Ladies and gentlemen, WE HAVE A BALLOT. The filing deadlines are over. The extensions are over. The “I’m thinking about running” crowd can go back to Facebook. The people who…
The post Editorial: Let the Contra Costa County Political Circus Begin appeared first on Contra Costa News.
Ladies and gentlemen, WE HAVE A BALLOT.
The filing deadlines are over. The extensions are over. The “I’m thinking about running” crowd can go back to Facebook. The people who actually filled out the paperwork are standing, and now Contra Costa County voters get roughly 10 weeks to figure out who is serious, who has actual ideas, who is running because they genuinely want to improve their community — and who just really, really likes seeing their name on a lawn sign.
Welcome to the 2026 Contra Costa County Election Season.
And looking across the county, we’ve got everything.
Competitive races. Incumbents fighting for survival. Candidates coming back for another swing. Crowded fields. And, naturally, a few people who essentially won reelection because apparently nobody else in town wanted the job.
Let’s get into it.
ANTIOCH: BUCKLE THE HELL UP
If you enjoy calm, polite, boring local elections where everyone shakes hands afterward and goes for ice cream, Antioch probably isn’t your city.
District 1 gives us incumbent Tamisha Torres-Walker against former Councilmember Joy Motts.
That’s not an election… That’s a cage match.
Torres-Walker has been one of the most polarizing political figures in Contra Costa County since the moment she entered City Hall. People either passionately support her or would crawl over broken glass to vote against her.
And now here comes Motts, who has already served on the council and isn’t exactly entering this thing as an unknown challenger and without her own history of issues, and like Torres-Walker, responsible for Antioch’s budget mess.
These two essentially fought to a draw in 2022. Torres-Walker initially won by THREE VOTES before the recount ultimately put the margin at four…. yes, four votes.
You can fit the margin of victory in a Honda Civic.
So now we run it back.
No third candidate splitting the field this time. No wondering what would have happened head-to-head.
Two candidates with actual records. Two completely different political brands.
Antioch District 1 voters get to make a very simple decision: Which direction do you want your city to go?
Beautiful.
Meanwhile, District 4 has its own circus with Monica Wilson seeking a 5th term. Wilson is mostly protected thanks to a gerrymandered District (sorry, but its true) but the bigger question is the messages of Andrew Becker, Matty Alappat or Sandra White going to matter and resonate with voters?
If you sit on a council long enough, voters should be smart enough to see who helped create all these problems – own the wins, own the loses, own the budget, own public safety, own the homeless, own the lack of economic development and own the condition of the city.
For Becker, Alappat and White, the campaign is simple, what are we changing the city to? Show voters their actual plan, not campaign slogans.
BRENTWOOD: NEW BLOOD GUARANTEED
Brentwood might actually have the most interesting dynamic because both council seats are open.
No incumbent safety blanket. No automatic name recognition advantage from sitting on the dais. We’re getting two new councilmembers. And frankly, that’s healthy.
District 2:
Kris Brand
Vinoy Mereddy
Tammy Zickuhr
District 4
Holly Bishop-Mello
Sheree Shannon
Stephanie Williams-Rogers
Brentwood is dealing with the exact growing pains everyone has been warning about forever that are now exposed: budget, traffic, infrastructure, housing, roads, public safety, economic development and the eternal question of whether infrastructure is actually going to catch up with growth sometime before the sun burns out.
A warning to all candidates in this race, Brentwood has become the new laughing stock from around the county thanks to the antics of sitting councilmembers. If you want to continue down that path, your political career is likley over before it even starts.
CONCORD: EVERYBODY INTO THE POOL
Then there’s Concord.
Concord looked at elections in other cities and apparently said:
Why have two candidates when we can have everybody?
District 1 has incumbent Laura Hoffmeister facing multiple challengers.
District 3 opened up and attracted a crowd.
District 5 has incumbent Laura Nakamura facing challengers.
This is what elections are supposed to look like.
Competition… Choices… Debate.
Make incumbents defend their records. Make challengers explain why they’d be better.
