Federal Candidates / 聯邦候選人

U.S. Representative, District 11 — Connie Chan
美國國會眾議員第11選區 — 陳詩敏

California Candidates / 加州候選人

Governor — Xavier Becerra
州長 — Xavier Becerra

Lieutenant Governor — Fiona Ma
副州長 — 馬世雲

Controller — Malia Cohen
主計長 — 郭嫻

Attorney General — Rob Bonta
司法部長 — 羅布 · 邦塔

Secretary of State — No Position
州務卿 — 不表態

Insurance Commissioner — No Position
保險專員 — 不表態

San Francisco Candidates / 三藩市候選人

Assessor-Recorder — Joaquín Torres
估值官兼紀錄官 — 郭華健

Public Defender — Mano Raju
公設辯護人 — 力儲文

Board of Supervisors, District 2 — Stephen Sherrill
市參事第2區 — 史蒂芬‧謝里爾

Board of Supervisors, District 4 — Alan Wong
市參事第4區 — 王兆倫

Board of Supervisors, District 6 — Matt Dorsey
市參事第6區 — 麥德城

Board of Supervisors, District 8 — No Position
市參事第8區 — 不表態

Recommended by Endorsement Committee：
Board of Supervisors, District 10 — 1) Theo Ellington，2) Dion-Jay Brookter
市參事第10區 — 1) 艾霖敦，2) 布魯克特

Board of Education — Philip Kim, Virginia Cheung, Laurance Lee 
教育委員 — 菲爾金, 張麗娜, 林灼世

Recommended by Endorsement Committee：
City College Trustee — Jeremy Lee, Elijah Ball
市立大學校董 — 李銘富，依利亞

BART Board — No Position
灣區捷運董事會 — 不表態

State Propositions / 聯邦提案

1 — Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act — NO POSITION
1 — 退伍軍人及可負擔房屋債券法案 — 不表態

2 — Save for California's Future — YES
2 — 為加州未來儲備資金 — 支持

3 — Permanent Higher Income-Tax Rates on High Earners — YES
3 — 永久延續高收入人士較高所得稅率 — 支持

4 — Public Campaign Financing — YES
4 — 公共資金資助競選活動 — 支持

5 — State Recall Election Process — YES
5 — 州級官員罷免選舉程序 — 支持

37 — Middle-Income Homebuyer Assistance — YES
37 — 中等收入家庭購屋援助 — 支持

38 — Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Bond — NO
38 — 免疫學及免疫療法研究債券 — 反對

39 — Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification — NO
39 — 選民身分證明及公民資格核實 — 反對

40 — Billionaire Wealth Tax — NO
40 — 億萬富豪財富稅 — 反對

41 — Special-Tax Audits and State Spending Limit — YES
41 — 特別稅審計及州政府開支上限 — 支持

42 — Ban on New Wealth/Personal-Property Taxes — YES
42 — 禁止新增財富及個人財產稅 — 支持

43 — Two-Thirds Vote for Local Special Taxes — NO
43 — 地方特別稅須獲三分之二選民通過 — 反對

44 — Community Health Clinic Spending Requirement — NO
44 — 社區健康診所支出規定 — 反對

45 — CEQA Environmental Review Reform — NO
45 — 加州環境品質法環境審查改革 — 反對

Regional Measures / 區域提案

RTM – Regional Transit Measure — YES
RTM – 灣區公共交通提案 — 支持

San Francisco Propositions / 三藩市提案

A — Department, Board, Commission and Advisory Body Updates — YES
A — 市府部門、委員會及諮詢機構改革 — 支持

B — Municipal Finance Corporation and Public Bank — NO
B — 市立金融公司及公共銀行 — 反對

C — Contributions to the Housing Trust Fund — NO POSITION
C — 增加房屋信託基金撥款 — 不表態

D — Changes to the Ballot Measure Process — NO
D — 修改地方提案公投程序 — 反對

E — Extending the City Administrator's Duties and Changes to City Contracting — YES
E — 擴大市政行政官職責及修改市府合約程序 — 支持

