Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s strong support for women’s reproductive rights, government aid and housing reform, affordable healthcare and a plan to lower taxes for the middle and lower classes has earned them The Editorial Board’s endorsement. 

Donald J. Trump and JD Vance are simply unfit for office. Trump’s dangerous lack of understanding how tariffs work, his inability to lay out a comprehensive healthcare plan and his Project 2025 plans –should he win– are deeply concerning and disqualifying to hold the office of the president again. The 34-count-felon peddles dangerous rhetoric regarding alleged voter fraud already being found in Pennsylvania and around the US, while his VP candidate creates lies regarding Haitian migrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio – which have already been debunked.

The Oak Leaf Editorial Board Endorses Kamala Harris for President and Tim Walz for Vice President.

United States Congress

District 2: Jared Huffman

District 4: Mike Thompson

United States Senate: Adam Schiff 

Measures and Propositions On The Ballot

Measure I: YES 

Measure I would impose a quarter-cent sales tax within Sonoma County. The tax will provide funding for child care, preschool and early childhood education for children up to 5 years old in low and middle income families along with children’s healthcare. It prioritizes the homeless, historically underserved communities, or others with high priority needs. The editorial board endorses a YES vote on Measure I.

Measure J: NO 

Measure J calls for the liquidation of all large CAFO’s in Sonoma County. 21 CAFOs exist in the county and voters are calling for the farms to be spared. Though Measure J has the best intentions for animals, the poorly written measure does not address the thousands of farming jobs that would be lost. Measure J would also cause a significant blow to the agriculture industry, which is the backbone of Sonoma County. The editorial board endorses voting “no” on Measure J.

Measure FF: NO 

Measure FF on the Sonoma County ballot calls to increase the city’s transient occupancy tax, also known as the “hotel tax,” on guests staying in Santa Rosa hotels and other guest lodgings from 9% to 11%. This increase in tax would hurt the tourism industry that many businesses rely on in Santa Rosa. The editorial board says “No” on FF.

Proposition 2: YES

Prop 2  would authorize $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade and construction of facilities at K through 12 public schools – including charter schools – as well as community colleges, and career technical education programs, including funds for the improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. This would also require annual audits. Though it has a high price tag, The editorial board believes this proposition would help the Santa Rosa Junior College community and other students around the state.

Proposition 3: YES

Proposition 3 would eliminate the language in Section 7.5 of Article 1 of the California Constitution that states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The proposition comes after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. suggesting that the Court should also reconsider the federal right to same-sex marriage. Therefore, this proposition serves as an essential safeguard for same-sex marriage in California. 

Proposition 4: YES

Proposition 4 authorizes the sale of a $10 billion state bond for the purpose of funding programs aimed at conserving natural resources and responding to climate change. The cost is nothing compared to the cost of potential damages from wildfires, drought and sea-level rise over the next 40 years; the time frame in which the bond will be paid off. The proposition is essential legislation in the effort to combat climate change. 

Proposition 5: NO

Proposition 5 would allow for local bonds and related property taxes to require a 55% vote of the local electorate compared to the two-thirds vote requirement currently in place. This would make passing these bonds much easier, which opens the door for potential issues, such as increasing California’s debt leading to higher property taxes. While this outcome certainly isn’t guaranteed, it’s much safer to just keep things as is and not risk further increased cost of living. The Oak Leaf Editorial Board does not support this Proposition.

Proposition 6: YES

The editorial board endorses Proposition 6, recognizing that involuntary servitude in the prison system is, in essence, a form of modern slavery. Forcing incarcerated individuals to work under threat of punishment is contradictory to California’s commitment to basic human rights. A “yes” vote paves the way for a more humane approach in the prison system, by promoting voluntary participation through fair incentives.

Proposition 32: YES

The editorial board endorses Proposition 32, recognizing it as a necessary step towards equitable wages for California’s workers. By tying future wage increases to inflation, Proposition 32 ensures that wages keep pace with the rising cost of living. Raising the minimum wage to $18 wages better reflect the realities of living expenses. 

Proposition 33: NO

California Proposition 33 would allow for rent control laws over cities and counties to no longer be limited by state law. This is nothing more than a fancier and more deceptively worded version of Proposition 10 from 2018 and Proposition 21 from 2020 which were both rejected by the people of California. Proposition 33 would only make California’s housing crisis worse by repealing no small number of state housing laws currently in place, making it much more difficult to build affordable housing. The Oak Leaf Editorial Board does not support this Proposition.

Proposition 34: YES

The Oak Leaf editorial board endorses Proposition 34 to ensure that healthcare funds are not being diverted away from patient services in place of other projects from healthcare companies. Proposition 34 would also make Medi-Cal RX a permanent program which would give California stronger leverage to secure lower drug prices. Voting “yes” on Proposition 34 enforces transparency and directs essential resources to support patient care across California.

Proposition 35: YES 

Proposition 35 will be a continuation of a tax which has passed from the ballot to California legislation twice before. Proposition 35 would continue this dedicated revenue of tax dollars to fund and maintain the health care systems in California, bolstering medical coverage and supporting continued health care at a reduced price. The Editorial Board strongly supports this continued tax to keep medical costs lower for all Californians.

Proposition 36: NO

The Oak Leaf editorial board opposes Proposition 36, believing it would undo meaningful reform that has been made under Proposition 47 to reduce prison overcrowding and prioritize treatment over punishment. We also believe that while the proposition stance on theft is tempting the inclusion of drug-related crimes would actively work against the rehabilitation of those who need it the most. We recommend a “no” vote on Proposition 36 to keep California focused on rehabilitation and to avoid a return to costly, punitive policies.