Antonio Villaraigosa

Antonio Villaraigosa

Democratic Party

Candidate, Governor of California

Elections and appointments

Next election

November 3, 2026

Contact

Campaign website

Personal website

Personal Facebook

Personal Twitter

Antonio Villaraigosa (Democratic Party) is running for election for Governor of California. He declared candidacy for the 2026 election.^[source]

Villaraigosa was a potential 2016 Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from California. However, he announced on February 24, 2015, that he would not seek election in 2016.

Twenty-seven candidates from five parties competed in the June 5 top-two primary for two spots on the ballot to succeed term-limited Gov. Jerry Brown (D).

Click here to learn more about the June 5, 2018, top-two primary.

Click here to learn more about the November 6, 2018, general election.

Biography

Email editor@ballotpedia.org to notify us of updates to this biography.

A graduate of the University of California at Los Angeles and People's College of Law, Villaraigosa worked as a union organizer after his graduation, working with the Service Employees International Union and United Teachers Los Angeles and serving as president of the American Federation of Government Employees and the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Villaraigosa was elected to the California State Assembly in 1994 and as the Speaker of the Assembly in 1997. He also worked in Los Angeles municipal government, winning election to the city council in 2003 and as mayor in 2005.

Elections

2026

See also: California gubernatorial election, 2026

Note: At this time, Ballotpedia is combining all declared candidates for this election into one list under a general election heading. As primary election dates are published, this information will be updated to separate general election candidates from primary candidates as appropriate.

General election

The general election will occur on November 3, 2026.

General election for Governor of California

The following candidates are running in the general election for Governor of California on November 3, 2026.

		Candidate
		Toni Atkins (D)
		Xavier Becerra (D)
		Eleni Kounalakis (D)
		Katie Porter (D)
		Raji Rab (D)
		Tony Thurmond (D)
		Antonio Villaraigosa (D)
		Betty Yee (D)
		Michael Younger (D)
	Submit photo	Chad Bianco (R)
		Sharifah Hardie (R)
		Brandon Jones (R)
		Kyle Langford (R)
		Leo Zacky (R)
		Javen Allen (American Independent Party)
	Submit photo	Nicholas Thompson (L)
	Submit photo	Tony Fitzpatrick (No party preference)

---

	There are no incumbents in this race.
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Endorsements

Ballotpedia is gathering information about candidate endorsements. To send us an endorsement, click here.

2018

See also: California gubernatorial election, 2018

General election

General election for Governor of California

Gavin Newsom defeated John Cox in the general election for Governor of California on November 6, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Gavin Newsom (D)	61.9	7,721,410
		John Cox (R)	38.1	4,742,825

---

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 12,464,235 (100.00% precincts reporting)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Nonpartisan primary election

Nonpartisan primary for Governor of California

The following candidates ran in the primary for Governor of California on June 5, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Gavin Newsom (D)	33.7	2,343,792
✔		John Cox (R)	25.4	1,766,488
		Antonio Villaraigosa (D)	13.3	926,394
		Travis Allen (R)	9.5	658,798
		John Chiang (D)	9.4	655,920
		Delaine Eastin (D)	3.4	234,869
		Amanda Renteria (D)	1.3	93,446
		Robert Newman (R)	0.6	44,674
		Michael Shellenberger (D)	0.5	31,692
		Peter Liu (R)	0.4	27,336
		Yvonne Girard (R)	0.3	21,840
		Gloria La Riva (Peace and Freedom Party)	0.3	19,075
	Submit photo	Juan Bribiesca (D)	0.3	17,586
		Josh Jones (G)	0.2	16,131
		Zoltan Gyurko Istvan (L)	0.2	14,462
	Submit photo	Albert Caesar Mezzetti (D)	0.2	12,026
		Nickolas Wildstar (L)	0.2	11,566
	Submit photo	Robert Davidson Griffis (D)	0.2	11,103
		Akinyemi Agbede (D)	0.1	9,380
	Submit photo	Thomas Jefferson Cares (D)	0.1	8,937
		Christopher Carlson (G)	0.1	7,302
		Klement Tinaj (D)	0.1	5,368
		Hakan Mikado (Independent)	0.1	5,346
	Submit photo	Johnny Wattenburg (Independent)	0.1	4,973
		Desmond Silveira (Independent)	0.1	4,633
		Shubham Goel (Independent)	0.1	4,020
	Submit photo	Jeffrey Edward Taylor (Independent)	0.1	3,973

