On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, California held primary elections. The gubernatorial race received the most attention, but for the vast majority of California voters, it accounted for but one of the many races on the ballot. Voters also nominated candidates for congressional races and statewide executive positions, and elections will be held in November for municipal government. Though we might treat these positions as of secondary importance, many of them have a more immediate impact in our daily lives.
Most locally, we’ll see Claremont voters elect some members of its five-member city council in November. The Claremont Colleges occupy areas across Districts 2, 3, and 5, and the members representing Districts 2 and 3 are up for election. Nominations will be collected over the following months.
Older students may remember the scattered election signs on Foothill Boulevard and throughout the Claremont Village in 2024, though back then there was a higher-profile race receiving more attention. Students at the Claremont Colleges have recently pressured the council to address various issues, from tenant protection to policing, and the candidates that run will presumably present another opportunity to advance students’ interests in Claremont. Without the spectre of a presidential election, I expect that the city council race will grab more eyeballs. Of particular interest might be the interpretation and implementation of zoning changes ushered in by Senate Bill 79, as much of Claremont is eligible for housing development around the Metrolink station. Even though many of us cannot vote in Claremont, we can still volunteer our time to council campaigns that recognize this opportunity.
The congressional environment, unfortunately, presents less of an opportunity for students to have an electoral impact. After Proposition 50 took effect, the California legislature redrew congressional maps in order to gerrymander in favor of Democrats. This took dramatic effect in Southern California, which went from having several competitive races to having virtually none. Those who followed congressional races in 2024 might remember Derek Tran’s slim victory over Michelle Steel in the 45th district. In 2026, Tran has a safe Democratic seat.
The closest race this year appeared to be in the new 40th district, which pitted two Republican incumbents, Young Kim and Ken Calvert, against each other. Though they threatened to split the vote, the opposite happened and too many Democrats ran, giving Kim and Calvert the top two spots in the general election. As a result, there will likely be no competitive congressional races in November in Southern California. Though Prop 50 was successful as a strictly partisan move, it has revealed the anti-competitive nature of gerrymandering, highlighting the necessity of a national ban such as the one congressional Democrats have advanced.
Most of us, tragically, are not too familiar with the California State Board of Equalization. This is despite its central role in state governance: the State Board is responsible for overseeing counties’ administration of property tax collection and enforcement of state tax law. Though the State Board was stripped of much of its governing power in 2017, it still sets guidelines for property tax collections and can still hear appeals by taxpayers. The board is still one of the few places where we can officially complain about tax practices. In hearing those complaints, the State Board has repeatedly faced criticism for influence-peddling and favoritism, and has historically served as a launching pad for higher executive office. We should aim to be somewhat familiar with the personalities using election to the State Board as another item on their resume, if only to know who might ascend even further in Sacramento.
The board has five members, and one represents Los Angeles County, which includes Claremont. The incumbent, Tony Vazquez, did not run for reelection, so voters in Los Angeles County chose between an entirely new crop of candidates. Those that received the top-two votes were Mike Gipson and Samuel Sukaton, both of whom are Democrats.
Mike Gipson is currently a member of the California State Assembly; he represents parts of Compton, San Pedro and other neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Interestingly, given his aspirations for the State Board of Equalization, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ranks his voting record at a strong 0%. He is also the author of a bill that would allow counties more flexibility in how they respond to property tax appeals. Gipson’s candidacy for the Board of Equalization has been endorsed by the state’s big unions, such as the Service Employees International Union and the California Teachers Association. Other than those endorsements, his website is light on policy, and it is also not a wonderful indicator that he has repeatedly exaggerated his record as a police officer.
Samuel Sukaton does not have the governmental background that Gipson does. He has worked for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, led the pro-redistricting effort of the California Environmental Voters, and has a focus on promoting climate policy. Sukaton made it into the top two in the primary by a fairly wide margin of 100,000 votes, and has the distinction among the candidates of having lost on “Jeopardy!” once. On his website, which mostly focuses on his resume, he does mention the idea of split roll property taxes, which would assess different kinds of property taxes at different rates. Split roll property taxes, as judged by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, have several problems: they do not target the richest, they can shift the burden onto renters and away from homeowners, and they make the assessment of property taxes more complicated. Sukaton does not appear to have a more detailed policy proposal that would address these issues.
Overall, the race for the 3rd District’s seat on the State Board of Equalization does not provide voters with a choice between two competing policy visions. If thought of as a position primarily concerned with adequate administration of an executive bureaucracy, neither has direct experience, though at least Gipson has shown some legislative involvement.
Tragically, it seems voters in Los Angeles County will not be making their decisions based on very much information. At the very least, when it comes to the looming city council races, students can continue making their voices heard.