Election Wrap-Up: Making Sense of the 2022 Races

Now that the results are in, it's time to analyze why the races turned out the way they did

With elections, there’s always a temptation to draw simple, clear-cut narratives on why they turned out the way they did. But voters aren’t that simple, and the desire for black-and-white conclusions often ignores the complexity of individual races and the crosscurrents of factors that determine the outcome.

Such was the case in the Martinez elections of 2022. In a very tight contest, we elected our first new mayor (Brianne Zorn) in 20 years. An incumbent on the City Council (Debbie McKillop) squeaked out a razor-thin re-election for the second time in four years. A Martinez Unified School District bond measure went down to defeat after voters had consistently passed school tax measures in previous elections, and what would have normally been a low-key race for a school board seat was overshadowed by campaign contributions made by one candidate to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

I have no quick and easy answers for why these races turned out the way they did. But I do have some thoughts based on my own observations and (admittedly limited) understanding of the issues and dynamics that underpinned the races. Please feel free to disagree and/or offer your own insights in the comments.

1. Why did Brianne Zorn win the mayor’s race?

Zorn, the first-term councilwoman, eked out a narrow victory over planning commissioner Sean Trambley and longtime Councilwoman Lara DeLaney for the right to replace outgoing mayor Rob Schroder, who has served five terms spanning 20 years.

In my view, the reason Zorn ultimately prevailed in the six-person race (despite being significantly outspent by most other candidates) comes down to many small things rather than one or two big things. First, there was a clear desire by many voters to turn the page on the politics of the past 20 years that was represented by Schroder, DeLaney and fellow longtime councilman Mark Ross and usher in a new generation of leaders and the fresh ideas they conveyed. Zorn certainly fit that bill, but the question remains why voters narrowly chose her over Trambley, who raised more than twice as much in campaign contributions as she did (over $51,000 for Trambley compared with over $24,000 for Zorn) and had the backing of many influential city interest groups, including the Martinez Police Officers Association and several downtown business owners.

Zorn had a few advantages that money and endorsements simply couldn’t buy. Having won a hardfought City Council race two years ago over incumbent Noralea Gipner, she had the stature that comes with being an elected official who had already earned the support of voters in her district. Being a member of the City Council simply carries greater weight in the minds of the average voter than being an appointed member of the Planning Commission, whose actions rarely register on the public’s radar (especially in this era of little to no local news coverage). Another advantage that worked in her favor late in the campaign was the East Bay Times newspaper endorsement, which she smartly plastered onto her campaign signs around town. The Times doesn’t provide much in the way of news coverage of Martinez these days, and its endorsement probably didn’t matter much to many voters who had closely followed the campaigns and studied up on the candidates and their platforms. But for voters who are largely disengaged from city politics and were looking for help in making a choice among six candidates, it probably did make a difference. In a contest that was decided by fewer than 200 votes, these two elements (the stature that comes from being a member of the City Council and an independent newspaper endorsement) might well have been decisive.

Beyond that, however, Zorn deserves credit for running a positive, aggressive grassroots campaign. She held multiple meet-and-greet sessions throughout the campaign, and her general accessibility and affability no doubt were important factors in winning over voters. Rightly or wrongly, many have come to perceive Martinez politicians over the years as disconnected and disengaged from their own lives and interests and too deeply tied to special interests and powerful figures (some might use the word “cronies”). Zorn has made a point during her time on the council to engage the public directly on various issues, even leaning into the often-toxic world of local social media, and she made community engagement a hallmark of her campaign. She did have the strong backing of Thousand Friends of Martinez, a group primarily focused on environmental and open space issues, and it remains to be seen how much influence they will have over her positions as mayor, but beyond that, much of her support was of the grassroots variety, a welcome contrast to the influence of powerful developer, business and union groups that have long tried to sway Martinez elections in favor of their own interests.

A couple final observations. Zorn seemed to find a sweet spot in her campaign between calling for fresh leadership and ideas and the need for a more transparent, responsive City Hall, while also acknowledging (and taking some credit for) the advances the city has made in recent years. Trambley, on the other hand, was harshly critical of city leadership and gave it no credit for the city’s successes, such as the downtown business renaissance of the past decade. That criticism may have eroded some support for DeLaney and Ross, who have been on the council for decades, but it did little to harm Zorn, who only joined the council two years ago. And my guess is that many voters have feelings about the city that more closely resemble Zorn’s: They are eager to move on from the old guard of Martinez politicians who have been around for far longer than would be tolerated in most cities but also are generally pleased with the quality of life Martinez has to offer and the progress that has been made in some key areas. They may differ on how much credit, or blame, current leaders deserve for the various ups and downs the city has faced, but the campaign attacks employed by Trambley (who focused on the lack of a new General Plan, something the average voter knows nothing about) and Mark Menesini (who exaggerated problems such as crime and homelessness) clearly didn’t hit the mark with most voters.

