I wasn’t going to write a voter guide for this primary election because there aren’t any statewide measures. But folks kept asking, and because I can’t help myself, I researched the hell out of every race and started posting about it on social media.

And I’m here to say holy crap, tensions are high. My Facebook page is blowing up. But hey! This is just the primary, so maybe calm the F down. You get to vote on these same races in November. You’ll probably even get to vote for your favorite candidate again.

So here are my thoughts about the statewide candidate races in the June primary. As always, my aim is to provide you with enough information to inform your vote. My sources include newspaper endorsements, Ballotpedia.com, and friends who work in state and local government, including many elected officials.

Disclaimers

Before we begin, I should clarify that the opinions I express in this voter guide are my own and should not be attributed to my clients, my little girl, or my perimenopausal women’s support group. Please send all hate mail to me at info (at) votealix.com.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a single mom, a liberal Democrat, and an attorney whose passions include making government work better, helping professionals lead healthier lives, and protecting our environment for future generations. I’ve worked on/volunteered for more political campaigns than I can count, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Governor – Tom Steyer

I’ve changed my mind about the California governor’s race approximately five times. Here’s where I landed, and why.

I started with Xavier Becerra. First Latino governor? Hell yes. Most experience, Democratic front runner, and frankly I just wanted to make sure a Democrat makes the November ballot. It was more strategy than feeling. He talks a good game on housing and health care costs, but he’s an incrementalist who’s been collecting political IOUs for decades. His whole brand is stable, predictable governance. This is the pre-Trump Democratic party. I respect it. I don’t want it right now.

Then I moved to Katie Porter. Smart, fierce, single payer, tax the rich, not afraid of anyone. I love voting for qualified women and I believe the patriarchy should take a seat. But there’s video of her yelling at a staffer, and she has a reputation for being hard on her people. She apologized. Is she being judged more harshly because she’s a woman? Probably, to some degree. But how a politician treats staff isn’t just a vibe thing — it’s a proxy for management style, whether people feel safe giving honest input, and whether they punch down when they have power. If someone consistently mistreats staff, it can lead to high turnover, worse policy outcomes, and insular decision-making. That stuff has real policy consequences.

I remember meeting her at a small event and she didn’t look me in the eyes when she shook my hand. Should that matter? Maybe not. Politicians are humans under extreme pressure. But I generally don’t like voting for jerks.

I’m also not voting for Matt Mahan or Tony Thurmond. Both have great qualities. Neither has the traction to make a runoff, and I’m not in the business of throwing my vote away. (Remember, your vote is a chess move, not a Valentine)

Which brings me to Tom Steyer.

A billionaire white man. I know. I KNOW. I have written at length about why billionaires shouldn’t exist and why California’s long tradition of wealthy outsiders parachuting into statewide office — Schwarzenegger, Whitman, the Huffingtons, Poizner, all of them — is bad for democracy. No voting record. No accountability. Too risky.

But.

Steyer is saying all the right things: tax the rich, single payer, squeeze the utility monopolies, aggressive climate policy, housing, cost of living. And here’s the thing I keep coming back to — his wealth and his outsider status are actually the point. He doesn’t owe the unions anything. He doesn’t owe the Chamber of Commerce anything. He doesn’t have thirty years of political favors to repay. That used to terrify me. In the Trump era, it’s starting to look like a feature.

Governor Pritzker in Illinois. Mayor Lurie in San Francisco. Rich guys who bought their elections and have actually been effective — because they can make hard calls and absorb the blowback. Is Steyer the next Pritzker? I genuinely don’t know. But the times call for big bets, and I’m willing to make one. I’m voting Steyer.

Lt. Governor – Fiona Ma, Josh Fryday or Michael Tubbs

I have some thoughts on Lieutenant Governor’s race. First, you should know that it REALLY DOESN’T MATTER. The Lt Gov sits on the boards overseeing the UC system, the coastal commission, and economic development, and they get to fill in every time the Governor leaves the state to (run for president or) attend a conference.

