For the November 3, 2026 election, Sherafy recommends NO on Los Angeles County Measure A, YES on Measure E, and YES on California Propositions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 40. We recommend NO on Proposition 5, Propositions 37 through 39, and Propositions 41 through 45. Candidate and judicial recommendations appear in the table below.
Updated October 14, 2026: The guides now recommend Anna Slotky Reitano for Superior Court Office 65 and Donna Tryfman for Office 131, both at low confidence. These are narrow preparation judgments following reader challenges and further research. The Office 65 analysis explains the reassessment of trial experience, practice range and supervisory work; the Office 131 analysis explains the additional trial records and court-service evidence. Each preserves the strongest case for the other candidate and distinguishes verified records from unverified totals.
This page is the answer-first overview. It links to 32 deeper guides that examine what each choice does, the relevant current-law or governing baseline, the best evidence and counterarguments, uncertainty, and the reasoning behind the recommendation. Each guide applies the sherafy.com Civic Outcomes Standard. These are independent Sherafy editorial recommendations based on that standard, not official election information or campaign material. Confidence describes the strength of the recommendation on the evidence reviewed; it is not a probability that a prediction will come true.
Use the exact sample ballot for your home address as the final authority on which contests you can vote on. Countywide and statewide contests are shared broadly, but city, district and legislative races vary by address.
Reader challenges and changing recommendations
Our Los Angeles County and California voter guides are currently receiving challenges daily. We welcome this scrutiny. Each recommendation reflects our editorial assessment of the evidence reviewed as of publication or the latest substantive update; further evidence, including information we overlooked, can change the analysis. We have already revised recommendations following reader challenges and additional research. If you plan to vote early, check the current article and any update or correction notes before casting your ballot. This is not a request to delay voting, and we cannot guarantee that every challenge will be resolved before you vote.
A useful challenge identifies a specific error, missing evidence or weakness in our reasoning and provides sources or a clear explanation we can check. Preference for another candidate, by itself, does not establish an error. We correct substantive factual errors even when the recommendation stays the same; changing the recommendation requires reconsidering the full comparison under our Civic Outcomes Standard. Start with the guide’s discussion of what would change its analysis, then use Cite or Challenge this Article to reach the challenge form.
Quick recommendations
| Choice | Sherafy recommendation | Confidence | Full analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles County Sheriff | Robert Luna | Moderate | Sheriff guide |
| Los Angeles County Measure A | NO | Moderate | Measure A guide |
| Los Angeles County Measure E | YES | Moderate | Measure E guide |
| Superior Court Office 64 | Maria Ghobadi | Moderate | Office 64 guide |
| Superior Court Office 65 | Anna Slotky Reitano | Low | Office 65 guide |
| Superior Court Office 87 | Anthony (A.J.) Bayne | Moderate | Office 87 guide |
| Superior Court Office 131 | Donna Tryfman | Low | Office 131 guide |
| Governor | Xavier Becerra | Moderate | Governor guide |
| Lieutenant Governor | Fiona Ma | Moderate | Lieutenant Governor guide |
| Secretary of State | Shirley N. Weber | Moderate | Secretary of State guide |
| Controller | Malia M. Cohen | Moderate | Controller guide |
| Treasurer | Eleni Kounalakis | Moderate | Treasurer guide |
| Attorney General | Rob Bonta | Moderate | Attorney General guide |
| Insurance Commissioner | Ben Allen | Moderate | Insurance Commissioner guide |
| Board of Equalization, District 3 | Mike Gipson | Moderate | BOE District 3 guide |
| Superintendent of Public Instruction | Richard Barrera | Moderate | Superintendent guide |
| California Supreme Court retention | YES for Kelli M. Evans; YES for Joshua P. Groban | Moderate for each | Supreme Court retention guide |
| Second District Court of Appeal retention | YES for each of the 18 justices | Individual confidence varies: moderate, low-to-moderate or low | Second District retention guide |
| Proposition 1 — housing affordability bonds | YES | Moderate | Proposition 1 guide |
| Proposition 2 — rainy-day fund expansion | YES | Moderate | Proposition 2 guide |
| Proposition 3 — permanent high-income tax | YES | Moderate | Proposition 3 guide |
| Proposition 4 — public campaign-financing authority | YES | Moderate | Proposition 4 guide |
| Proposition 5 — statewide recall process | NO | Moderate | Proposition 5 guide |
| Proposition 37 — middle-income homebuyer loans | NO | Moderate | Proposition 37 guide |
| Proposition 38 — immunology research bonds | NO | Moderate | Proposition 38 guide |
| Proposition 39 — voter identification and citizenship verification | NO | Moderate | Proposition 39 guide |
| Proposition 40 — one-time tax on certain billionaires | YES | Moderate | Proposition 40 guide |
| Proposition 41 — spending-limit and special-tax audit rules | NO | Moderate | Proposition 41 guide |
| Proposition 42 — personal-property and retroactive-tax limits | NO | Moderate | Proposition 42 guide |
| Proposition 43 — local special-tax voting thresholds | NO | Moderate | Proposition 43 guide |
| Proposition 44 — community-clinic spending rule | NO | Moderate | Proposition 44 guide |
| Proposition 45 — environmental review reform | NO | Moderate | Proposition 45 guide |
Confidence key
- High: strong evidence and relatively little material uncertainty.
