Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Contra Costa Community College District Honors outgoing Trustee John E. Márquez for more than 55 years of service

By Leave a Comment

Source: 4CD

By Jennifer Ortega, Director of Communications and Community Relations, Contra Costa Community College District

Martinez, Calif. – The Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) Governing Board recognized outgoing Trustee John E. Márquez on Nov. 10 for his more than 55 years of service and leadership dedicated to expanding educational opportunity, supporting student success, and strengthening communities throughout Contra Costa County.

“For more than five decades, John Márquez has demonstrated a deep commitment to education, equity, and public service,” said Governing Board President Diana Honig. “He has always led with extraordinary kindness, and his leadership has helped shape our District, strengthen our communities, and transform the lives of countless students. We are proud to recognize his remarkable legacy and lasting contributions to the Contra Costa Community College District.”

Márquez’s connection to 4CD began in the late 1960s when he enrolled at Contra Costa College (CCC) using the G.I. Bill after serving in the U.S. Army. As a student, he became an advocate for increasing Latino student enrollment and worked alongside college leaders to encourage more students from local high schools to pursue higher education.

During the 1970s, Márquez helped establish some of CCC’s first Chicano Studies courses, contributing to programs that helped elevate Latino history, culture, and perspectives within the college curriculum. After earning his degree from San Francisco State University, he returned to the District as an instructor, teaching Spanish and serving as a part-time faculty member for more than 25 years.

“Contra Costa College changed my life,” Márquez said. “I wanted to make sure other students understood that higher education could open doors for them, too.”

Following his retirement from teaching in 2000, Márquez was elected to the 4CD Governing Board as the trustee for Ward 1, representing West Contra Costa County. In this capacity, he has continued to advocate for equitable access to higher education, student achievement, and strong pathways to college and career success. Throughout his tenure, he has remained focused on ensuring students from all backgrounds have access to the resources and opportunities needed to reach their goals.

“John Márquez has dedicated so much of his life to the Contra Costa Community College District and to the community he cares about so deeply,” said Chancellor Mojdeh Mehdizadeh. “His leadership has always come from the heart and has been grounded in a steadfast commitment to opening doors for others. I have been incredibly fortunate to work alongside him, and his impact on our students, our colleges, and our communities will be felt for generations to come.”

His contributions have earned numerous honors, including being named Contra Costa County Hispanic of the Year and receiving the 2026 Future Leaders of America Latino Lifetime Achievement Award.

Márquez’s current four-year term on the Governing Board ends in December 2026, and he chose not to seek reelection. Two candidates competed to succeed him in the November 2026 General Election. As of Nov. 10, 2026, education advocate Dr. Raquel Donoso had received approximately 60% of the votes counted. She is expected to be sworn in as the trustee for Ward 1 on Monday, Dec. 14.

About 4CD

The Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) is one of the largest multi-college community college districts in California. 4CD serves 1.2 million residents, and its boundaries encompass all but 48 of the 734-square-mile land area of Contra Costa County. 4CD is home to Contra Costa College in San Pablo, Diablo Valley College with campuses in Pleasant Hill and San Ramon, and Los Medanos College with campuses in Pittsburg and Brentwood. The District headquarters are located in downtown Martinez. Each college is individually accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. For more information, visit www.4cd.edu.

Over 184,000 estimated ballots left to count in Contra Costa

By Leave a Comment

Source: Herald file photo

Could affect outcomes in close races

By Allen D. Payton

As of Thursday afternoon, Nov. 5, 2026, the Contra Costa Elections office announced there are 184,200 unprocessed ballots remaining to be counted in the county from Tuesday’s election.

Also, they announced the next results update is expected to be provided Friday afternoon, Nov. 6 at 4:00 p.m.

The remaining ballots could affect the outcome of several close races in the county.

Following is the breakdown of the Estimated number of unprocessed ballots:

Ballots voted at a voting location – 200

Vote-by-mail ballots received on or before Election Day – 165,000

Vote-by-mail ballots received after Election Day – 12,000

Provisional ballots – 500

Conditional Voter Registration Provisional ballots – 4,000

Other (In Review, Damaged) – 2,000

Total – 184,200

Next Results Expected (date and time): Friday, 11/6/2026 – 4:00 PM.

As of Wednesday morning’s update at 12:12 AM, a total of 280,686 ballots had been counted, out of 733,037 registered voters in the county. The remaining ballots make up almost 40 percent of the total 464,886 estimated ballots cast. They don’t include ballots that can still arrive by next Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. that were mailed and postmarked this past Tuesday.