This race has three front runners, all of them will be FINE, and two of them will advance to November, so you’ll have another crack at it in a few months.

Fiona Ma is the current Treasurer and has the reputation of being a strong fiscal watchdog. She has done basically every job in Sacramento short of operating the espresso cart in the Capitol basement. She’s the institutional pick with the fundraising network to match. She also settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former employee for $350K, which she called frivolous. It sounds like the accuser had an axe to grind, and there is no evidence that this is a pattern for her.

Josh Fryday is a Navy vet, former Novato mayor, and currently heads Veterans Affairs under Newsom. He is endorsed by lots and lots of Very Important Democrats. Newsom-aligned, next-gen, says the right things about climate. Perfectly fine. It’s not his fault that he’s a white dude. However, if you’re done with white dudes running the government (which I am!) vote for Ma or Tubbs.

Michael Tubbs was elected the first Black mayor of Stockton (at the age of 26!), launched a guaranteed income pilot before it was cool, and is genuinely compelling to watch speak. Most progressive of the three. Less machine support, which means he hasn’t been as good as his competition at raising money or getting endorsements, but he has a legit, enthusiastic following. Has a real personal story and gives good speech.

This isn’t a race that requires strategic anxiety. All three are credible, all three are Democrats. Just vote for whoever you could see possibly supporting for Governor in 4-8 years. Because that’s what this race is really about.

Secretary of State – Shirley Weber

Weber has been a genuine defender of voting rights and election access in an era when that is not a given. More importantly, she has spent the last several years actively blocking Trump administration attempts to restrict voting and hoover up sensitive California voter data. She has a reputation for following the rules even when it’s politically inconvenient — a quality so rare in elected officials that it now counts as a distinguishing characteristic. She has earned re-election.

Controller – Malia Cohen

The Controller is the state’s chief financial officer: she issues payments, manages cash flow, and audits state and local agencies to make sure public money is being spent legally and not just vibes-based. Cohen has improved the timeliness of the state’s financial reporting (boring, important, good for bond ratings and public accountability) and has been publicly calling for fiscal restraint as California stares down budget deficits. In a political environment full of people who want to use every office as a platform, having someone in this seat who is focused on actual cash management is underrated. She has earned my vote.

Treasurer – Anna Caballero

The Treasurer manages the state’s investments, bond sales, and debt, financing schools, housing, and infrastructure. The office also runs key programs supporting affordable housing, economic development, and environmental initiatives. In other words: they control a lot of money, and who controls that money matters.

The top Democratic candidates are Eleni Kounalakis, Anna Caballero, and Tony Vazquez. And I’ll be direct: this race is class warfare.

On the other side, you have two candidates with working class roots who actually paid their dues.

On one side you have Kounalakis, uber-wealthy establishment candidate whose entire state government resume is “Lieutenant Governor” — a job she purchased with personal wealth and no prior electoral experience. To be fair, she’s held that office for nearly two terms. But the Lieutenant Governorship is a lightweight role by design, she hasn’t done much to distinguish herself in it, and yet she walks into this race as the presumed frontrunner because she’s the only statewide officeholder running. She has stronger fundraising, statewide name recognition, and labor endorsements not because she’s earned them through subject matter expertise, but because she’s been on the statewide ballot twice and has favors to call in. She is the Democratic establishment, full stop. I’ll just say the quiet part out loud: I don’t think she actually wants to be Treasurer. I think she wants the next rung on the ladder.

Caballero has a deep resume. She headed California’s Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, overseeing roughly 16,000 employees and a multibillion-dollar budget. She served in both the Assembly and the State Senate. Before that, she was the Mayor of Salinas. She has direct familiarity with the bond financing and public investment programs the Treasurer actually runs. And the part I like most: she started her career as an attorney representing farmworkers and labor interests. Her allies frame this as proof she understands economic policy from a working-class and Central Valley perspective rather than from the vantage point of finance or elite political circles.