F — Changes to Executive Branch Management — NO
F — 修改市府行政部門管理架構 — 反對

G — Great Highway for Everyone — YES
G — 大公路全民共享方案 — 支持

H — Parcel Tax to Fund Public Transit Operations — NO
H — 資助公共交通營運的地產稅 — 反對

I — Changes to the Real Property Transfer Tax — NO
I — 修改房地產轉讓稅 — 反對

J — Removal of Foreclosure Exemption for Real Property Transfer Tax — YES
J — 取消大型物業止贖的房地產轉讓稅豁免 — 支持

 

CADC's Rationale / 推薦理由 

State Propositions

Prop. 1 — Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act — NO POSITION
提案 1 — 退伍軍人及可負擔房屋債券法案 — 不表態

Authorizes $11.25 billion in bonds, including $10 billion in General Obligation bonds for affordable and supportive housing, homeownership assistance, preservation and infrastructure, plus $1.25 billion in revenue bonds for veterans' home loans. CADC took No Position because members recognized California's serious housing shortage but had mixed views about the effectiveness and accountability of continued state borrowing for housing, particularly after billions had already been allocated through previous housing bonds. The committee also noted that the annual debt-service cost would be relatively small compared with the overall state budget.

CADC 認同加州房屋短缺問題嚴重，但對政府持續舉債興建可負擔房屋的成效、問責及過往巨額房屋撥款的實際成果意見不一，因此決定不表態。

Prop. 2 — Save for California's Future — YES
提案 2 — 為加州未來儲備資金 — 支持

Expands California's ability to save surplus revenues by increasing the capacity of state reserves and modifying how deposits are treated under the constitutional spending limit. CADC supports Prop. 2 because setting aside more revenue during strong economic years can help California withstand future downturns without imposing a new tax. The committee specifically reconsidered whether Prop. 2 conflicted with Prop. 41 and concluded that the two address different issues: Prop. 2 facilitates saving existing revenue, while Prop. 41 governs how revenue from new special taxes is treated.

CADC 認為在經濟及稅收良好時增加儲備，有助加州應付未來經濟衰退及財政危機，而且無須增加新稅，因此支持提案 2。

Prop. 3 — Permanent Higher Income-Tax Rates on High Earners — YES
提案 3 — 永久延續高收入人士較高所得稅率 — 支持

Makes permanent the higher California income-tax rates originally enacted as temporary taxes and currently scheduled to expire after 2030, affecting roughly the highest-income 2% of taxpayers. CADC supports Prop. 3 because these rates have been in place for many years and generate substantial funding for schools and other public services; allowing them to expire could result in a significant revenue loss. Members supporting the measure viewed continuation as maintaining the existing tax structure rather than imposing a new increase, while several members remained neutral because of California's already-high top income-tax rate.

CADC 多數認為這些稅率已實施多年，延續現行稅率可避免教育及公共服務流失大量收入，因此支持提案 3，但亦有成員對加州目前的高所得稅率有所保留。

Prop. 4 — Public Campaign Financing — YES
提案 4 — 公共資金資助競選活動 — 支持

Removes California's statewide constitutional prohibition against using public money to finance political campaigns, allowing state and local governments to establish public campaign-financing systems with safeguards. It does not itself create or fund a statewide program. CADC supports Prop. 4 because public financing can reduce candidates' dependence on wealthy donors and special interests, and San Francisco already has experience with such a system. The committee also considered the concern that taxpayers would ultimately be financing political campaigns.

CADC 認為公共競選資助可減少候選人對富裕捐款者及特殊利益團體的依賴，而且本提案本身並不直接設立或撥款成立全州性資助計劃，因此支持提案 4。

Prop. 5 — State Recall Election Process — YES
提案 5 — 州級官員罷免選舉程序 — 支持

Changes California's recall process so voters would decide whether an elected state official should be recalled without simultaneously selecting a replacement candidate through the current two-question system. CADC supports Prop. 5 because the existing process can allow a replacement candidate with substantially less than majority support to take office and can turn recalls into partisan alternative elections. The committee concluded that simplifying the process would create a more orderly method for handling vacancies following a successful recall.