---

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified.	Total votes: 6,961,130
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

• Boris Romanowsky (Independent)
• Robert Kleinberger (R)
• Lindsey Neil Shortland (Independent)
• George Konik (R)
• Scot Sturtevant (Independent)
• Ted Crisell (D)
• James Tran (Independent)
• Jacob Morris (R)
• Michael Bilger (Independent)
• Andy Blanch (Independent)
• Daniel Amare (R)
• David Bush (Independent)
• David Hadley (R)
• Grant Handzlik (Independent)
• David Asem (D)
• Stasyi Barth (R)
• Michael Bracamontes (D)
• Analila Joya (Independent)
• Harmesh Kumar (D)
• Joshua Laine (Independent)
• John Leslie-Brown (R)
• Frederic Prinz von Anhalt (Independent)
• Timothy Richardson (Independent)
• Brian Domingo (R)
• Doug Ose (R)

2016

See also: United States Senate election in California, 2016

Villaraigosa was a potential candidate in the 2016 election for the U.S. Senate, to represent California. He ultimately decided not to seek election, stating "I am humbled by the encouragement I've received from so many to serve in the United States Senate. But as I think about how best to serve the people of this great state, I know that my heart and my family are here in California, not Washington, D.C."

Campaign themes

2026

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Antonio Villaraigosa has not yet completed Ballotpedia's 2026 Candidate Connection survey. Send a message to Antonio Villaraigosa asking him to fill out the survey. If you are Antonio Villaraigosa, click here to fill out Ballotpedia's 2026 Candidate Connection survey.

Who fills out Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey?

Any candidate running for elected office, at any level, can complete Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey. Completing the survey will update the candidate's Ballotpedia profile, letting voters know who they are and what they stand for.  More than 21,000 candidates have taken Ballotpedia's candidate survey since we launched it in 2015. Learn more about the survey here.

You can ask Antonio Villaraigosa to fill out this survey by using the button below or emailing contact@antonio2026.com.

