environmental Review
UDC recommends NO
What it does: Proposition 45 would change the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for certain projects, including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access and clean energy projects. Among other changes, it would set deadlines for environmental review and permitting, change how project alternatives are considered, and establish deadlines and limits for court challenges.
We support streamlining environmental review, but this measure's structure raises serious concerns. Its changes would be difficult for the Legislature to amend, may not address the most significant barriers they are intended to solve, and would apply to a broad range of projects.