But here’s the warning for Concord candidates: standing out in a crowded field requires saying something.
You can’t run the political consultant Mad Libs campaign: “As a longtime resident, I believe in safe neighborhoods, thriving businesses, responsible growth and bringing our community together.”
Congratulations.
You just described every candidate for city council in America since approximately 1974.
Tell voters what you would actually change.
Concord has major development opportunities, housing issues, homelessness, public safety concerns, downtown challenges and the enormous long-term question surrounding the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.
This isn’t student government.
There are massive decisions coming.
The candidates who can explain those issues without drowning voters in government jargon deserve attention.
The ones who can’t?
Thanks for playing.
L to R: Mayor Kim Trupiano and Vice Mayor Jeff Wan
CLAYTON: Small City, Big Egos
And then there’s Clayton.
Somebody schedule the parade. Jeff Wan opted not to seek reelection.
For a city as small as Clayton, the amount of political drama produced over the last several years has been absolutely remarkable. In my opinion, Wan’s leadership was bad for Clayton, bad for morale and turned what should be one of the easiest cities in Contra Costa County to govern into something resembling a weekly reality show.
So, yes, a change is probably healthy.
But Wan leaving creates another fascinating question: Who thinks for themselves now?
Specifically, I’m looking at Kim Trupiano.
With Wan gone, voters should pay close attention to whether Trupiano establishes her own independent voice or simply finds another councilmember to follow. That’s not even a complicated test — Explain your votes. Show residents that the person occupying the council seat is actually making the decisions.
Because Clayton has some very real issues for such a small town.
The budget isn’t exactly overflowing with flexibility. The city has infrastructure and service needs. There are tax questions. Development decisions aren’t going away. And with limited resources, one bad financial decision can matter considerably more in Clayton than it might in a city with a $200 million budget.
There isn’t much room for “Whoops, we’ll fix it next year.”
That’s why this election should be about competence and independence, not political alliances.
And then, of course, there’s the elephant that’s been wandering around Clayton pretending to be journalism. That so-called local “news” operation has spent years inserting itself into Clayton politics while presenting itself as something voters should treat like an independent news source.
I think people have finally figured out the game. Good.
If you’re advocating for candidates, attacking their opponents and participating in the political food fight, own it. That’s advocacy. Nothing wrong with advocacy. Just don’t put on a fake mustache and trench coat and introduce yourself as Walter Cronkite.
And for candidates who may have benefited from friendly coverage in the past?
The free ride should be over.
Everybody gets questions.
Everybody gets their record examined.
Everybody gets challenged.
No preferred candidates.
No protective bubble.
No participation trophies.
Clayton voters should demand candidates who understand the city’s finances, can make difficult decisions and — perhaps most importantly — demonstrate they’re capable of thinking independently.
Because Jeff Wan is leaving.
The question now isn’t who replaces his seat.
It’s whether Clayton finally replaces his style of politics.
EL CERRITO: A COUPLE TAXES SHOW UP — AND SO DO THE CHALLENGERS
And then we have El Cerrito.
Funny how this works where a couple of tax measures show up and suddenly here come the challengers. Nothing gets people interested in City Hall quite like government reaching a little deeper into everyone’s wallet.
And frankly?
Good because competition is healthy. The list of candidates pulling papers was long, but ultimately 6 filed:
Mary Ann “MJ” Jwaili
Michael Lanning
Wally Nowinski
Gabe Quinto
Kimberly White
Carolyn Wysinger
If elected officials want residents to approve more taxes, they should absolutely have to explain why the money is needed, where the existing money went, what taxpayers are getting in return and why voters should trust City Hall with another dollar.
Meanwhile, challengers don’t get to simply scream: “TAXES BAD!”
That’s not a governing philosophy either.
If you’re against the taxes, explain what you’d do instead. What gets cut? What gets changed? Where are the efficiencies? How do you maintain services? How do you address infrastructure? Show the math.
Meanwhile, what does the future of the city look like in terms of public safety with Flock cameras turned off? If there is a spike, will they be turned back on? What about support for the police? Public safety may have had a break last election cycle, but it should now be a very important topic.