- Moderate: the evidence favors a choice, while meaningful uncertainty remains.
- Low: the comparative evidence is limited or the advantage is narrow.
- Indeterminate: the evidence does not justify a directional recommendation.
Los Angeles County choices
Sheriff and county measures
- Sheriff — Robert Luna over Alex Villanueva; moderate confidence. Los Angeles County Sheriff 2026: Robert Luna vs. Alex Villanueva. The analysis compares the candidates’ records on jail safety, deputy gangs, oversight, staffing, litigation and department management.
- Measure A — NO; moderate confidence. Los Angeles County Measure A 2026: binding arbitration analysis. The guide reconstructs the current bargaining system before weighing binding interest arbitration, worker bargaining power, fiscal exposure and the transfer of contract-setting authority.
- Measure E — YES; moderate confidence. Los Angeles County Measure E 2026: ethics and community investment. The measure combines ethics-system independence with a protected community-investment allocation; the article evaluates both components, the existing spending baseline, the backlog and implementation risks.
Superior Court runoffs
Judicial races call for a different standard from ordinary candidate contests. The guides assess legal experience, professional records, courtroom work, ethics and the limits of the public evidence rather than treating disagreement with a ruling as proof of unfitness.
- Office 64 — Maria Ghobadi; moderate confidence. Los Angeles Superior Court Office 64 2026: Maria Ghobadi vs. Rhonda Haymon. It weighs each candidate’s criminal-court experience and professional evaluations, including the limits of bar ratings.
- Office 65 — Anna Slotky Reitano; low confidence. Los Angeles Superior Court Office 65 2026: Justin Clayton vs. Anna Slotky Reitano. Both candidates are rated Qualified. Reitano’s substantial criminal and juvenile trial background plus broader civil, administrative and government practice supports a narrow preparation preference; Clayton’s continuing hearings and branch leadership remain a strong countercase. Total courtroom time and comparative performance are unverified.
- Office 87 — Anthony (A.J.) Bayne; moderate confidence. Los Angeles Superior Court Office 87 2026: A.J. Bayne vs. David DeJute. The analysis compares their courtroom records and bar ratings and tests claims about Bayne’s court-technology proposals against the available evidence.
- Office 131 — Donna Tryfman; low confidence. Los Angeles Superior Court Office 131 2026: David Ross vs. Donna Tryfman. More recently documented jury work, a confirmed current mediator listing, reported pro-tem service and branch leadership support a modest preparation advantage. Ross’s extensive experience and equal LACBA rating remain substantial contrary evidence; the new records do not establish inflated totals or superior measured judicial performance.
California statewide offices
These recommendations account for what each office can actually do. The linked guides compare records and proposals within those powers and explain the strongest case against the recommendation.
- Governor — Xavier Becerra; moderate confidence. California Governor 2026: Xavier Becerra vs. Steve Hilton. It compares their approaches to affordability and public services while scrutinizing Becerra’s governing record and the case for Steve Hilton.
- Lieutenant Governor — Fiona Ma; moderate confidence. California Lieutenant Governor 2026: Fiona Ma vs. Gloria Romero. Ma’s recent statewide executive record fits the office’s board and stewardship duties; the guide also weighs Gloria Romero’s education-policy experience and Ma’s settled employment case.
