California's 10th District: A Nonpartisan Guide to the Nov. 3 Election

How to Use This Guide

1. Pick the issues you care about. Rank the two or three that matter most to you.
2. Find which office handles them. The U.S. House votes on every federal law and the federal budget; all revenue-raising bills must start there. Local ballot measures change state or local law and are decided directly by voters.
3. Compare the candidates. Read where each candidate stands on your top issues, then check the candidates' own words, their endorsements, and who funds each campaign.

California's 2026 general election for District 10 uses the Proposition 50 congressional map, which replaced the prior map for the 2026 election; the new map takes effect in January 2027, and 2026 ballots include candidates for the new district. The district's 2026 lines differ from those used in 2024. Alameda and Contra Costa counties fall within it. ​

California orders congressional candidates using the Secretary of State's randomized alphabet, with names rotating within districts and the lowest-numbered Assembly district leading the rotation.

The official certified list prints the District 10 House candidates as Mark DeSaulnier, then Jeff Frese; that list is not an official district ballot, and the official 2026 ballot order for this race was not found. Candidates appear in that order throughout this guide.

The U.S. House Race

What This Office Does

U.S. House members serve two-year terms and vote on every federal law and the federal budget. All revenue-raising bills must start in the House. The 2026 District 10 race uses the Proposition 50 map, and the district includes Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The race is rated Solid Democratic by the 270towin consensus.

Candidates in Brief

| | Mark DeSaulnier | Jeff Frese |
| -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Party | Democrat | Republican |
| Incumbent? | Yes | No |
| Background | U.S. Representative since 2015; served in the California State Senate from 2008 to 2014 and the State Assembly from 2006 to 2008; before elected office worked as a truck driver, hotel services employee, and restaurant owner and manager | Small-business owner; founded Fat Snax, a snack brand he says he grew nationally and sold, and now runs a skincare company; holds a bachelor's degree in economics from SUNY Cortland; lives in Moraga and says he is married with three daughters |
| Top priorities | Not found | "Fix Congress first," including term limits, a stock-trading ban, and "No Budget, No Pay"; making California affordable by stopping deficit spending and cutting red tape; keeping Social Security and Medicare "exactly as promised" |
| Campaign website | desaulnierforcongress.com | freseforcongress.com |

Where They Stand

| Issue | Mark DeSaulnier | Jeff Frese |
| ---------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Cost of living | Supports federal investment to bring down housing costs and says he is working to protect wages that keep up with the cost of living | Supports stopping deficit spending that he says raises prices and mortgage rates, and cutting red tape that makes building slow and expensive |
| Health care | Says he will protect federal medical-research funding, oppose cuts to it, and expand access to quality care | Supports most-favored-nation drug pricing, an insulin price cap, and enforced hospital and insurer price transparency |
| Housing | Supports federal investment to lower housing costs and transit-oriented housing | Supports cutting building regulations he says raise costs and banning Wall Street firms and hedge funds from buying single-family homes |
| Immigration | Supports "humane, fair, and functional immigration reform" and opposes mass deportation policies | Supports stronger border enforcement alongside faster legal immigration processing, expanded pathways for high-skilled workers and industries with labor shortages, and consistent enforcement |
| Abortion | Supports codifying reproductive rights in federal law and opposes federal legislation restricting women's access to health care | Not found |
| Climate and energy | Supports protecting clean-air standards and clean-energy investments; advocates for Delta water protection and fossil-fuel-worker transition programs | Not found |
| Foreign policy | Not found | Says Iran should not obtain a nuclear weapon and calls for a congressional vote on the scope and authorization of U.S. military involvement; opposes an open-ended ground war |
| Elections | Says he is fighting against efforts to roll back voting rights | Supports keeping vote by mail, making Election Day a national holiday, voter ID for federal elections, same-day voting with ID, and paper ballots as a permanent audit trail |
| Housing affordability and cost of living (local) | Supports federal investment to bring down housing costs and says the Bay Area's cost of living is pushing working families out | Supports stopping deficit spending, cutting red tape that he says raises building costs, and banning Wall Street and hedge funds from buying single-family homes |
| Local transportation, transit and open space | Supports transportation solutions to reduce commutes and has championed the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line to preserve open space and prevent sprawl | Not found |

In Their Own Words

Mark DeSaulnier says, "Workers, not just tech companies, deserve a voice in what comes next." (Issues statement on AI and automation, Mark On The Issues, https://desaulnierforcongress.com/issues/))

On his campaign website, Frese says he wants to stop deficit spending, which he says raises prices and mortgage rates, and to cut red tape that makes building slow and expensive.