Former BART Director Debora Allen responds to apparent passage of Measure RTM

By Leave a Comment

Says, “The election may be over, but the fight for accountability is not”

By Debora Allen

WALNUT CREEK, CA — Following the apparent passage of Measure RTM, former BART Board Director Debora Allen, a leading critic of the regional transit sales tax measure, issued the following statement:

I have never been afraid to be a minority voice, nor have I been afraid of losing while fighting for the right cause.

Nearly half a million Bay Area voters have already joined me in saying that fiscal responsibility and meaningful accountability for government spending of our tax dollars matter. With hundreds of thousands of ballots still to be counted, that number could grow substantially. That’s a powerful voice that deserves to be heard, regardless of the election outcome.

The apparent passage of Measure RTM is disappointing, but hardly surprising.

Source: Wikipedia

The transit industry and its corporate and labor allies raised almost $10 million in reported direct contributions to the Yes campaign, not including additional spending on member communications by labor unions and nonprofits. Meanwhile, the volunteers fighting this tax increase operated on roughly $20,000. That’s a spending advantage approaching 500 to 1. The corporate and labor interests had millions to sell their message. The people opposing this tax had volunteers, research, and determination.

Source: Wikipedia

The authors of Senate Bill 63, the enabling legislation for Measure RTM, had one overriding objective: secure billions in new funding for Bay Area transit agencies. Yet they acknowledged in the legislation that “financial efficiency and transparency are imperative to build public confidence and support for public transit.” SB 63 was their opportunity to deliver meaningful, independent oversight in exchange for asking voters to raise sales taxes in five counties. Instead, they created an oversight process that lacks meaningful independence and enforceable financial reforms. The Legislature had the opportunity to demand real accountability before committing billions in taxpayer dollars. It failed. That is why I opposed Measure RTM.

The Yes campaign was filled with misleading narratives about the spending habits of Bay Area transit agencies, promises of accountability measures that lack meaningful independence, and frightening predictions of traffic Armageddon if voters rejected the tax. These were carefully crafted public relations messages designed to convince voters that higher taxes were the only alternative to transit collapse.

Much of this effort was driven by three influential Bay Area nonprofits: the Bay Area Council, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research (SPUR), and Seamless Bay Area. These well-funded organizations, backed by powerful corporate and labor interests, have spent years advancing a vision of a denser, more urbanized Bay Area, with transit-oriented housing and concentrated employment centers throughout the region.

These organizations aren’t simply advocating for transit funding. They are helping shape where and how millions of Bay Area residents will live, work, and travel. Voters deserve to understand whose interests are driving those plans, who finances them, and who ultimately benefits.

I’ve lost elections before. Losing is always disappointing, but winning an election isn’t the only measure of success.

Throughout this campaign, the volunteers of CABAT (Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit), SHIFT (Sustainability in Housing, Infrastructure, Finance, Transportation), and Contra Costa Taxpayers’ Association did phenomenal work. They uncovered troubling facts, challenged questionable claims, and learned a great deal about how powerful corporate and labor interests use their financial resources and political influence to sell tax increases to the public.

Source: Wikipedia

Most importantly, together we exposed serious questions about transit agency spending, financial sustainability, and the lack of truly independent oversight. Those questions do not disappear because a tax measure passes.

This was meaningful work. It will continue, and it will expand. The passage of Measure RTM doesn’t relieve transit agencies of their responsibility to reform their operations, control spending, or deliver the accountability promised to voters. In fact, with billions of additional taxpayer dollars at stake, the need for independent scrutiny is greater than ever.

Last night, at an election gathering, someone approached me and said, “We are so thankful for you fighting for us. You have guts.”

That meant more to me than any election result.

Because if you want to change anything, you’ve got to have guts.

And we’re not finished.

About Debora Allen

Debora Allen served eight years as an elected BART Board Director and six years as a trustee of the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association. A business owner, CPA (inactive), and former CFO and Tax Manager, Debora is a longtime advocate for fiscal accountability. She continues to work on government oversight, financial transparency, and taxpayer protection throughout the Bay Area.

Contra Costa early voting sites opened today, Friday, Oct. 30

By Leave a Comment

Read 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 Ave, 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 Ln, 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.

Pros & Cons on Prop. 3, California’s second tax increase extension on higher income residents

By Leave a Comment

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.