2018

“	Economic Prosperity & Equality It is a frequently repeated fact: If California were a nation, our gross domestic product would rank us as the sixth largest economy in the world. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? But recent numbers confirm that not every area of the state is doing quite that well. Compare two regions, the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley. According to recent numbers, the Bay Area (with a population of about 5.7 million) has a larger economy than the Netherlands and ranks in the top 20 worldwide. However, the San Joaquin Valley (population 4.1 million) keeps much less prestigious company – according to a recent article in the Central Valley Business Times, the Central Valley would fall between Iraq and Algeria and not even make the top 50. No one would mistake the economy of the Netherlands for that of Algeria, and no one should mistake the wide economic opportunity gap that exists in our state. It’s a tale of two Californias, one coastal and thriving, one inland and still suffering the effects of the Great Recession. That’s why we need to rethink our one-size-fits-all approach to economic policy and regulation. A policy that might make sense in Silicon Valley doesn’t necessarily make a difference in Fresno. A regulation that is a small annoyance for a thriving business on the west side of Los Angeles could be a job killer for an industry in the Inland Empire. We certainly need to set big economic goals, but then give each of our economic regions the tools and autonomy they need to grow our economy fairly. We once enabled “enterprise zones,” which were largely county based. These zones were swept away in the last recession when Sacramento took the funds that were dedicated to local economic development to help close a statewide budget gap. While we have taken the limited step of restoring some local infrastructure financing, we need to be bolder. We need to fully restore those local economic development funds because when it comes to local economic growth, Sacramento doesn’t always know best. And we need to establish broad regional economic opportunity zones and cooperation, so economically challenged areas can work together to attract high-wage jobs. The facts show the stark disparities in our economic progress. In recent years, the Bay Area accounted for 62 percent of the growth in high-wage jobs in areas like information technology and professional and business services. The Central Valley lost jobs in these high-wage sectors. Per capita income in the Central Valley is now 30 percent below the statewide average. And families in the Inland Empire fare even worse, with incomes 34 percent below the California average. When I served as speaker of the state Assembly, I was not shy about passing bold new laws and new mandates. But as mayor of Los Angeles, I learned that statewide mandates, regulations and interventions didn’t always make sense from a local perspective. What seemed easy from the Capitol building is a whole lot more complicated up close. I recently proposed restoring the ability of local governments to keep local funds to invest in the creation of housing for teachers, nurses, firefighters and others. Such a power will most likely be used in the Bay Area and along the coast, where red-hot economic growth has caused housing costs to soar to astronomical levels. Now, it is time to give a similar power to those parts of our state facing another challenge – slow economic growth and a lack of high-wage jobs. These new Prosperity Zones need the power to keep local funds local. They need the ability to adapt regulations to local realities while continuing to meet statewide goals. Most of all, they need the authority to act together as regional economies to help lift up every family in every part of California. Franklin Roosevelt once said, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” The challenge facing California in the years ahead is making sure that abundance extends to every part of our great state so that we are making economic progress for everyone. Equality in Education With the passage of California’s Local Control Funding Formula and the new federal education law, Every Student Succeeds Act, responsibility for protecting disadvantaged children in the classroom falls squarely on states and districts. The question is: Is California ready for the responsibility? Will California lead the nation in educational excellence and opportunity or will we continue to trail behind states like Massachusetts that made a commitment decades ago to high expectations and meaningful accountability? I believe in the power of education to make the American Dream possible for anyone willing to work hard. I not only believe it. I know it firsthand. Education is often called the great equalizer — putting all kids on a level playing field and giving them an equal shot at a good life. But American education is still unequal and inadequate for too many young people. We are one of the few developed nations in the world that spends less to educate poor kids than to educate rich ones. And when the system of education is unequal, the results will be unequal. Consider California’s results on the national NAEP test — often referred to as the “gold standard” of assessments. Our Latino students have made some gains over the years, but California is still ranked near the bottom and the gaps remain large. For example, in eighth-grade math only 15 percent of our Latino kids are at grade compared to 53 percent of white students — a 38-point difference. In fourth-grade reading, the percentage of Hispanics at grade is 31 points lower than for white students. For black students, it’s 33 points lower. Unless we change those numbers, education will perpetuate inequity instead of reducing it. Instead of driving economic mobility and providing a ladder to the middle class, it will lock access to the middle class and beyond. The current presidential election has focused discussion on income inequality but it mostly glosses over the most important lever for addressing it, which is strengthening K-12 education. Education alone can’t eliminate poverty, but for millions of young people, it’s the only real path out of poverty. On average, a person with a college degree will earn nearly one million dollars more over a lifetime than a person