Questionnaires and Debates

Mark DeSaulnier did not respond to Vote411, did not complete Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey, and did not respond to the Walnut Creek Record questionnaire. No debates were found.

Jeff Frese did not respond to Vote411. Frese completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey and responded to the Walnut Creek Record questionnaire. No debates were found.

Endorsements

Mark DeSaulnier's endorsements (up to eight, officials, unions, parties and newspapers first):

| Candidate | Endorser | Type | Source |
| --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| Mark DeSaulnier | Alex Padilla | U.S. senator | VoteHub |
| Mark DeSaulnier | Adam Schiff | U.S. senator | VoteHub |
| Mark DeSaulnier | Hakeem Jeffries | U.S. representative | VoteHub |
| Mark DeSaulnier | Nancy Pelosi | U.S. representative | VoteHub |
| Mark DeSaulnier | California Democratic Party | Political party | California Democratic Party |
| Mark DeSaulnier | California Federation of Labor Unions | Labor union | California Federation of Labor Unions |
| Mark DeSaulnier | National Union of Healthcare Workers | Labor union | NUHW |
| Mark DeSaulnier | The Independent | Newspaper | The Independent |

Additional endorsers on record include Rob Bonta (statewide official); U.S. Representatives Katherine Clark, Rosa DeLauro, Jared Huffman, Zoe Lofgren, Doris Matsui, George Miller, Kevin Mullin, Ayanna Pressley, Jamie Raskin, Eric Swalwell, Mike Thompson, and Pete Aguilar; state legislators Steve Glazer and Tim Grayson; and organizations including California Environmental Voters, J Street, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Sierra Club, and Council on American-Islamic Relations Action; and the Bay Area Reporter editorial board.

No endorsements were found for Jeff Frese in the records reviewed.

Who is Funding Them

These figures come from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings for Mark DeSaulnier for the 2026 cycle through Oct. 14. No FEC report was on file for Jeff Frese as of that date.

| | Jeff Frese | Mark DeSaulnier |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | -------------------- |
| Total raised (through Oct. 14, 2026) | No FEC report on file | $722,000 |
| Small donors (under $200) | No FEC report on file | 16% |
| Larger donors (over $200) | No FEC report on file | 35% |
| PACs and other committees | No FEC report on file | 49% |
| Party committees | No FEC report on file | 0% |
| Self-funding | No FEC report on file | $0 (0%) |
| Transfers from joint fundraising or other authorized committees | No FEC report on file | $0 |
| Cash on hand (as of Oct. 14, 2026) | No FEC report on file | $467,000 |
| Larger-donor dollars from CA | No FEC report on file | 88% ($193,000) |
| Outside spending for / against | No FEC report on file | $10 for / $0 against |

Top PACs for Mark DeSaulnier: AFLAC Political Action Committee (AFLAC PAC), $10,000 (finance); Allied Pilots Association Political Action Committee, $10,000 (labor); American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC/PAC), $10,000 (business or trade group); American Crystal Sugar Company Political Action Committee, $10,000 (business or trade group); American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees P.E.O.P.L.E., $10,000 (labor). No PAC donors were reported for Jeff Frese.

Largest outside spenders: D.R.I.V.E. - DEM, REP, IND VOTER ED (the PAC of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters), $0 in support and $0 in opposition; Sierra Club Independent Action, $10 in support of DeSaulnier and $0 in opposition.

Donors who give more than $200 in a cycle are listed by name in FEC filings; smaller gifts are reported only as a lump total, so small donors' names are not public.

The incumbent's record

Votes listed here were selected by one rule applied to every incumbent: final passage of each spending, budget, or defense bill that became law, every vote on a war powers resolution, and every vote against the majority of the member's own party, from the official House and Senate roll calls.

Committees and caucuses

Mark DeSaulnier serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, including its Aviation, Highways and Transit, Water Resources and Environment, and Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials subcommittees.

DeSaulnier also serves on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, where he is Ranking Member of the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee and a member of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee. DeSaulnier serves as Ranking Member of the House Ethics Committee.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee handles federal transit funding and highway programs, which bear on the commute and congestion concerns that local coverage has highlighted. The Education and the Workforce Committee oversees federal labor policy, including questions about how automation and artificial intelligence affect workers.