Of course, for all the talk of the desire for fresh leadership, it is worth noting that DeLaney led the vote count on Election Night and came within 2 percentage points of being elected mayor. If the two other old guard Martinez politicians in the race (Ross and Menesini) had not run, it’s quite likely many of their votes would have gone to DeLaney, and we’d be talking right now how Martinez voters chose experience over change in this election. Such are the whims of politics and the reason that easy narratives are often misleading or outright false.

2. Why does Debbie McKillop keep winning close elections?

McKillop’s close re-election wins in 2018 and 2022 (she’s up by 30 votes with very few, if any, ballots left to count) also point to a muddy picture when discussing whether voters want fresh faces or more of the same. A stronger incumbent likely would have sailed to re-election in both campaigns, especially when you factor in McKillop’s significant fundraising advantage and support from powerful interest groups such as law enforcement (she manages the forensics lab at the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office). But in both elections, a swing of a few dozen votes would have spelled the end of her tenure on the council. She had strong challengers both years (John Stevens in 2018 and Ben Therriault, who gained significant name recognition in his race for county sheriff earlier in 2022, this year). In the end, the advantage of incumbency, coupled with her financial resources, was enough to put McKillop over the top, showing that voters (at least in her district) have ambivalent feelings about the city’s current leadership. If Therriault had been able to do a better job raising money for his run (he ended up loaning his campaign $10,000), he might well have prevailed.

3. Why did Measure K fail?

The MUSD bond measure appears to have fallen about 2.5 percentage points short of the 55% required for passage (there may still be a small number of votes left to count). This is a blow to the school district after voters had passed similar bond measures in 2010 and 2016, as well as a new school parcel tax in 2018. Perhaps sensing that it was going to be a tight race, supporters of the measure raised over $52,000 in campaign contributions to try to sway voters, largely from trade unions and construction-related firms that presumably hoped to benefit from district contracts if the measure passed.

This was not a great time to put a tax measure on the ballot, with 40-year high inflation pinching the financial well-being of voters and rising interest rates pointing toward higher costs to finance the bonds. But I wonder whether another factor that may have helped doom the measure is the frustration many feel with the school district right now in light of pandemic’s impact on quality education as well as chaos in district leadership in recent years, with a revolving door of superintendents and board members (including the illegal appointment to fill a board vacancy last year). As someone who was a parent in the district from 2007 to last year, I experienced my own share of frustrations and sensed that more and more residents were feeling the same.

Certainly, not all of the district’s problems lie at the feet of its leaders, and to be sure there continue to be success stories and sources of pride, but my own view is that political agendas and personal alliances on the board in recent years have created dysfunction and a lack of focus on what matters most: the needs of our children, which run much deeper than modernizing more facilities. Certain board members have seemed more interested at times in making sure the board is stocked with their allies rather than people willing to rock the boat, call out problems, and push for change; and I think voters deserve a real answer as to why there have been so many resignations by board members in the middle of, or early in, their terms, giving their colleagues the power to fill their seats. I hope the district, along with its interest groups, gets the message from this vote that it needs to do more to earn back the trust of the community before asking the community for more money.

If it earns that trust over the next two years, it can try again for a bond measure in 2024. If it does, I just hope that supporters of the measure will be much more transparent in explaining to voters what the measure will cost them (on top of what they are already paying on their property tax bills) and not solicit or accept campaign donations from interest groups that stand to benefit from its passage. I was personally bothered by the fact that the mailers I received for Measure K never explained that it was a tax that homeowners would pay on top of the school district taxes they are already paying. And we don’t need potential conflicts of interest, and the prospect of undue political pressure from campaign donors, at a time when the district should be working to regain public trust by showing that it is putting the public’s interest first.

If there’s one good thing to come out of the failure of Measure K, it’s that district leadership can stay focused for the time being on rebuilding the district’s human infrastructure, which must be the top priority, in the wake of the pandemic’s damage, rather than being distracted by negotiations over construction contracts and project labor agreements involving the same folks who were instrumental in trying to get the bond measure passed and surely would have wanted to be rewarded for their efforts.