CADC 認為現行罷免制度可能讓只獲少數選票的替代候選人上任，簡化程序可使罷免後的職位接替方式更合理，因此支持提案 5。

Prop. 37 — Middle-Income Homebuyer Assistance — YES
提案 37 — 中等收入家庭購屋援助 — 支持

Creates a California Housing Finance Agency program offering qualifying middle-income buyers assistance of up to 17% of the purchase price of certain newly constructed homes, financed through as much as $25 billion in revenue bonds. CADC supports Prop. 37 because it can expand homeownership for middle-income families while encouraging construction of additional housing. Unlike ordinary General Obligation bonds, the bonds are intended to be repaid through the homebuyers' loans rather than directly from the state General Fund, which was an important factor in the committee's support.

CADC 認為此計劃既可協助中等收入家庭置業及鼓勵興建新房屋，而且債券主要由購屋者的貸款償還而非州政府一般基金負擔，因此支持提案 37。

Prop. 38 — Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Bond — NO
提案 38 — 免疫學及免疫療法研究債券 — 反對

Authorizes $8.4 billion in General Obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, including research involving cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease. CADC recognizes the importance of medical research but opposes Prop. 38 because the state would incur approximately $500 million annually in debt service for about 25 years while the financial and medical returns remain uncertain. Committee members also questioned the fragmented approach of dedicating a large state bond to selected areas of medical research rather than addressing medical research more broadly.

CADC 認同醫學研究的重要性，但認為以巨額州債集中資助特定研究領域、由納稅人長期負擔債務而成果仍具不確定性，因此反對提案 38。

Prop. 39 — Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification — NO
提案 39 — 選民身分證明及公民資格核實 — 反對

Requires government-issued identification for in-person voting, identifying information for mail ballots, and additional government efforts to verify voters' citizenship. CADC opposes Prop. 39 because citizenship is already required to vote and California already uses voter-registration and signature-verification systems. The committee concluded that the additional requirements could create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters while imposing potentially substantial new state and local administrative costs.

CADC 認為現行制度已要求選民具公民資格並設有登記及簽名核實程序，新增身分證明要求可能為合資格選民增加不必要的投票障礙及政府成本，因此反對提案 39。

Prop. 40 — Billionaire Wealth Tax — NO
提案 40 — 億萬富豪財富稅 — 反對

Imposes a one-time tax of up to 5% on certain wealth above $1 billion, with most proceeds directed to health care and additional funding for food assistance, education and administration. CADC opposes Prop. 40 because taxing unrealized wealth and difficult-to-value assets could be administratively complicated and could encourage high-income residents and entrepreneurs to relocate, potentially reducing California's future income-tax base. The committee also objected to exempting the new revenue from the state's constitutional spending limit.

CADC 認為對未實現收益及難以估值的資產徵收財富稅執行複雜，並可能促使高收入人士及企業家遷離加州、長遠削弱所得稅稅基，因此反對提案 40。

Prop. 41 — Special-Tax Audits and State Spending Limit — YES
提案 41 — 特別稅審計及州政府開支上限 — 支持

Requires additional review and auditing of programs funded by newly enacted state special taxes and prevents new taxes from being structured so their revenues escape California's constitutional spending limit. CADC supports Prop. 41 because new taxes should remain subject to established spending controls and accountability requirements. This provision directly conflicts with Prop. 40's attempt to exempt billionaire-tax proceeds from the spending limit, strengthening CADC's position in favor of Prop. 41 and against Prop. 40.