DeSaulnier belongs to 79 caucuses, task forces and coalitions, including the Congressional Artificial Intelligence Caucus, Congressional Labor Caucus, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Safe Climate Caucus, House Reproductive Freedom Caucus, Future of Transportation Caucus, Congressional Medicare for All Caucus, and the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

Key Votes Since June 2026

| Date | Measure | Question | DeSaulnier's vote | Outcome | Broke with party? |
| -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | ----------------- | ------- | ----------------- |
| June 3, 2026 | Iran war powers resolution (H.Con.Res. 86) | On Agreeing to the Resolution | Yes | Passed | No |
| June 4, 2026 | Lebanon war powers resolution (H.Con.Res. 84) | On Agreeing to the Resolution | Yes | Failed | No |
| June 4, 2026 | Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA Appropriations Act, 2027 | On Passage | No | Passed | No |
| June 30, 2026 | Lebanon war powers resolution (H.Con.Res. 119) | On Agreeing to the Resolution | Yes | Failed | No |
| July 22, 2026 | Continuing appropriations for FY 2027 | On Passage | No | Passed | No |
| July 22, 2026 | National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2027 | On Passage | No | Passed | No |
| July 23, 2026 | Iran war powers resolution (H.Con.Res. 89) | On Agreeing to the Resolution | Yes | Passed | No |
| Sept. 1, 2026 | North Atlantic right whale regulations (H.R. 9436) | On Passage | No | Passed | No |
| Sept. 16, 2026 | Iran war powers resolution (H.Con.Res. 93) | On Agreeing to the Resolution | Yes | Passed | No |

The key-votes table shows DeSaulnier voted Yes on each of the three Iran war powers resolutions that passed the House since June 2026, and Yes on both Lebanon war powers resolutions, which failed. DeSaulnier voted No on the Agriculture and FDA Appropriations Act, the continuing appropriations measure, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the North Atlantic right whale regulations bill, all of which passed.

Party Breaks

Mark DeSaulnier cast no roll-call votes against the party majority since June 2026. No party-break votes appear in the record for this period.

Attendance

DeSaulnier's missed-votes percentage for this Congress is not listed in the member record. DeSaulnier missed zero of 123 roll-call votes since June 2026.

Bills Sponsored

In the 119th Congress, DeSaulnier sponsored 28 bills or resolutions: 24 remain at the introduced stage, and four are in committee. DeSaulnier has cosponsored 389 bills this Congress. No sponsored bills advanced beyond committee in the records reviewed.

Contested Claims

DeSaulnier's campaign says he has developed more than 30 policy recommendations to prepare workers for an AI economy and is working to give workers a voice as AI changes industries. No independent fact-check of this claim was found.

DeSaulnier's campaign says he has delivered transportation improvements and secured more than $46 million in direct community funding for Contra Costa and Alameda counties. No independent fact-check of this claim was found.

Jeff Frese said DeSaulnier had 11 years, 204 bills, and two laws to show for his congressional service. Congress.gov lists 234 sponsored legislative items and 106 items that became law across DeSaulnier's congressional service; that page does not establish that all 106 became law as his own sponsored bills.

Philip Ho, a Frese supporter and letter writer, said two of DeSaulnier's bills became law, one naming a post office and one changing a park boundary. Congress.gov lists 106 items that became law under DeSaulnier's member activity; this is not an independent fact-check of Ho's narrower description of bills he personally sponsored.

Challengers' Records

Jeff Frese has not held elected or appointed public office. Frese's background is in private business: he founded Fat Snax, a snack brand he says he grew nationally and sold, and now runs a skincare company. No legislative voting record exists to review.

Scorecards Readers Can Check

The following groups have published scorecards rating Mark DeSaulnier's voting record. No congressional scorecard applies to Jeff Frese, who has not served in Congress.

Different groups select different sets of votes, so their ratings measure different things and are not directly comparable.

Voters who want to dig deeper can look up each group's full methodology on its website to understand which votes it selected and how it weighted them.

Also on Your Ballot

Statewide Measures

| Designation | Topic | What a Yes Vote Does | What a No Vote Does |
| -------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |
| Proposition 2 | State rainy day fund | Increases the Budget Stabilization Account reserve cap and changes how deposits count under the state spending limit | Keeps current reserve rules in place |
| Proposition 38 | Immunology research bonds | Authorizes $8.4 billion in state bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research | Does not authorize the bonds |
| Proposition 43 | Local special tax threshold | Requires two-thirds voter approval for certain voter-proposed local special taxes, beginning Jan. 1, 2027 | Keeps the current majority-vote threshold for those taxes |

Proposition 2. The measure would increase California's Budget Stabilization Account cap from 10 percent of general fund revenue to 20 percent and exclude deposits into the account from the Gann Limit, which caps state spending. The fiscal impact is that state budget reserves would be higher. The measure was referred by the Legislature as ACA 20 (Chapter 130, Statutes of 2026); the Senate passed it 29 to 2 and the Assembly 59 to 8. Party breakdowns were not available in the record reviewed.