3. What should we make of the MUSD board election?

In the one contested election for Martinez school board, voters were faced with the question of whether to support a candidate who had donated money repeatedly to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement throughout 2020, including during the period where they spread the “Big Lie” about the 2020 election being stolen and even after the Capitol insurrection that was instigated by that lie. Despite the fact this candidate had the backing of powerful forces in town, including the Martinez teachers union, retiring school board member Deidre Siguenza and Mayor Rob Schroder, voters overwhelmingly chose her opponent, Yazmin Llamas, 59% to 41%, to represent Trustee Area 3. To what degree the MAGA donations factored into this election result, I don’t know, but my guess is that they did matter to quite a few.

Board candidates with the institutional support of the teachers union, as well as established political figures in town, have typically won their races in past cycles. Across the country, this election showed that voters had not forgotten the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and the ugliness that led to them, and it appears to me that was the case in this race as well. Llamas got significant financial and other support from various groups and individuals, both in and outside Martinez, that gave her an advantage in the race. Some of that support was quite likely a reflection of their desire to keep MAGA political views off the MUSD school board. The effort succeeded, which was no sure thing in a city like Martinez, where such views may not be in the majority but are certainly not rare, either.

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS: For me, probably the most positive aspects to come out of the 2022 election, both locally and nationally, were two-fold: Proof that money alone can’t buy elections, and the value voters placed in the principles of democracy and decency in politics. The sleazy campaign mailers that were funded by building and developer interests, designed to boost the campaign of Menesini, landed with a thud, as Menesini finished a distant fourth with less than 13% of the vote. Hopefully, the groups that wasted their money on these cheap-shot mailers will have gotten the message for the next election. In my view, the fact Zorn had much less special-interest monetary support fueling her campaign than some other contenders provides reason for optimism that she will be more independent and more focused on the “public interest” rather than the interests of deep-pocketed campaign donors. Money is a necessary evil in elections, but electing candidates whose campaigns owe as much, if not more, to grassroots support as to well-heeled interest groups is a definite step in the right direction for democracy and the public trust.

Both nationally and locally, voters made clear in this election there is a distinction to be made between accepting and respecting honestly held political differences among candidates and parties, and turning a blind eye to political movements fueled by hate and lies that court racism, white nationalism and assorted other threats to the safety and rights of all citizens. I think the first and last paragraphs in the Washington Post story this past week about Trump’s announcement that he is again running for president make clear why these voters were right to reject MAGA supporters in so many races — and why those who chose to place personal relationships and/or political views ahead of standing for decency, truth and respect for democracy in politics were wrong.

PALM BEACH, Fla. — Donald Trump, the twice-impeached former president who refused to concede defeat and inspired a failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election culminating in a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol, officially declared on Tuesday night that he is running to retake the White House in 2024.

And he has profoundly altered the tenor of American public life — shattering long-held standards of decorum and civility with often shocking attacks on political rivals, judges and reporters. He has frequently made racist and antisemitic remarks, mocked people with disabilities and denigrated developing countries, bragged about sexual assault and paid hush money to a porn star, praised dictators, declined to disavow extremists, inspired his supporters to resort to violence and defended white supremacists and Jan. 6 rioters.

When schoolchildren study the events of this era years from now, I have no doubt that these paragraphs will reflect the true history of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. The MAGA movement will be looked back upon in the same way we today view the ugliness of McCarthyism or the hate-filled segregationist politics of George Wallace, as something far more insidious and damaging than the normal flaws and shortcomings we come to expect and accept in politicians and political parties. And, as was the case in the 1950s and 1960s, there will be a distinction between those voters and citizens who had the courage to tell the truth at the time about the hate, threats and lies that underpinned Trump and MAGA, and those who stood silently on the sidelines while democracy itself was threatened along with every norm of political decency. I personally believe voters not only have a right to factor this reality into the decisions they make for every race from Congress to school board; they have a responsibility to do so.

COMING NEXT: With the election over, I have some thoughts on how to revamp and keep this newsletter going as a source of information, analysis and perspective on city politics and government, and how you might be able to help. Watch for a post in the near future on that topic. The newsletter recently hit 400 subscribers, so it’s clear there’s an appetite for what it has had to offer during the election season. As always, I appreciate your support and interest and welcome your feedback.