with only a high school degree. Add a million college graduates to our economy and that’s a trillion dollars more in wealth. More important, it’s a million families with the means to live a decent life. The good news is that California has adopted high standards. The Common Core standards are in schools and classrooms across the state and kids are better off for it. It’s more rigorous and more aligned to what they will need to succeed — both in college and in life. California has also been a leader in innovation — with nearly 1,200 charter schools across the state — more than any other state in the country. The best ones, like the Alliance and the “PUC” schools in Los Angeles, the Summit Schools in the Bay Area and many others, are proving that poverty isn’t destiny. The bad news, however, is that California has backtracked from accountability, putting disadvantaged children at greater risk than ever before. For the last three years, we have stopped reporting accountability ratings in California during the transition to new standards and new tests. It’s not clear when we will start again. And this undermines our efforts to improve schools. Without transparency around performance, states and districts can’t help low-performing schools get better. Without the data you can’t make the case for change. Parents also need data to make informed decisions. Increasingly, we live in a choice-based education system, not a neighborhood-based system. They want their kids to go to college. They want more learning time in school and they want the very best teachers in front of their children. They know all children are not the same and they want to find the right educational fit for each child. Education Trust West has developed a set of common-sense recommendations around improving public education and holding ourselves accountable. The only question is, do we have the will and courage to adopt effective policies that lift the teaching profession, strengthen our schools and put children’s needs ahead of politics? Parent voice matters. We have to keep up the pressure. We can’t accept mediocrity and ignore the facts. It’s time we define our own destiny and demand quality education for our children. That’s what our parents want and our kids need. Anything less is unacceptable. Building Affordable Housing Politicians like to use the word “crisis” to describe the skyrocketing cost of California housing. But that doesn’t even begin to capture a man-made housing disaster that is driving millions of families into poverty and tens of thousands more into homelessness. California has the highest effective poverty rate in the nation, in large part because of our high cost of housing. But the good news is that addressing our housing shortage will help lift millions of families into the middle class – because it will lower the cost of their housing and create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage construction jobs. A 2016 McKinsey Global Institute Report found that California must build 3.5 million new housing units by 2025 if it is to relieve the demand and reduce cost. Their study showed we need to identify construction opportunities by looking at vacant urban land and areas around urban transit hubs, bringing jobs closer to housing so we can make our housing problem better without making traffic gridlock worse. Already elected officials like Berkeley city councilman Ben Bartlett and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, and many others as well, are rising to this challenge. They realize that it will take the public sector working in partnership with the private sector, and innovation at every level, to fulfill our demand for new housing. I believe a comprehensive plan for affordable housing must start with bringing back reformed Community Redevelopment Agencies, which can be done by building on the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts law enacted in 2015. Redevelopment Agencies once invested nearly a billion dollars a year into new housing. And when California took that tool away, we made a bad situation worse. We must certainly reform our permitting laws. If we can waive CEQA requirements for a football stadium, we should be able to speed permitting of affordable housing. I believe we will also need a $10 billion revolving fund to help home and property owners build Accessory Dwelling Units (“in-law units” or “granny flats”). Some estimates show that up to one third of our housing shortage could be addressed with these lower-cost units. We should create regional housing trust funds and make sure all parts of our state share the burden of creating more housing. If some cities refuse to build new housing, they should pay into a fund to help other cities do so. We must encourage private-public financing to build and support workforce housing for teachers, nurses and police officers, starting with a partnership with local schools to use vacant land. We should develop pathways to affordable home ownership with programs such as “tenant opportunity to purchase acts,” and consider the establishment of a state lending institution to provide resources to lower-income tenants so they can purchase housing. We can’t forget that by helping more people transition from renters to homeowners, we can begin to close the wealth gap which stems significantly from low home ownership for many people. Homeownership does more than build stable communities, it helps families send kids to college, start small businesses and retire in dignity. We certainly must lower the cost of construction through the use of technology, and other innovative construction options. And throughout this effort we can’t forget that we can help create hundreds of thousands more middle class jobs by partnering with labor, community colleges and the construction industry with apprenticeship programs to train the hundreds of thousands of new workers, including workers from traditionally disadvantaged communities, we will need for these high-wage jobs. More housing will mean more economic opportunity, more economic equality, more families with jobs that bring respect and dignity, lower rates of homelessness and a dramatically reduced level of poverty. Let’s get to work! Protecting Dreamers & Immigrants California’s economy has withstood the first dot-com bubble burst, a direct hit in the housing crisis, a