Vazquez is emphasizing his tax-policy and fiscal experience from the Board of Equalization and his background in local government. His pitch is that he’s the only candidate with hands-on experience running California’s tax system. He has significantly less money and visibility than the other two. Critics — including the Chronicle editorial board — took issue with comments he made about accepting lower investment returns in favor of more local investment, arguing it reflected an overly political approach to managing a pension and treasury portfolio. That’s a fair concern.

One thing worth naming for my progressive friends: there’s no true progressive in this race, and for this office, I’m not sure that matters.

Kounalakis is a capital-L liberal who won’t rock the boat. Caballero is a Central Valley moderate — yes, she was a farmworker attorney, but she also has ties to business and agricultural interests and has built her reputation as a coalition builder, not a crusader. Vazquez talks more openly than the others about using public money for community benefit over pure returns, which sounds progressive in tone, but he’s not aligned with the organized progressive movement — the groups pushing hard on climate divestment, criminal justice reform, and the like.

And honestly… for this office, I’m fine with that. There are races where I want a candidate with big, bold ideas — Governor, Attorney General, the Legislature. The Treasurer’s race is not that. Fiscal responsibility is kind of the whole enchilada here. I want someone with deep experience who will manage our money competently and responsibly.

Caballero fits that bill better than anyone else in this field.

As I’ve written before, I don’t think the ultra-wealthy should be able to parachute into statewide office except in very rare circumstances. Kounalakis purchased the Lieutenant Governorship, has no signature accomplishment to show for nearly two terms in it, and has no apparent subject matter expertise for the job she’s now seeking. Her endorsements and war chest are structural advantages, not evidence of fitness for office. They’re the spoils of having run statewide twice.

Caballero is scrappy, actually wants this job, has the relevant experience, and has spent her career fighting for working people. That’s the whole argument.

“But wait! Alix, how can you support wealthy Tom Steyer for Governor while opposing wealthy Eleni Kounalakis for Treasurer?”

I have always opposed wealthy candidates parachuting into higher office. That’s not a new position. Politicians who pay their dues build voting records, make alliances, and earn a level of accountability to the people they’ve served. Wealthy outsiders skip all of that, and Californians suffer the consequences.

Steyer is the exception, and I want to be clear that I’m making a Hail Mary pass here. In the pre-Trump era, I wanted incrementalism, stability, candidates I could evaluate based on evidence. That era is over. The Trump administration is trying to screw us every way they can, and many California politicians seem afraid of their own shadow — too worried about the next race to say anything that might cost them. Steyer’s wealth buys him something specific and valuable in this moment: the freedom to make hard decisions and absorb the blowback. He doesn’t need the job. He doesn’t need the job after that. That’s the only reason I’m setting aside my rule, and only for this office, in this political moment.

Kounalakis doesn’t get the same exception, because nothing about her candidacy justifies one. The Treasurer’s job is fiscal stewardship — responsible, technical, not ideological. It doesn’t call for big swings. She isn’t offering any. And she has no relevant experience in the office she’s trying to purchase. Wealthy candidates get a pass from me in exactly one scenario: when the moment demands boldness and the money buys them the freedom to deliver it. Kounalakis meets neither condition.

Attorney General – Rob Bonta

Bonta is the busiest person in Sacramento and it’s not close. He has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration covering immigration, reproductive rights, environmental rules, education funding, and federal spending cuts — basically a full-time job on its own. He has also gone after Live Nation and Amazon, prioritized gun violence prevention, housing enforcement, hate crimes, and anti-trafficking work. The AG’s office exists to protect Californians’ legal interests, and he is using it for exactly that. Vote for Bonta!

Insurance Commissioner – Ben Allen

The California Department of Insurance regulates more than 1,400 insurance companies, licenses hundreds of thousands of agents and brokers, investigates fraud, reviews property insurance rates, and handles consumer complaints. The Insurance Commissioner has to be responsive to public pressure for reform while understanding the industry well enough to actually get those reforms done. It is probably one of the hardest jobs in state government, and yet somehow we fill it with an election instead of, I don’t know, a national search.