Incumbents have a record to defend while challengers have alternatives to provide.
MARTINEZ: CONGRATULATIONS, YOU’VE ALREADY WON
And then we arrive in Martinez, where apparently election season lasted approximately nine minutes.
Mayor Brianne Zorn? Unopposed.
District 4 Councilmember Debbie McKillop? Unopposed.
Congratulations!
Don’t bother ordering the extra campaign signs.
Zorn and McKillop essentially punched their tickets when nobody filed against them.
District 1 at least remembered this was supposed to be an election, with incumbent Jay Howard facing Nakenya Allen.
So Martinez voters get one actual council contest while two other races ended before anybody could even organize a candidate forum. And that’s not necessarily criticism of Zorn or McKillop. If nobody challenges you, that’s not your problem.
But it does raise a broader question about local democracy.
Where is everybody?
People complain nonstop about government.
Facebook comments? Thousands.
Nextdoor complaints? Unlimited inventory.
People willing to attend meetings, learn the budget, understand land use, study infrastructure and actually put their name on a ballot? Suddenly everybody has plans that week.
PITTSBURG: WELCOME TO THE WILD WEST
And then there is Pittsburg.
Good Lord. Eleven candidates!
Not three… Not five… ELEVEN PEOPLE running for City Council.
Apparently everybody in Pittsburg woke up this summer, looked in the mirror and said, “You know what this city needs? Me.”
And let’s call the elephant in the room what it is: I would bet the recent controversy over the proposed data center helped motivate at least a few people to jump into this race.
Which is fine.
Get involved. Run for office. That’s democracy.
But here’s my caution to Pittsburg voters:
Do not turn an entire City Council election into a referendum on one project — especially a project a new council may have very little ability to change.
If your entire campaign is:
DATA CENTER BAD. VOTE FOR ME.
Okay.
What else you got?
Because Pittsburg has a hell of a lot more going on than a data center.
We’re talking public safety, homelessness, economic development, infrastructure, housing, traffic, downtown, city finances, jobs, waterfront development and the overall direction of one of the largest cities in Contra Costa County.
And those issues aren’t disappearing the morning after Election Day.
That’s why having 11 candidates is both great and potentially dangerous.
Great because voters have choices.
Dangerous because with that many people running, somebody can win by becoming the candidate of one angry issue instead of demonstrating they understand the entire city.
Pittsburg voters need to find the well-rounded candidates.
Ask all 11 about the data center. Absolutely.
Ask what happened. Ask what they would have done differently. Ask what lessons the city should learn about public outreach, transparency and development.
But then move on.
Ask them about the budget.
Ask them about police staffing.
Ask them about economic development.
Ask them how they’ll attract businesses and jobs.
Ask about roads and infrastructure.
Ask about homelessness.
Ask about housing.
Ask about the waterfront.
Ask what Pittsburg should look like ten years from now.
And here’s the big one:
Ask them to name three things they want to accomplish that have absolutely nothing to do with the data center.
That answer might tell you more about these candidates than anything else.
Because being angry about one project doesn’t qualify someone to manage an entire city.
Being loud doesn’t make you knowledgeable.
Getting 100 likes on a Facebook rant doesn’t mean you understand a municipal budget.
And yelling “LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!” is easy until you’re sitting on the dais and 200 people want 500 completely different things.
That’s governing.
Pittsburg has some major decisions coming over the next four years. The city needs councilmembers capable of understanding development, budgets, infrastructure, public safety and economic realities — not candidates who showed up because one controversial project suddenly got everybody’s attention.
Eleven candidates. That’s a political Royal Rumble.
Fine.
Now separate the serious candidates from the one-issue candidates.
Pittsburg voters shouldn’t be looking for the loudest person in the room. They should be looking for the people who understand the whole damn room.
RICHMOND: THE RPA ERA FACES A TEST
Then we get to Richmond, which basically got to grab some popcorn and watch everybody else scramble through the August filing period. Why? Because Richmond’s City Council races were decided back in the primary.