subsequent recession and the worst drought in the modern history of our state, all in the past two decades. We also outperformed the nation and the world by almost every economic measure: growing at more than five times the rate of Japan’s economy in 2015, creating more jobs than any other state (more than Florida and Texas combined) and raking in close to $40 billion annually from agriculture, $255 billion from manufacturing and $732 billion from tech. All the while, we’ve welcomed more immigrants than any other state. California has long been synonymous with innovation, multiculturalism and our own palm-tree-lined version of the American Dream. The secret to our success is that we attract the brightest minds from all over the world. Nearly 40 percent of our state’s full-time workers are immigrants – the highest rate in the nation. In California, foreign-born people account for 60 percent of construction laborers, half of all dentists and childcare workers and a quarter of all social workers. Immigrants start small business at double the rate of native-born citizens and outperform their share in patent filings and leadership of venture-backed companies. One third of all companies that went public between 2006 and 2012 had at least one immigrant founder. Today, immigrants are making their mark on the economy against the backdrop of a president who rose to notoriety by claiming Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. Hollywood could not have scripted a better foil for California than President Trump. With an administration following through with campaign promises of deporting as many undocumented immigrants as possible, building a border wall and ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), it’s wise to pause and consider the broad economic impact of such proposals. Let’s start with the breakfast table: California grows everything from artichokes to apricots, and – blessed with an enviable climate and optimal soil conditions – we do so at outputs that no other state can come close to approximating. But California’s bounty isn’t simply the result of good luck; it’s the product of what is often extremely difficult physical labor, which for decades has been the work of predominantly migrant workers. This labor permits us to feed our state and the nation and accounts for more than 15 percent of U.S. agricultural exports – $20 billion worth of food. With increased fears of raids and labor drying up, farm owners are faced with having either to move operations abroad or replace them with machines – both likely to cause food prices to skyrocket. Moving on to our piggy banks: With more boomers aging into Social Security each year, the consistent influx of immigrants is what helps keep the Social Security Trust Fund afloat. Without the $300 billion immigrants have contributed over the years, it’s estimated that full benefits would not be able to be paid out beyond 2037. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants pay an average of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes each year. And with more than 200,000 initial DACA recipients in California, ending DACA would eliminate an estimated $433.4 billion in GDP over the next decade. We are a nation of immigrants, and treating undocumented people with dignity and respect is not just the right thing to do morally – it is the prudent thing to do financially. President Trump launched his career in business, and any sensible businessperson should focus on the bottom line. The bottom line is clear: Without the work and contributions of immigrants, our state would be in deep economic trouble. Defending Affordable Healthcare I grew up in East Lost Angeles where many residents had no health insurance or were dramatically underinsured. When I was a teenager I was diagnosed with a tumor in my spinal canal. It sent me to the emergency room and for a moment I was so sick a priest was called to give me last rites just in case. There is a decent chance I am here today because my mother, a public employee, had good health care. I have never forgotten that — the difference between quality health care and no care. And that’s why I have never stopped fighting my entire adult life for quality, universal and affordable health care for all Californians. Health care is now front and center as an issue in the campaign for governor of California, in particular the debate around a plan called Senate Bill 562, which seeks to create a $400 billion single-payer system in California. Some quick facts about SB562. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office calculates it will cost $200 billion in new taxes to implement. By way of comparison, the entire state budget proposed for next year is $190 billion — meaning SB562 would require more than doubling of state taxes. Just as significantly, the SB562 plan would end Medicare as we know it, forcing all Medicare recipients into a new state-run system. SB562 would end successful plans like Kaiser and union-based plans, again forcing all those enrolled in the new state-run system. And it is worth noting, the entire plan is based on the dubious premise that President Donald Trump would agree with the plan, since it would require a federal waiver to implement. I oppose SB562 because right now when health care in California is under assault by the Trump administration, our priority should be to achieve universal health care in California by expanding the Affordable Care Act and Medicare, not ending these successful programs. SB562 has no reasonable funding plan, needs approval by the Trump administration and has no reasonable chance of ever moving forward. SB562 isn’t a sound health care policy. It is essentially a political press release. When I was in the state Assembly I fought to expand access to Medi-Cal for children from 100 percent to 200 percent above poverty line. I couldn’t get any support from my colleagues because I did not have a funding plan. The next year, I authored the Healthy Families program, which expanded health coverage to nearly 750,000 California children. I had learned from my earlier mistakes that when it comes to changing health care law, it is important to think it through, get it right and make sure you know how you are going to pay for it. As mayor of Los Angeles, and certainly as chair of the Democratic National Convention in 2012, I