Ben Allen is a wildfire and insurance nerd, and I mean that as the highest possible compliment. He brings 12 years as a State Senator (Santa Monica) with policy experience tied directly to insurance and climate risk. He knows Sacramento, he knows how to move legislation, and he knows where the bodies are buried in the regulatory process.

Supporters argue he combines serious policy expertise with the legislative experience to actually implement reforms, not just announce them. His work on climate and wildfire policy reflects a clear-eyed understanding that California’s insurance crisis is fundamentally a climate risk problem, not an administrative inconvenience. His push for stronger insurer disclosure requirements and fossil-fuel accountability has made some industry-aligned observers nervous. Also worth noting: he represents Pacific Palisades, and has earned praise from his constituents for how he has handled the disaster.

His critics come from both sides: progressives say he’s not aggressive enough, and business-aligned critics worry he’ll over-regulate a fragile market. I kind of love this. When you have enemies on both sides of an issue, it usually means you’re doing something right. It tells me he’d actually be good at the job.

Steven Bradford is a genuinely lovely human being who has served 14 years in the State legislature with a focus on energy, utilities, and consumer issues, though with less direct experience in insurance mechanics than Allen. His supporters rave about his decency, his steadiness, and his ability to build consensus, which matters when you’re running an office where both consumer groups and insurance companies are screaming at you simultaneously.

He’s the most balanced candidate: pro-consumer without being reflexively anti-industry. Supporters frame him as someone who can hold insurers accountable while still keeping them in California’s market, which is, you know, kind of the whole problem we’re trying to solve. He’s a practical dealmaker, not an ideological crusader.

His critics say he’s not enough of a reformer and lacks a distinctive vision for the crisis. Some progressives view him as too cozy with industry. Meh. I’d take Bradford over most of the field in another race. In this one, I think we need someone willing to actually push.

Jane Kim is the anti-Bradford: fierce, aggressive, and ready to burn it down. I’ve known her since before she ran for Supervisor in San Francisco in 2011, when she built a reputation for leading and winning high-profile policy fights.

Her supporters argue the current system is broken beyond incremental repair and needs radical restructuring. She’s proposing a public disaster insurance option, stronger consumer protections, profit caps, and broader accountability measures. She is not here to make friends with insurers.

The problem: she has no statewide policy or regulatory experience, and that matters enormously for this job. She has worked on housing, budgeting, and economic policy, but not insurance regulation specifically. And the flipside of “fierce” is “combustible.” Would her style produce the political conflict that further destabilizes a market that is already on fire (sometimes literally)?

I want to be clear: I get triggered when I hear her policies are “politically unworkable,” because that’s the same argument incrementalists used against universal healthcare and universal preschool. A new idea is “unworkable” until it isn’t. But there’s a difference between bold reform and reform untethered from how the regulated industry actually functions. I worry that Jane’s aggressive instincts, without deep knowledge of insurance mechanics or state regulatory process, means the reforms won’t stick. A good idea badly implemented is still a loss.

Patrick Wolff is the anti-politician. He’s a competent financial analyst with strong technical chops, no electoral experience, and a focused platform around making the existing system function efficiently: enforcing deadlines, clearing backlogs, and rebuilding trust after the Ricardo Lara years.

I respect the pitch. I don’t buy it for this race. The Office of Insurance Commissioner is a massive state bureaucracy, and running it requires the ability to absorb political pressure, negotiate with powerful interests, and move legislation. Technical expertise matters, but it’s not sufficient. His critics also note that he doesn’t push hard enough on consumer protections and is too sympathetic to industry. That tracks.