- Secretary of State — Shirley N. Weber; moderate confidence. California Secretary of State 2026: Don Wagner vs. Shirley Weber. It compares election administration, voter access, privacy, campaign-finance disclosure and the candidates’ actual authority.
- Controller — Malia M. Cohen; moderate confidence. California Controller 2026: Malia Cohen vs. Herb W Morgan. Cohen has delivered measurable modernization, but the guide also weighs serious control failures identified in a recent audit and the limits of Herb Morgan’s public technology plan.
- Treasurer — Eleni Kounalakis; moderate confidence. California Treasurer 2026: Jennifer Hawks vs. Eleni Kounalakis. Kounalakis has the stronger documented statewide and public-board record; her overlapping real-estate interests create an unresolved ethics question that limits confidence.
- Attorney General — Rob Bonta; moderate confidence. California Attorney General 2026: Rob Bonta vs. Michael Gates. The guide compares statewide enforcement and litigation responsibilities with Michael Gates’s municipal prosecution and litigation experience, while separating verified case outcomes from campaign framing.
- Insurance Commissioner — Ben Allen; moderate confidence. California Insurance Commissioner 2026: Ben Allen vs. Jane Kim. It tests Allen’s regulated-market approach and Jane Kim’s proposed public wildfire-insurance pool against the commissioner’s powers, market conditions and evidence limits.
- Board of Equalization, District 3 — Mike Gipson; moderate confidence. California Board of Equalization District 3 2026: Mike Gipson vs. Samuel Sukaton. Gipson has more documented experience inside tax policymaking and BOE oversight; the guide also takes Sukaton’s taxpayer-access agenda seriously and clarifies the limited power of an individual board member.
- Superintendent of Public Instruction — Richard Barrera; moderate confidence. California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2026: Richard Barrera vs. Sonja Shaw. AB 181 changed the office’s responsibilities; the analysis compares the candidates against the role that will actually exist and avoids attributing districtwide test-score results to either individual.
Judicial retention
Each retention question is a separate vote. The articles explain what YES and NO do, review the public records and opinions, and disclose where the available sample cannot support a confident judgment across a justice’s full career.
- California Supreme Court — YES to retain Kelli M. Evans and YES to retain Joshua P. Groban; moderate confidence for each. California Supreme Court retention guide 2026: Kelli Evans and Joshua Groban. The two decisions are evaluated separately, including substantial contrary arguments about consequential opinions and the limits of a selected-case review.
- Second District Court of Appeal — YES to retain each of the 18 justices; confidence varies by justice. California Second District Court of Appeal retention guide 2026: all 18 justices. Its individual assessments give moderate confidence for 11 justices, low-to-moderate for five, and low for Steve Goorvitch and Nicholas F. Daum. The lower-confidence group also includes long-serving Kenneth R. Yegan, so it should not be described solely as a distinction between newer and longer-serving justices. Read the person-specific reasons and limits before voting.
California propositions
The November 3, 2026 ballot includes fourteen statewide propositions, numbered 1 through 5 and 37 through 45, according to the California Secretary of State’s official proposition list. The recommendation is followed by the core question each linked guide answers.
- Proposition 1 — YES; moderate confidence. California Proposition 1 (2026): housing affordability bonds. Do the expected housing benefits justify long-term General Fund borrowing given delivery and oversight risks?
- Proposition 2 — YES; moderate confidence. California Proposition 2 (2026): rainy-day fund expansion. The article compares the proposed reserve, debt-payment and spending-limit changes with current law and tests what evidence can establish about fiscal resilience and service protection.
- Proposition 3 — YES; moderate confidence. California Proposition 3 (2026): permanent high-income tax. It examines the continuation of existing tax rates, revenue volatility and the limits of claims about automatic cuts or guaranteed school funding.
- Proposition 4 — YES; moderate confidence. California Proposition 4 (2026): public campaign-financing authority. The measure enables future programs but does not create or fund one by itself; the analysis weighs that legal change against mixed evidence from other jurisdictions.
- Proposition 5 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 5 (2026): statewide recall process. The guide weighs separating a recall vote from the choice of a successor against the immediate voter choice available under the current system.