CADC 認為新稅收入亦應受既有政府開支上限及審計制度約束，以維持財政問責，並可制衡提案 40 將新稅收入排除於開支上限之外的安排，因此支持提案 41。

Prop. 42 — Ban on New Wealth/Personal-Property Taxes — YES
提案 42 — 禁止新增財富及個人財產稅 — 支持

Amends the California Constitution to prohibit new state taxes based on ownership or control of personal property—including financial assets, investments, business interests and intellectual property—and restricts certain retroactive state taxes; real estate is excluded. CADC supports Prop. 42 because it establishes a constitutional limit against new wealth or asset taxes and retroactive taxation. It also directly conflicts with Prop. 40's proposed billionaire wealth tax, so if both measures pass, their competing provisions could ultimately depend on which receives more affirmative votes or on judicial resolution.

CADC 認為應以州憲法限制政府新增財富、資產及追溯性稅項，同時制衡提案 40 所提出的億萬富豪財富稅，因此支持提案 42。

Prop. 43 — Two-Thirds Vote for Local Special Taxes — NO
提案 43 — 地方特別稅須獲三分之二選民通過 — 反對
(Committee Vote: 4 NO, 3 YES, 0 ABSTAIN)

Requires local special taxes—taxes dedicated to a particular purpose—to receive two-thirds voter approval whether proposed by government or directly by voters through an initiative. CADC opposes Prop. 43 because it would make it substantially harder for local communities to approve taxes for services they choose to fund. 

CADC 認為將該提案把公民聯署提出的地方特別稅與立法會提出的同樣的提案，都統一提高到三分之二選民批准的門檻，會削弱選民的權力。目前公民聯署的特別稅提案的門檻比較低。

Prop. 44 — Community Health Clinic Spending Requirement — NO
提案 44 — 社區健康診所支出規定 — 反對
(Committee Vote: 3 NO, 2 YES, 2 ABSTAIN)

Requires covered nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on health-care services, with enforcement mechanisms for clinics that fail to comply. CADC opposes Prop. 44 because members questioned whether a rigid statewide 90% requirement adequately accounts for administrative and operational costs. 

CADC 擔心對所有社區診所實行 “九成收入必須用於健保服務”的硬性規定過於嚴苛僵化，沒有顧及診所的行政及營運需要，因此反對提案 44。

Prop. 45 — CEQA Environmental Review Reform — NO
提案 45 — 加州環境品質法環境審查改革 — 反對

Changes the California Environmental Quality Act by imposing deadlines and expediting environmental review and litigation for certain projects while limiting some alternatives and procedures currently available under CEQA. CADC opposes Prop. 45 because the committee was concerned that accelerating review and restricting alternatives could weaken meaningful environmental protections. Members also noted opposition from organizations and leaders concerned with health, water, air and housing and expressed concern about the measure's heavy financial backing from a small number of wealthy technology-sector supporters.

CADC 認同多個健康、水質及空氣的團體的擔心，這個提案縮短環境審查期限，並削弱重要的環境保障，因此反對提案 45。

Regional Measures

RTM – Regional Transit Measure — YES
RTM – 區域公共交通提案 — 支持

Imposes a 14-year regional sales tax—1% in San Francisco and 0.5% in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties—to fund transit operations, including Muni, BART, Caltrain, and other Bay Area transit services. CADC supports RTM because public transit needs stable funding to maintain essential service, therefore, a broadly based sales tax spreads the cost across the general population, and is more equitable than Prop H which primarily place the transit-funding burden on property owners.

RTM提案將徵收為期14年的區域銷售稅，三藩市加徵1%，阿拉米達、康特拉科斯塔、聖馬刁及聖他克拉縣加徵0.5%，用於資助 Muni、BART、Caltrain 及其他灣區公共交通系統的營運。CADC 支持此提案，因為公共交通需要穩定的資金來維持必要服務，而由廣大民眾共同承擔的銷售稅，這比主要由業主承擔公交經費的 H 提案公平得多。

San Francisco Propositions

Prop. A — Department, Board, Commission and Advisory Body Updates — YES
提案 A — 市府部門、委員會及諮詢機構改革 — 支持

Restructures San Francisco's extensive system of commissions and advisory bodies by eliminating or consolidating some bodies, standardizing appointment and removal procedures, and making portions of the structure easier to change in the future. CADC supports Prop. A because San Francisco has accumulated numerous overlapping, inactive or duplicative bodies that can diffuse responsibility and consume staff resources. The committee favored clearer lines of accountability and a more streamlined government structure while recognizing the counterargument that commissions provide independent public oversight.