fought to protect Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The ACA has lowered the rate of California’s uninsured from a staggering 17 percent in the year before it passed to 6.8 percent today. This translates to more than 4 million Californians who now have life-saving access to health care because of the Affordable Care Act. That’s why for me, the very first priority of our next governor must be to stand up to Donald Trump and preserve the ACA. Losing what is known as “Obamacare” would be a disaster for California. We need to do a better job of containing costs, including controlling drug prices, building up our prevention strategies by expanding our primary care network, focusing on preventing costly and chronic conditions like diabetes and coronary heart disease, utilizing technology where appropriate to reduce costs and working to eliminate toxins in our environment which contribute to adverse health conditions. But we also must remember that the very best way to cover more people with quality health care is to create millions more high-wage jobs that pay decent benefits, starting with excellent health care benefits. That’s why I have said my first three priorities as governor will be high-wage jobs, high-wage jobs and high-wage jobs. We can, and will, protect the ACA and Medicare and expand them toward universal care. But it will take more than slogans and press releases. It will take a real plan. Transportation for the 21st Century The importance of transportation infrastructure for American society cannot be overstated. Our highway system, ports, airports and railroads are the arteries of the economy, moving goods, services and workers inside cities and between states. In urban areas, public transit plays an equally important role not just for workers but for connecting all Americans to opportunities in their communities. In New York City, some 55 percent of all commuters take public transit every day. As our cities become more congested, a growing transit system can provide an alternative to driving. At the same time, our population of baby boomers will most likely rely on public transit as they age. Improvements in public transit can spur economic development and increase the capacity to move people. Yet despite its significance, we as a nation have neglected our transportation infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2013 report card graded the national transportation infrastructure from a high of C+ for bridges and rail to an embarrassing D for aviation, roads, and public transit. It estimates that highway congestion costs the U.S. economy $101 billion annually and that $170 billion per year of annual investment is needed to make significant improvements. Likewise, deficiencies in our transit systems cost another $90 billion per year. The next president of the United States should pursue a national surface transportation agenda that addresses funding issues, staffing, and other targeted policy areas. The president should work with Congress to implement various changes related to federal transportation funding, the gas tax, the vehicle-miles traveled tax, tax credit bonds, the transportation authorization bill and congestion pricing, among other programs. Transportation innovations like Uber and Lyft, same-day shipping of products to homes and offices, and driverless cars are fortunately changing our transportation system and the choices Americans have. Nevertheless, all of these innovations depend on a robust and effective transport network. Ride sharing, Google Express and automated vehicles all require roads, so investment in our highway system must continue to be a national priority. Historically, transportation investment at the national level has been a bipartisan – indeed, even a nonpartisan – issue, with leaders from both sides of the aisle partnering to advance this common good. Unfortunately, political cooperation has been strained over the last decade, and Congress has struggled to pass surface transportation authorization bills in a timely manner. These congressional battles create massive uncertainty because state, regional and local governments frequently depend on the federal government to fund a portion of their construction, operating and maintenance needs. Notably, the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for investments in highways and public transit, is insolvent, generating less revenue from federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel than the U.S. authorizes and appropriates. This situation presents Congress with two equally unattractive choices: subsidize transportation with revenue sources that should be used to address other pressing public needs or reduce transportation funding just at the moment when our infrastructure needs the most help. Current taxes of 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel fuel are clearly inadequate for covering the costs of building and repairing our nation’s transportation systems. These taxes have not increased since 1993, have not kept pace with inflation, and are negatively affected as average fuel efficiency rises (which is vitally important). These forces result in less proportional revenue per gallon of fuel sold when prices rise. Rising fuel prices reduce both driving and fuel purchases while creating demand for more cost-effective public transit. But less fuel bought means less revenue to maintain, let alone expand, the transportation infrastructure. In short, just as we need better transportation systems to sustain our economy and society, the revenues used to invest in infrastructure are diminishing. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added important new funding resources to state and local government, but this measure was only temporary. While the money provided much-needed investment in transportation infrastructure and supported job creation during the depths of the economic recession, the aid was fleeting and did not address the long-term needs of the transportation sector. For the next president, the most pressing question will be how can federal policy and spending produce the level of transportation investment necessary to support continued economic growth and a high quality of life for all Americans? While there are essential needs in other areas like airports, ports and rail, let’s look at what’s needed to improve highways and transit (including commuter rail). Adjust the gas tax. The federal gas tax should be maintained, not replaced. It should be adjusted for inflation immediately, converted to a percentage tax on sale price, and indexed in the future. Both the inflation adjustment and future increases could be phased in incrementally. An important advantage of maintaining a gas tax is that it will incentivize fuel efficiency and lower mobile-source emissions and greenhouse gases without heavy-handed regulations on the vehicles used by individuals and companies. Implement a vehicle-miles traveled tax. Because of their weight and frequent usage, large vehicles such as trucks are responsible for more of the wear and tear on our highway system. In the name of fairness, larger vehicles should bear more of the costs of maintaining that system, and this can be accomplished by using a tax that is based on usage and vehicle weight. Although revenue could be collected by the federal government, it should be returned to either the states or larger local governments. These entities would use the revenue first for highway maintenance and repair and then for the implementation of policies that reduce vehicle impacts on highways, such as the expansion of public transit. The reason revenue should be returned to larger counties or regional transportation agencies is that these entities frequently represent more population than many states. For example, the County of Los Angeles alone is larger in population than all but eight states. Revise the federal formulas for allocating funds. The formulas currently used by the federal government to allocate transportation funding should be reformed to ensure that more revenue flows to the larger counties or regional transportation agencies. This would eliminate the current two-step process and create better funding certainty for these jurisdictions. Relying on rational criteria, policymakers should set the population threshold for these revised allocation formulas. Extend the authorization bill. Transportation infrastructure typically takes 10 or more years to plan, complete environmental review, procure, design and build, but the current practice is for surface transportation bills to cover six years. Transportation bills should have a 10-year duration with periodic extensions of time and funding. For example, an initial authorization bill could cover federal fiscal years 2018–27, then in 2019 Congress could extend the bill through 2029, and so on. Making this change would provide state and local governments with the funding certainty and predictability so that they can plan and deliver their transportation investments accordingly. Approve tax credit bonds. Tax credit bonds with 100 percent interest rate subsidies should be approved and a streamlined federal system for approving such bonds set up. This program would allow state and local governments to issue municipal bonds to pay for transportation infrastructure construction without incurring borrowing costs. This approach encourages other government agencies to commit local funding for investments and enables entities with multiyear revenue streams (such as a transportation sales tax) to accelerate their programs to deliver services faster. Because the federal subsidy is paid to bondholders in the form of a tax credit, no congressional appropriation is needed, but there still would be a federal cost in the form of reduced tax revenue. This approach has already been adopted by Congress, first in the 2009 Recovery Act, with a 35 percent subsidy for transportation-oriented Build America Bonds, but also in the precedent-setting 100 percent subsidy for qualified school construction bonds. Introduce congestion pricing. Congestion pricing has been used successfully in major cities such as London, Singapore and Stockholm to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow. Congress should authorize states, cities, counties and special-purpose agencies to implement cordon- and facility-congestion pricing in their jurisdictions. Implementation of such programs would require approval of the relevant nonfederal jurisdictions involved. Federal law should mandate that all revenue from congestion pricing be used for improving the transportation system. Pricing should be set to achieve optimal traffic flow and it should not be used simply to generate revenue. Federally authorized congestion pricing would allow local jurisdictions to decide whether such pricing would be appropriate, and it would ensure that there is an explicit nexus between the program and how revenue is spent. Additional nonfederal transportation revenue would reduce the demand on federal coffers and would enable the federal government to leverage its limited dollars further. But funding isn’t everything. Presidential appointments to federal transportation agencies also need a number of important qualities. Appointees must be loyal and share the president’s priorities for transportation. At the same time, these individuals should not simply parrot the president’s views, but be strategic thinkers who can help formulate solutions and be “critical friends” who can test potential weaknesses in proposals. Appointees with these characteristics will ensure that the president has a complete understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and implications of the transportation choices that are pursued. Many of the appointees should be subject matter experts in transportation policy, finance, planning and engineering. This would give them important credibility with both federal agencies and stakeholders. Some of the appointees should be “outside the box” thinkers who will challenge conventional wisdom and push creative solutions. The natural tension created by this mix of talent will serve the next administration well. A critical number of appointees must be experienced hands at successfully navigating Congress and agencies within the Department of Transportation, and partnering with state and local governments as well as stakeholder groups. It is essential that great ideas and important public policies do not die due to the inability to implement them. And there are other policy areas to consider. Environmental review. For projects requiring federal review and approval under the National Environmental Protection Act, states that have