A Yes vote doubles the share of general fund revenue the state can set aside in its rainy day fund and removes those deposits from the constitutional spending cap. A No vote keeps the current 10 percent cap and the existing spending-limit rules.

Darrell Roberts, California Professional Firefighters president, argued that doubling the reserve requirement would help protect schools, health care, and public safety from budget downturns. David Tangipa, vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, argued that excluding reserve deposits from the spending limit could make constitutionally required taxpayer rebates less likely, without guaranteeing new funding for services.

Proposition 38. The measure would authorize $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research, with half going to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute and half to research grants at California-based public and nonprofit institutions. The fiscal impact is an increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the bond, with some or all of the cost potentially offset if the funded research generates revenue. The measure reached the ballot through citizen petition signatures.

A Yes vote authorizes the bonds and the research funding. A No vote does not authorize the bonds and the research program does not receive this funding.

The Michael J. Fox Foundation and other named supporters argued that the measure would support immunology research into diseases including cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's, with audits and a prescription discount. Robert M. Kaplan of Stanford University School of Medicine argued that the bond would create decades of taxpayer debt and constrain flexibility to address changing health priorities.

Proposition 43. The measure would close what supporters describe as a court-created loophole by restoring the two-thirds voter approval requirement for local special taxes placed on the ballot under the initiative power, beginning Jan. 1, 2027. The fiscal impact is that local government tax revenues might not increase as much in the future because of the higher vote threshold; the actual impact is unknown and depends on future decisions by local governments and voters. The measure was referred by the Legislature as ACA 22 (Chapter 132, Statutes of 2026); the Senate passed it 35 to 1 and the Assembly 68 to 2. Party breakdowns were not available in the record reviewed.

A Yes vote raises the approval threshold for certain voter-initiated local special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds. A No vote keeps the current majority-vote threshold for those taxes.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argued that the measure restores a two-thirds threshold for local special taxes and protects taxpayers from voter-proposed tax increases passed by a smaller majority. The No on Prop. 43 campaign argued that the higher threshold would make it harder for voters to fund local services, including fire protection, schools, roads, hospitals, and affordable housing.

Local Measures

Regional Transit Measure (Measure RTM) — Alameda and Contra Costa counties

The official ballot question reads: "To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?"

A Yes vote adopts a 14-year retail sales and use tax of 0.5 percent in Alameda and Contra Costa counties (and 1 percent in San Francisco). A No vote does not adopt the proposed sales tax. The measure would generate approximately $980 million annually, according to the ballot question. The Public Transit Revenue Measure District Board adopted a resolution calling a special election for Nov. 3, 2026; a majority vote is required. Named arguments for and against were not found in the record reviewed.

No other local measures were confirmed for Alameda or Contra Costa counties in the records reviewed. Voters can check their county's complete sample ballot at the Alameda County Registrar of Voters or the Contra Costa County Elections Division website.

Before You Go

  • Early voting: Locations and hours are listed at caearlyvoting.sos.ca.gov. The state says early voting locations will be available in every county for at least 10 days before Election Day. Nov. 3 is the last day to vote in person.
  • Election Day hours: Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nov. 3, 2026. Find your polling place at sos.ca.gov/elections/polling-place.
  • ID: California generally does not require ID at the polls. ID may be required of a first-time federal-election voter who registered by mail or online and did not provide a California ID number or Social Security number when registering. If required and the voter does not have or does not wish to provide acceptable ID, the voter may cast a provisional ballot.
  • In the booth: Voters may bring a sample ballot and other similar explanatory materials. Electioneering materials are not allowed in the booth or within 100 feet of a polling place.
  • Registration: The regular deadline was Oct. 19, 2026. Same-day conditional registration and voting are available through Election Day at a county elections office or in-person voting location in the voter's county.
  • Mail ballots: A mailed ballot must be postmarked by Nov. 3, 2026, and received by the county elections office no later than seven days after Election Day. Ballots may also be returned at a secure official drop box, polling place, vote center, or county elections office by 8 p.m. Nov. 3. See sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/vote-mail.
  • Hotlines: California Secretary of State voter hotline: (800) 345-VOTE (8683). Election Protection: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683), call or text (866ourvote.org).

Sources

Official Records

Campaign Finance

Candidate Statements and Questionnaires

News and Fact-checks

Advocacy Groups

---

AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article