The need is not theoretical. Despite declines in youth suicide in California, serious mental health challenges persist. Schools need trained professionals who can recognize warning signs, respond to crises and connect students with appropriate care.

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.

Gloria Martinez is the president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

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.

Letter writer says DeSaulnier only had two bills become law, vote for Frese for Congress instead

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor,

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.

Regards,

Philip Ho

Walnut Creek

Contra Costa Elections office says first results will be available shortly after 8:00 PM on Election Night

By Leave a Comment

Provides additional results schedule

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:

https://x.com/cocoelections

https://www.facebook.com/ContraCostaElections/

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.

Here’s how much California Teachers Association has spent on Barrera campaign, Prop. 3

By Leave a Comment

By Daniel J. Willis, EdSource.org, republished with permission

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.

Contra Costa Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters, District Attorney, Sheriff work together to ensure safe, secure 2026 General Election

By Leave a Comment

To prohibit election intimidation in compliance with state laws in response to concerns Pres. Trump is trying to influence results

By Dawn Kruger Community and Media Relations Coordinator Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department

Martinez, California – As voting gets underway for the November 3rd General Election, Contra Costa County’s Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters, District Attorney and Sheriff are standing together to ensure every voter can cast a ballot safely and with confidence.

California has long led the nation in protecting the right to vote, and its election safeguards keep getting stronger. The Peace Act (AB 2642), signed into law in September 2024, established clear protections for voters and election workers in all 58 counties by explicitly prohibiting intimidation and threats at the polls. It treats the presence of a firearm, or even a replica of one, at a polling place as unlawful intimidation, and it gives voters, election officials, and election workers the right to take civil legal action against anyone who tries to intimidate or coerce them.

Legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom this September builds on that foundation. The new laws make it a felony to tamper with ballots, election records, or voting equipment, guard voters against deepfakes and deception, and expand access to the ballot box, giving election and law enforcement officials across the state more tools to keep elections safe, secure, and fair. For Contra Costa County voters, that means every ballot, whether cast at a polling place, dropped in a drop box, or returned by mail, is protected from the moment it’s cast until the final count.

In his signing statement Newsom said, “Donald Trump won’t stop until he can exert dictatorial control over your free vote and disenfranchise millions of people this November. California will stop him at every opportunity. We have no bigger task than fighting to protect the right to vote from interference and meddling – the future of democracy is on the line. These bills today build upon the wall California has built to safeguard our electoral process.”

Contra Costa voters can vote their way with confidence, say the three County officials.

“As the Chief Elections Officer for Contra Costa County, I want to encourage all eligible Contra Costa residents to vote and to know that we expect another safe and secure election,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters. “I also want to reassure voters that we take extensive safety precautions in every election. We partner closely with local law enforcement to ensure that all Contra Costa Voters can feel confident voting with their preferred method either by drop box, through the post office, or in-person.”

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton said, “Your vote is your voice, and we will protect it. From the mailbox to the drop box to the polling place, my office and our law enforcement partners are making sure every eligible voter in Contra Costa County can cast a ballot freely, safely, and with confidence that their voice will be heard.”

“As the election approaches, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office is working with its law enforcement partners to ensure this election is safe and that we will help protect residents’ right to vote,” said Sheriff David Livingston.

However, the Contra Costa County Elections Division still uses the controversial Dominion voting equipment purchased in 2018 that has removal flash drives, as well as Scytle software. (See related articles here, here and here)

Since then, Dominion Voting Systems, a Canadian company, was purchased in 2025 by election reform advocate Scott Leiendecker under a new company called Liberty Vote based in Denver, Colorado.

For more information on how or where to vote, visit the Contra Costa County Elections website www.contracostavote.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

11 foreign nationals arrested in California on federal charges alleging they Illegally registered and voted in U.S. elections

By Leave a Comment

28 charged in statewide Operation Protect the Vote, five in Bay Area

By Ciaran McEvoy, PIO, U.S. Attorney’s Office Central District of California

LOS ANGELES – Federal law enforcement throughout California today arrested 11 foreign nationals living in the United States who are charged in criminal complaints with federal crimes, including that they fraudulently registered to vote in U.S. elections, electoral contests in which most of them cast illegal and fraudulently obtained ballots.

A total of 28 people were charged statewide, 21 actually voted in elections and 11 were arrested today. Law enforcement is seeking the other individuals or have been summoned.

