This ballot decides whether immigrant families are protected or exposed. It does not say so in plain words, because there is no measure with the word immigration on it. The decision sits in the offices, in the people you choose to fill them.
It is easy to read a primary ballot and conclude that immigration is a federal matter, far away, out of local hands. That is not the whole truth. The federal government writes immigration law, but the people you elect on June 2 decide how that law lands on your street: whether the county jail hands neighbors to federal agents, whether the state defends its own protections in court, whether a city pays for a lawyer when a family is detained.
This guide does not tell you how to vote. It shows you where immigrant families live on your ballot, which is almost entirely in the people, not in the measures. Where a candidate's record is clear, this guide points you to it so you can weigh it yourself.
This is the single most consequential local immigration choice on the ballot. The sheriff decides how much the county jail system cooperates with federal immigration enforcement: whether agents get notified before a release, whether they are given access inside the jail, how requests to hold someone are handled. California law limits that cooperation, but it does not erase it, and sheriffs keep real discretion. Two sheriffs under the same law have used that discretion very differently, and for a family with a member in custody, the difference is everything.
The attorney general is the state's top lawyer, and that office defends California's immigrant-protection laws when they are challenged in court. The attorney general also decides whether those laws are enforced, whether an agency that violates them is held to account, and whether the state pushes back when federal action reaches past its authority. A protection that no one defends is a protection on paper only.
The governor signs or vetoes every state immigrant-protection law that reaches the desk, and the governor builds the budget that decides whether the state funds legal defense for people facing deportation. Immigration court does not guarantee a lawyer, and a family with representation is far more likely to be allowed to stay. The governor decides whether California pays for that representation or leaves families to face the court alone.
Cities make some of the most direct immigration choices on the ballot. A city council sets sanctuary policy, decides whether to fund legal defense and rapid-response networks that respond when agents arrive, and chooses whether public services are offered in the languages residents actually speak. A council seat draws little attention and small turnout, and yet it can decide whether your city is a place where immigrant families feel safe enough to call for help.
Here is the honest part: no ballot measure on June 2 is directly about immigration. The sales-tax and public-safety measures in cities and the county are budget questions, not immigration questions. That means this part of the ballot is read entirely through the people. Every protection an immigrant family might gain or lose this June runs through an office, through a name, not through a measure.
The deepest harm is the one that never shows up in a statistic: the chilling effect. In a mixed-status household, fear teaches a family to avoid the places that are supposed to help. A parent skips the emergency room and lets an illness deepen. A child's fever goes unseen because a clinic visit feels like a risk. A robbery goes unreported because calling the police feels like calling attention. None of this requires a single arrest to happen. The offices on this ballot decide whether a community is governed in a way that lets immigrant families use the schools, the hospitals, and the police they already pay for, or whether fear keeps them away.
The members-only resource hub, with trainings, forums, and practical guides.
Twelve questions to see which candidates come closest to you.
Poder Comunitario en Acción: call and email on immigration all year.