CADC 認為三藩市不少的委員會及諮詢機構職能重疊、缺乏效率，所以精簡架構及釐清責任有助提升政府效率，因此支持提案 A。

Prop. B — Municipal Finance Corporation and Public Bank — NO
提案 B — 市立金融公司及公共銀行 — 反對

Allows San Francisco to establish a nonprofit Municipal Finance Corporation that could finance affordable housing, small businesses and other public priorities and potentially evolve into a city-owned public bank. CADC opposes Prop. B because the measure creates the institutional framework without identifying a secure source for the substantial capitalization needed to establish the bank. Members were concerned about financial risk and committing the City to a banking structure before its funding and long-term viability were clear.

CADC 認為提案在尚未確定巨額啟動資金來源及長期財務可行性之前便建立公共銀行架構，會增加市府財務風險，因此反對提案 B。

Prop. C — Contributions to the Housing Trust Fund — NO POSITION
提案 C — 增加房屋信託基金撥款 — 不表態

Increases the amount of General Fund money San Francisco must dedicate to the Housing Trust Fund and extends the program through 2058 without imposing a new tax. CADC took No Position because members recognized the value of a stable, predictable source of affordable-housing funding but were concerned about locking substantially more General Fund spending into the Charter for decades. The central question was whether additional mandated housing spending would produce enough housing to justify reducing future flexibility to fund other City services.

CADC 認同穩定的可負擔房屋資金有其價值，但把更多的市府營運基金長期鎖定到 2058 年並僅用於建房，會削弱未來市府調配到治安、衛生和其他公共服務經費的彈性，因此對提案 C 決定不表態。

Prop. D — Changes to the Ballot Measure Process — NO
提案 D — 修改地方提案公投程序 — 反對

Changes San Francisco's rules governing how certain measures qualify for and appear on the local ballot. CADC opposes Prop. D because it would effectively eliminate grassroots volunteer signature-gathering as a practical path to the ballot, leaving well-funded campaigns better able to qualify measures by paying professional petition circulators—currently around $18 per signature. CADC has led all five successful grassroots recall campaigns that qualified for the ballot through voter signatures and believes ordinary residents must retain a meaningful and affordable way to petition their government and bring measures directly to voters.

CADC 反對提案 D，因為它大幅限制草根義工通過收集簽名提交公民聯署提案到選舉投票的途徑，使財力雄厚的競選團體 - 有能力支付 $18一個簽名的專業財團更具優勢。CADC 曾成功帶領五次公民聯署的草根罷免運動，因此認為必須保留一個普通市民可以通過聯署將議題直接交由選民做決定的可行途徑。

 

Prop. E — Extending the City Administrator's Duties and Changes to City Contracting — YES
提案 E — 擴大市政行政官職責及修改市府合約程序 — 支持

Expands and centralizes the City Administrator's authority over procurement, contracts, technology and multi-department projects while increasing the dollar thresholds at which contracts require individual Board of Supervisors approval. CADC supports Prop. E because members believe San Francisco's contracting and procurement system can be unnecessarily slow and fragmented and that clearer centralized responsibility can improve efficiency and accountability. The committee nevertheless recognized that the measure reduces some case-by-case oversight of contracts by the Board of Supervisors.

CADC 認為目前市府採購及合約程序過於分散及緩慢，適度集中行政責任可提高效率及問責，雖然部分市議會的某些合約監督權會減少，仍決定支持提案 E。

Prop. F — Changes to Executive Branch Management — NO
提案 F — 修改市府行政部門管理架構 — 反對
(Committee Vote: 4 NO, 2 YES, 4 ABSTAIN)

Gives the Mayor greater authority over department heads, commissioners, and City reorganization, and in some areas changes the Board of Supervisors' role from prior approval to the ability to reject a Mayoral action after it is proposed. CADC recognizes the goal of making the Mayor more accountable for department performance, but is concerned about weakening independent oversight. Having already supported Prop. A to streamline commissions and Prop. E to expand the City Administrator's authority and streamline contracting, CADC believes Prop. F goes a step too far by further reducing existing checks and balances.