Today’s arrests are part of “Operation Protect the Vote” – a coordinated effort among all four California-based United States Attorney’s Offices to combat and root out fraud in U.S. elections and protect electoral integrity.

Source: republicanpollworkers.com

All 28 foreign nationals charged are lawful permanent residents (LPRs), or “green card” holders. Although LPRs have legal immigration status in the United States, they are not U.S. citizens and are not permitted to vote in U.S. elections.

The criminal charges include making false statements in a naturalization application and some of the defendants also are charged with fraudulent voter registration. Both charges are felonies that carry a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.

The defendants arrested today are expected to make their initial appearances this afternoon in U.S. District Court. No pleas will be taken today.

On October 13, the federal government provided a list of these individuals to California to ensure that their vote-by-mail ballots were set aside until these individuals’ citizenship status could be confirmed. California declined to assist the federal government in setting aside their ballots, prompting a lawsuit by the United States that seeks a court order to prevent the unlawful dilution of American citizens’ votes and to uphold the integrity of our elections.

“Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of a lawful American citizen,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. “Each of the 28 defendants charged today appears on the list of more than 20,000 likely noncitizen registrants we provided to California election officials last week. California refused to look at that list. Today’s charges show exactly what that refusal puts at risk. California must verify the citizenship of those more than 20,000 registrants before mail-in ballots are counted.”

“Today’s arrests prove what we have been saying,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “California is mailing ballots to noncitizens, and they are refusing to comply with federal law, which makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote. The voting rights of American citizens must be protected.”

“Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is committed to protecting the integrity of our nation’s electoral process by investigating allegations of criminal conduct that undermine public confidence in our elections,” said HSI Acting Executive Associate Director John A. Condon. “Working with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, we will continue to pursue those who knowingly violate federal law, while ensuring that every investigation is conducted fairly, thoroughly, and consistent with due process.”

According to court documents, the defendants knowingly and willfully lied under oath in their voter registration applications that they were U.S. citizens to be permitted to vote in California. Their fraudulent voter registration applications were approved, and, in many cases, the defendants illegally voted in recent U.S. elections. They subsequently lied in their paperwork to become naturalized U.S. citizens that they had never claimed U.S. citizenship, nor had they registered to vote or voted in U.S. elections.

Broken down by jurisdiction, the following defendants are charged in today’s takedown:

Central District of California

All the following defendants below in this jurisdiction face felony charges, including false statements in a naturalization application:

  • Omar Alexander Muñoz, 72, a Belizean national living in Commerce, fraudulently registered to vote in September 2019, claiming his was a U.S. citizen, then voted in U.S. elections in 2020, twice in 2022, and in 2024. He also lied on his application to become a naturalized U.S. citizen when he falsely stated under oath to have never claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
  • Amandeep Kaur, 30, an Indian national living in Rancho Palos Verdes and who is seeking to become a U.S. citizen, fraudulently registered to vote in December 2022 and voted in the November 2024 U.S. election.
  • Ana Domínguez, 60, a Salvadoran national living in Long Beach, fraudulently registered to vote in July 2006 and lied in her naturalization paperwork in March 2026.
  • Axel Giovani Prera García, 46, a Guatemalan national and Pico Rivera resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2002 and 2005, and lied in his naturalization paperwork in June 2025.
  • Flavio Alejandro Zúñiga, 43, a Mexico national and La Puente resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2003 and lied in his naturalization paperwork in February 2026.
  • Butleng Taing, 43, a Cambodian national living in Long Beach, fraudulently registered to vote in July 2021, voted in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections, and lied on his naturalization paperwork in August 2025.
  • Carlos Antonio Galeas, 54, a Honduran national and West Covina resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2012 and 2016, then lied in his naturalization paperwork in September 2018.
  • Ernest Gutiérrez Ruvalcaba, 57, a Mexican national living in Wilmington, fraudulently registered to vote in February 2024 and voted one month later.
  • Jesús Narez-Madrigal, 52, a Mexican national living in Carson, fraudulently registered to vote in 2014, voted in the 2024 U.S. general election, and lied in his naturalization paperwork in June 2024.
  • José Antonio Bañuelos-Díaz, 42, a Mexican national and West Adams resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2007 and lied on his naturalization paperwork in March 2025.
  • Muhammad Khan, 50, a Pakistani national and Anaheim resident, submitted a provisional ballot in 2020 and lied on his naturalization paperwork five years later.
  • Rouzbeh Seyamaknejad, 63, a Canadian national and Rancho Palos Verdes resident, fraudulently registered to vote in December 2018, lied in his naturalization application in January 2024, and voted in the November 2024 U.S. election.
  • Sulema de León, 35, a Mexican national and Long Beach resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2013, lied on her naturalization application in 2019, and voted in the November 2020 U.S. general election.