The bottom line: I’m voting for Allen. He has the policy depth to understand the problem, the legislative experience to actually solve it, and a track record of being willing to irritate people in service of getting something done. He’s not Bradford (too cautious) or Kim (too unmoored from operational reality) or Wolff (impressive resume, wrong job). The office has roughly 1,400 employees and enormous regulatory power over every Californian’s ability to insure their home. Send the nerd.

Member, State Board of Equalization (District 2) – Sally Lieber

The Board of Equalization oversees property tax administration, hears tax appeals, and manages taxes on alcohol, insurance, and fuel. District 2 runs the coast from Marin down to Ventura, which is why it reliably elects Democrats

Incumbent Sally Lieber is a rare bird in politics: she’s actually a good human who takes her office seriously and doesn’t treat it like a political parking spot. Her resume is long and legitimate — Mountain View mayor and council member, State Assembly, Assembly Speaker pro Tem, and now BOE chair. She has strong progressive credentials and is working on greater uptake of the various tax credits available to Californians. She also mentors younger women to run for office, which is how I met her. She’s the real deal.

Her only Democratic opponent, John Pimentel, is running as a reformer with a shorter political resume. He emphasizes efficiency and even questions whether the Board of Equalization should continue to exist in its current form. Lieber has all the major endorsements and a commanding fundraising lead. I’ll be watching whether Pimentel — or one of the four Republicans on the ballot — makes it out of the primary.

Vote for Sally. She’s earned it.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Josh Newman

I changed my mind a few times on this one. And really, you can’t go wrong with any of the four top Democrats.

No clear front-runner here. Four Democrats (all men!) are fighting to make it out of the primary, the teachers unions are fragmented, and — this is the part that should get your attention — Republican Sonya Shaw might actually make it onto the November ballot if Democrats split the vote evenly enough. She’s the only candidate in this race whose brand is intentionally confrontational and culture-war-oriented, which makes her a pretty stark contrast to the four guys who are otherwise running a remarkably civil, qualified, non-chaotic race.

Richard Barrera is president of the San Diego Unified School District board and probably the candidate most closely aligned with organized labor. He has the endorsement of incumbent Tony Thurmond and the California Teachers Association, plus two decades helping run one of California’s largest school districts. Supporters call him collaborative and pragmatic — someone who works well with unions, administrators, parents, and local officials. Critics call him an incrementalist too tethered to the education establishment to push real reform.

Al Muratsuchi chairs the Assembly Education Committee and is very much the policy-wonk candidate. He’s picked up the remaining labor endorsements — California Federation of Teachers, Association of California School Administrators, CA School Employees Association — and he genuinely knows education finance and policy cold, including co-authoring the $10 billion Proposition 2 school facilities bond with Newman. Critics say he represents the Sacramento education status quo too completely: deeply aligned with unions and bureaucracies, less associated with measurable improvement in student outcomes.

Josh Newman is a former chair of the Senate Education Committee and co-authored Proposition 2 with Muratsuchi. He’s trying to occupy a more independent lane, with military and nonprofit experience alongside his policy work. His focus is on system coordination and cutting bureaucracy so money actually reaches classrooms. Supporters say he’s willing to challenge entrenched interests. Critics say he lacks the deep K–12 operational background of Barrera, has less institutional support than the others, and is stuck in an awkward middle between unions and reformers.

Anthony Rendon is the most powerful Sacramento insider in the race — former Assembly Speaker, strong name recognition, strong fundraising. His case is straightforward: he knows how state government actually works, and his years as Speaker mean he can move budgets and navigate agencies better than anyone else on this ballot. He also has a genuine focus on early childhood education and anti-poverty work, not just traditional K–12 politics. The criticism is equally straightforward: transactional legislative operator, not an education visionary. Some progressives still haven’t forgiven him for how he managed progressive legislation as Speaker.

This was a genuinely hard call. All four are qualified, none are volatile or scandal-prone, and I could vote for any of them. I’m voting for Newman, because I think some independence from union influence is actually an asset in this role. But mark your ballot for whoever you like — the real race will start this summer, after we see who makes it to the November ballot.