adopted equivalent or more-stringent processes, such as the California Environmental Quality Act, should be authorized to use their state process in lieu of the federal process. Currently, in states like California, agencies complete two essentially identical yet distinct environmental reviews. This policy would authorize the Department of Transportation to evaluate state environmental processes and determine which states and their respective local governments can use their environmental review process. This would accelerate project development and reduce the burden on federal agencies while ensuring a consistent environmental process. Local hiring. State and local government should be allowed to set local hiring requirements proportional to the nonfederal portion of project funding. Current federal law prohibits this practice for any transportation project receiving any federal funding. This change would encourage local revenue commitments because taxpayers would know that local taxes paid for transportation construction would be returned to their community. Transportation safety. Congress and the appropriate federal agencies should adopt common-sense safety recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board. For example, while the board had been calling for positive train control for 45 years, it took 25 deaths and 102 injuries in a commuter rail-freight crash in Chatsworth, California, in 2008 to put in place a mandate for cutting-edge collision avoidance technology on all freight and commuter rail systems. The opposition to such mandates stems from the system cost and lack of available funding in many jurisdictions and, indeed, the deadline to install the controls on all systems has been pushed back from 2015 to 2018. To help local jurisdictions quickly implement board recommendations, a federal short-term bridge funding program should be made available, followed by long-term funding through congressional authorization and appropriation. This approach would ensure that vital safety enhancements are made as quickly as possible. National transportation policy must return to a tradition of bipartisan cooperation in which the president and Congress work together. In summary, sustainable and predictable funding plus locally controlled policy innovation are the keys to dramatically improving American transportation. Implementing the recommendations suggested here will guarantee that America has the transportation infrastructure needed to support our economy and quality of life for decades to come. California Leading the Way As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office and implement his vision of a much smaller federal government, it is up to all Americans to work with him where we can and defend our values where we must. Perhaps one of the most powerful ways we can defend our people is to make sure we are uniting with other cities and states to advance and preserve policies that help meet the challenge of a new Trump administration. There are of course many other ways we can chart a vision of a government that protects working people – starting with making sure the policies and the programs we defend work well. Of course we need to keep organizing – making sure that voters in future elections understand what is at stake, and register and participate. And we need to propose the change voters sought this November to lift more families into the middle class. But we should take a hard look at how we can use the combined power of our forward-thinking cities and states to leverage better national policies. And we have the benefit of three extraordinary governors, California’s Jerry Brown, Oregon’s Kate Brown and Washington’s Jay Inslee, who have demonstrated the courage to act boldly in the past. Just imagine how much we could accomplish if these three governors agreed to work to bring our cities and states together on important policies that could become a breakwater against the national tide of Trumpism? We have a powerful precedent in the regulations California pioneered to clean our air and protect our environment by working to reduce carbon emissions. We used the tremendous power of our internal California market to create a standard that the nation was eventually forced to follow. When I served as mayor of Los Angeles and as president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I saw the tremendous power of local governments working in unison to drive state, federal and even global initiatives forward. Fighting climate change is the best example – it is an effort that was pioneered by world cities well before states and nations joined the effort. But there are many other ways local governments worked together in partnership to protect people, with the “Fight for 15” minimum wage effort another clear precedent of how state and local governments working together can shape broader policy. We live in the most robust democracy on the planet, in a system that was designed to blunt the power of demagogues. One of the foundations of our democratic system is our federal structure, giving tremendous power and authority to states to defend the well-being of their residents. And within our states, our big cities are laboratories for bold new policies. California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world. If you add the GDP’s of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. That’s power – power we must use to protect our people against any dangerous policies advanced by a Trump administration.	”
—Antonio for California

Campaign finance summary

Campaign finance information for this candidate is not yet available from OpenSecrets. That information will be published here once it is available.

See also

2026 Elections

What's on the ballot? U.S. Congress U.S. Congress special elections State executives State legislatures State courts Ballot measures Municipal government School boards Election analysis hub

Government

Who represents me? U.S. Congress State executives State legislators State courts Ballot measures Municipal government School boards

Newsletters

The Daily Brew The Weekly Brew The Ballot Bulletin Checks and Balances Economy and Society Hall Pass Number of the Day Robe & Gavel Union Station

External links

Search Google News for this topic

Candidate

Governor of California

Website

Personal

Website

Facebook

Twitter