Eastern District of California

The following defendants are charged with voting by an alien in a federal election, a misdemeanor that carries a statutory maximum sentence of one year in federal prison:

  • Maricela Nazarín González, 43, a Mexican national living in Clovis, registered to vote in 2020, indicating that she was a U.S. citizen, and voted in elections in 2022, twice in 2024, and 2025.
  • Rony de Jesús Sicaja, 38, a Guatemalan national living in Fresno, fraudulently registered to vote in 2017, and voted in the June 2022 primary election and the November 2024 general election in the United States.
  • Camino Giles Jiménez, 51, a Mexican national living in Kerman, knowingly voted in three U.S. elections despite knowing he is a noncitizen, the most recent election being the June 2026 primary.
  • Juan Antonio Rivas García, 46, a Mexican national and Sacramento resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2018 and 2020, both times falsely asserting under oath that he was a U.S. citizen. Rivas voted in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections.
  • Giezell Viduya Adawag, 41, a Philippines national and Vacaville resident, fraudulently registered to vote the day of the November 2024 general election, falsely certified that she was a U.S. citizen, and voted in the election that day.
  • Kamlesh Navnitlal Shah, 67, an Indian national living in Sacramento, fraudulently registered to vote on the day of the November 2024 general election and voted that day. He is charged via information.

Northern District of California

The following defendants are charged with attempted procurement of naturalization contrary to law, false statement under oath in any matter relating to naturalization or citizenship, and voting by an alien:

  • Verónica Bullene, 43, a.k.a. “Verónica Hernández Martínez,” a Mexican national living in Petaluma, made false statements on her naturalization application that she had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen when, in fact, she did so under penalty of perjury to register to vote in 2022 and 2023 then voted in 2024.
  • David Shapiro, 41, a Georgian national living in San Jose, fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and later voted in a U.S. election, and made false statements on his naturalization application that he had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
  • Moe Thida Lwin, 57, a Myanmar national and Daly City resident, fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and then proceeded to illegally vote in a U.S. citizen. She made false statements on her naturalization paperwork as well.
  • Manakotau Mataele Finau, 61, a Tongan national and Hayward resident, fraudulently registered to vote in the 2024 election then vote, then lied about it in naturalization paperwork.
  • Maribel del Carmen Garcés Barriga, 62, an Ecuadoran national and San Francisco resident, made false statements in her naturalization paperwork that she never claimed U.S. citizenship and had never voted in a U.S. election or had registered to vote. In fact, Garcés fraudulently registered to vote in 2024 and proceeded to vote in a U.S. election.

Southern District of California

The following defendants are charged with false claim to citizenship to vote, unlawful attempted procurement of naturalization, and false statement under oath in matter relating to naturalization or citizenship:

  • José Probitsado Amaro, 51, a citizen of the Philippines living in National City, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. He then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements during his naturalization interview, denying that he had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting his voting history.
  • Jennifer Jung, 31, a Canadian national living in San Diego, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. She then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements during her naturalization interview, denying that she had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting her voting history.
  • Erick Ronaldo Soto Mendizábal, 64, a citizen of Guatemala and former Oceanside resident now living in Moreno Valley, fraudulently registered to vote by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. He then cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election and made false statements in his naturalization application, denying that he had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting his voting history.
  • Pamele Arbués Line, 56, a citizen of the Philippines living in Escondido, registered to vote, cast a ballot in the November 2024 general election, and made false statements in her naturalization interview, denying that she had ever claimed U.S. citizenship and misrepresenting her voting history.

Criminal complaints and informations merely contain allegations. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is investigating these matters in the Central District of California. HSI and the FBI are investigating these matters in the Eastern and Northern Districts of California. HSI, the FBI, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are investigating the matters in the Southern District of California.

Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Wheat and Minjae Kim of the Orange County Office are prosecuting the Central District of California cases. Assistant United States Attorneys Kevin Khasigian and Joshua Banister are prosecuting the Eastern District of California cases. Special Assistant United States Attorney Roger Dinh is prosecuting the Northern District of California cases.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.