Richmond still has one enormous decision sitting in front of voters: Ahmad Anderson or Claudia Jimenez for mayor.
And this one matters. A lot.
Personally, I’ve made no secret of my opinion about the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA) and its influence over Richmond politics. At some point voters have to stop grading politicians on what political team they’re associated with and start grading them on the actual condition of the city.
Results matter… Votes matter… Leadership matters.
And if you want to know where I stand? Anyone closely tied to the RPA deserves an enormous amount of scrutiny for the direction Richmond has gone.
That brings us directly to Jimenez.
I’ve watched her on the council. I’ve watched the votes. I’ve watched the meetings. I’ve watched Richmond repeatedly become its own worst enemy.
And in my opinion, Jimenez has been a disaster.
This isn’t about one vote…It’s not one meeting…. It’s not one disagreement… It’s the cumulative record!
There have been seriously questionable votes across a wide variety of issues, and now voters are being asked whether that record deserves a promotion to mayor.
My answer? Absolutely not.
Being mayor isn’t a participation trophy. Richmond needs someone capable of looking beyond political factions and activist pressure and asking the most basic question imaginable:
Is this actually good for Richmond?
Good for residents.
Good for businesses.
Good for public safety.
Good for economic development.
Good for the city’s reputation.
Good for its long-term financial health.
Because Richmond has enormous potential. Location. Waterfront. Industry. Transportation. Development opportunities. A diverse population and some incredible neighborhoods. And can you finally bring the entertainment back?
Yet somehow the politics continually become the story. Enough!
And that’s why this mayor’s race should be about much more than Anderson versus Jimenez.
It’s really a question about what direction Richmond wants to go.
More of the same? Or something different?
Voters should examine Anderson just as aggressively. Make him explain his plans. Make him answer tough questions. Make him demonstrate that he’s capable of leading the entire city rather than simply being the alternative to Jimenez.
Nobody gets a free pass simply because I think the other candidate stinks.
But Jimenez has something Anderson doesn’t: A record on the City Council that voters can examine.
Look at it.
Look at the votes.
Look at the decisions.
Look at the results.
Then ask whether Richmond needs four more years of that philosophy coming from the mayor’s chair. I’ve seen enough.
In my opinion, send Jimenez packing.
Richmond has spent enough time being a political laboratory.
Maybe it’s time to concentrate on being a successful city.
NOW COMES THE FUN PART
The ballot is set.
Now candidates actually have to campaign.
And hopefully voters demand more than signs, mailers, endorsements and social media nonsense.
Ask questions.
Make candidates explain themselves.
If they’re incumbents, make them defend their records.
If they’re challengers, make them explain their alternatives.
If they say something is broken, ask how they’ll fix it.
If they promise something new, ask what it costs.
If they promise lower taxes and more services simultaneously, ask them to show their math.
And please, for the love of all things holy, stop treating local elections like national politics.
Your city councilmember isn’t going to solve Ukraine.
They’re not negotiating with China.
They’re deciding roads, housing, police staffing, budgets, parks, development, zoning, businesses and whether that pothole you’ve been complaining about since the Obama administration ever gets fixed.
Local elections should be about local issues.
Over the next few months, we’ll hear plenty of promises.
Some candidates will impress.
Some will implode.
Someone will inevitably say something unbelievably stupid on Facebook at 11:47 p.m. and spend the following morning explaining that their account was “taken out of context.”
It’s election season.
This is what we signed up for.
But beneath all the entertainment is something that actually matters.
These races determine who controls hundreds of millions of dollars in public spending and who makes decisions affecting neighborhoods, businesses, public safety, development and quality of life for years.
So have some fun with it.
Ask tough questions.
Demand real answers.
And candidates?
You wanted the job.
Now convince everybody why you deserve it.
Game on.
Mike Burkholder
Publisher of ContraCosta.news
burk@contracosta.news
The post Editorial: Let the Contra Costa County Political Circus Begin appeared first on Contra Costa News.
Clear 64°F