US Congress, District 11 (San Francisco) – Scott Wiener

Nancy Pelosi held this seat for 37 years, with 20 of those years in leadership. Let that sink in. Whoever succeeds her won’t face a Republican opponent worth worrying about—but make no mistake, this race is a fight because the stakes are real. This district has a tradition of sending leaders to Washington, not just warm bodies. The question is whether we keep that tradition or blow it.

Scott Wiener is, by most objective measures, the most effective legislator in California. The nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking ranked him first in the entire California Legislature for 2023–2024—out of 120 lawmakers—and he’s ranked near the top since his first term. He doesn’t just introduce bills; he shepherds complex, controversial legislation through to passage. He builds coalitions, absorbs setbacks, and keeps coming back until he gets to yes.

His housing work gets the most attention, and it should—he has taken real political risks to push for supply in a state defined by scarcity. But his record is broader: reproductive healthcare access, protections against sexual assault and harassment, public health, criminal justice, nightlife policy, emerging technology regulation. These are not easy wins. They’re messy, politically risky fights that most elected officials avoid. Wiener runs toward them.

Critics say he’s too developer-friendly, too willing to steamroll local control. Fair point to raise, though I think you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet. I’ve also heard the criticism that he hasn’t been vocal enough on racial discrimination and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. I know that he’ll vote the right way when the time comes, but I agree we need to hear more from him on that critical issue.

He’s also had moments on Israel and Gaza where his words fell short—he acknowledged it and clarified his position. As a Jewish American, I have also wrestled with the tightrope of supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, while also denouncing the vile and criminal acts of its current government. In a moment when many politicians retreat to slogans or avoid the issue entirely, Wiener has engaged—even when imperfectly—and shown a willingness to take responsibility when he gets it wrong.

Connie Chan has real roots in San Francisco neighborhoods and strong labor relationships—those things matter in this city. Her platform focuses on affordability and working families: cost of living, immigrant protections, worker representation over corporate interests. She’s also making an explicit play for San Francisco’s Chinese American electorate, which, if it breaks her way, could matter. She also has Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement, which is a big deal. I have the utmost respect for the Speaker Emerita, and I’m proud that the first female Speaker of the House was from San Francisco. However, I do wonder how much her endorsement of Chan will matter, given how eager voters are to overthrow the gerontocracy.   

Something to think about: getting legislation through the Board of Supervisors is small potatoes compared to Congress. Chan hasn’t demonstrated policy leadership or impact at the scale this role demands. I don’t think she’s ready for the national stage, and “she’ll grow into it” is not a reason to send someone to one of the most watched congressional seats in the country.

Saikat Chakrabarti is the insurgent—backed by Justice Democrats, largely self-funding, and positioning himself as the candidate willing to challenge the Democratic establishment. His base finds that appealing. His platform is the most structurally ambitious of the three: Medicare for All, clean energy, dramatic tax increases on the wealthy. He’s also running explicitly against the Democratic establishment — his campaign homepage doesn’t mention Trump; his villains are Democrats (!). For those of you who oppose uber-wealthy candidates parachuting into office (ahem) (see my previous posts), it’s worth noting that he’s financing his campaign with $4.8 million $10 million of his own Stripe equity.

He has also never held elective office, which means we have no way of knowing how he performs under real pressure. He hasn’t built the relationships that make Congress work. And the degree to which he foregrounds his AOC connection—without her endorsement—is off-putting. CNN reported she was not pleased to learn from media reports rather than from Chakrabarti directly that he was running. To me, name-checking AOC reads less like earned credibility and more like borrowed relevance. AOC not endorsing her own former staffer is a signal worth sitting with.

This district doesn’t just need a representative. It needs someone who can step into Pelosi’s legacy of power and actually wield it. At a moment when it’s easy to confuse rhetoric with impact, Wiener has demonstrated, over and over, that he knows how to turn ideas into law.

He’s a doer. Right now, that matters more than anything else.