- Proposition 37 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 37 (2026): middle-income homebuyer loans. Borrowers would repay the proposed second mortgages, but the measure does not establish that the subsidy would produce enough additional housing or lower home prices to justify its design.
- Proposition 38 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 38 (2026): immunology research bonds. Valuable research is possible, but the guide finds uncertain public returns alongside long-term General Fund debt and a highly concentrated allocation structure.
- Proposition 39 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 39 (2026): voter identification and citizenship verification. The analysis compares the amendment’s requirements with existing safeguards and distinguishes records flagged for scrutiny from proven illegal ballots or evidence that universal ID would prevent them.
- Proposition 40 — YES; moderate confidence. California Proposition 40 (2026): one-time tax on certain billionaires. A potentially large, dedicated health-care, education and food-assistance fund from a very small group outweighs the serious but unquantified risks from the steep threshold formula and possible future revenue effects.
- Proposition 41 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 41 (2026): spending-limit and special-tax audit rules. The proposal mandates audits and changes future tax treatment under the state spending limit; the article distinguishes required recommendations from guaranteed savings and examines its potential interaction with Proposition 40.
- Proposition 42 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 42 (2026): personal-property and retroactive-tax limits. The text reaches beyond campaign framing about retirement savings, placing a durable limit on new state taxes on broadly defined personal property; the guide weighs that restriction against the evidence of a present problem.
- Propositions 40, 41 and 42 may interact: under the official analyses, Proposition 40 could be blocked if Proposition 41 or 42 receives more YES votes and a court finds a conflict. Read Sherafy’s companion guide to Propositions 40, 41 and 42 for the vote-count rule, what each measure does, and the evidence behind our recommendations.
- Proposition 43 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 43 (2026): local special-tax voting thresholds. It would change the threshold for voter-initiated local special taxes while leaving the existing threshold for government-sponsored measures unchanged; the legal and fiscal implications remain uncertain.
- Proposition 44 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 44 (2026): community-clinic spending rule. A 90% mission-spending ratio could expose waste, but accounting classifications do not directly measure patient access or quality and could create risks for clinic operations.
- Proposition 45 — NO; moderate confidence. California Proposition 45 (2026): CEQA and environmental review reform. The article weighs enforceable timelines against narrower alternatives analysis, public-comment periods and court remedies, asking whether the record supports this broad statewide change after recent targeted reforms.
Read Propositions 40, 41 and 42 together
These three measures contain provisions that may affect one another, including vote-count and tax-treatment rules. Their legal interaction is not fully settled in the records reviewed. Read the linked analyses as a set; do not treat a possible cross-measure consequence as a settled outcome or forecast.
How to use the deeper guides
Each spoke begins with its recommendation and confidence, then establishes the actual choice and realistic baseline before evaluating evidence. The guides present the strongest case on each side, distinguish verified facts from estimates and inference, audit material campaign claims, identify meaningful unknowns, and explain what evidence could change the conclusion. They do not assign numerical scores or treat “balance” as a substitute for judgment.
The Civic Outcomes Standard examines human welfare, distribution, civil liberties, economic effects, fiscal reality, institutional integrity, effectiveness evidence, implementation, unintended consequences and reversibility. Recommendation confidence is an editorial assessment of the decision—not a measure of certainty about every underlying fact or forecast.
Check your own ballot and official information
This countywide guide cannot show every contest assigned to a particular address. Use the Los Angeles County Interactive Sample Ballot to identify your local, legislative and district races.
For authoritative statewide information, consult the California Secretary of State’s 2026 Voter Information Guide and its official proposition list. The detailed spoke articles link to the controlling legal texts, fiscal analyses, court records and other evidence relevant to each recommendation.
Research currency: This hub’s 32 recommendation entries, confidence summaries and article destinations were reconciled October 14, 2026 against the current local guides and readable live pages. The Office 65 and Office 131 entries reflect their October 14 revisions, and the Second District summary follows the guide’s individual confidence ratings. Shared official ballot and roster checks remain dated October 11; article-specific evidence dates and unresolved legal, fiscal and campaign-finance checks vary. This reconciliation checks consistency and available page content, not every source claim or completion of all release checks. Consult each guide’s currency note and your official sample ballot.