CADC 認同加強市長對部門表現的問責能力，但提案 F 將進一步削弱獨立監督；CADC 已支持了提案 A – 精簡委員會，及提案 E – 擴大市府行政官的權力和簡化合同程序，因此認為提案 F 再進一步削減現有制衡並不恰當。

 

Prop. G — Great Highway for Everyone — YES
提案 G — 大公路全民共享方案 — 支持

Reopens the Upper Great Highway to vehicles on weekdays while maintaining recreational use on weekends and holidays, creating a compromise between transportation access and the recreational use established after the roadway's permanent closure. CADC supports Prop. G as a balanced approach that preserves the corridor for recreation while restoring weekday transportation access for working families, seniors, people with disabilities and others who rely on vehicles. The committee viewed the measure as allowing San Francisco to share the corridor rather than forcing an all-road or all-park choice.

CADC 認為平日恢復行車、週末及假日保留康樂用途，是兼顧上班家庭、長者、殘障人士交通需要及市民休閒空間的共享折衷方案，因此支持提案 G。

Prop. H — Parcel Tax to Fund Public Transit Operations — NO
提案 H — 資助公共交通營運的地產稅 — 反對

Creates a 15-year parcel tax projected to generate approximately $160 million annually for Muni operations, with different rates for residential and commercial properties and limited pass-throughs to some rent-controlled tenants. CADC opposes Prop. H because San Francisco voters are simultaneously being asked to approve a regional transit sales tax that would also provide substantial new funding to Muni. The committee believed SFMTA should demonstrate greater cost control and accountability before property owners and some renters are asked to shoulder another dedicated tax, particularly one that increases with inflation.

CADC 認為同一選舉已有區域交通銷售稅 (RTM) 為 MUNI 提供新收入，SFMTA 應先加強成本控制及財政問責，而非再向業主及部分租客徵收另一項長達 15 年的稅項，因此反對提案 H。

Prop. I — Changes to the Real Property Transfer Tax — NO
提案 I — 修改房地產轉讓稅 — 反對

Changes San Francisco's transfer tax on very large real-estate transactions by redirecting a substantial portion of the revenue toward affordable housing rather than leaving it available for general City purposes. CADC opposes Prop. I because the measure would restrict future use of volatile transfer-tax revenue and reduce the City's flexibility to respond to changing budget needs. Members supported affordable housing as a goal but concluded that elected officials should retain greater discretion over General Fund resources rather than permanently earmarking this revenue.

CADC 支持可負擔房屋的目標，但認為不應將波動較大的房地產轉讓稅收入長期指定用途，而削弱市府應付其他公共服務及財政需要的彈性，因此反對提案 I。

Prop. J — Removal of Foreclosure Exemption for Real Property Transfer Tax — YES
提案 J — 取消大型物業銀主盤時的轉讓稅豁免 — 支持

Removes San Francisco's transfer-tax exemption when lenders take ownership of certain large commercial or multifamily properties through foreclosure, while preserving the exemption for single-family homes, condominiums and residential properties with fewer than five units. CADC supports Prop. J because the majority concluded that large lenders and investors taking ownership of major properties should not automatically receive a transfer-tax exemption unavailable in an ordinary sale and that such properties should contribute to City revenues. Members also considered the opposing concern that imposing a transfer tax during foreclosure could increase lenders' losses, discourage financing or complicate the recovery of distressed properties.

CADC 認為，企業銀行或投資行在大型商業楼宇或公寓住宅遭遇到銀主盤被收回時，無需獲得如獨立屋或小型住宅同樣的轉讓稅的豁免，因此支持提案 J。