Paper Trail Politics Election directory My Area

November 3, 2026 General Election · Election night returns

Amador County election results

19,050ballots counted70.5% of 27,012 registered voters
45contests on the ballotwith semi-official returns

Turnout as ballots are counted

Same point in the count (3 days after Election Day):

  • 202670.5%so far
  • 202272.6%(72.9% final)
  • 202485.0%(85.8% final)
Nov 2022 generalNov 2024 generalNov 2026
0%20%40%60%80%Election Day+7 days+14 days+21 days+28 days2022: 72.9% final2024: 85.8% final2026: 70.5%0%20%40%60%80%Election Day+14 days+28 days2022 72.9%2024 85.8%2026 70.5%
Show the data
YearCounty reportHours after polls closedBallots countedTurnout
20222022-11-08 20:000.011,42744.03%
20222022-11-08 21:251.412,43647.92%
20222022-11-10 10:5939.015,85561.10%
20222022-11-10 16:1644.318,83372.57%
20222022-11-16 10:03182.118,89072.79%
20222022-11-18 17:02237.018,91772.90%
20222022-11-21 13:28305.518,91872.90%
20222022-11-21 13:30305.518,91872.90%
20242024-11-05 20:000.017,09064.44%
20242024-11-05 21:151.219,38773.10%
20242024-11-08 14:2566.422,56885.09%
20242024-11-13 15:56187.922,73485.72%
20242024-11-20 09:52349.922,75385.79%
20242024-11-27 09:29517.522,75985.82%
20242024-12-02 16:35644.622,76285.83%
20262026-11-06 13:5465.919,05070.52%

From the county’s results updates, timed from 8 p.m. on Election Day; earlier years are linear between updates.

D DemocraticR Republican* IncumbentLocal offices are nonpartisan.

Where available, statewide or districtwide totals from the California Secretary of State are shown first. Races that extend beyond this county offer “County only” for the county registrar’s count. Reports may update at different times.

Statewide offices 9

State propositions 14

  • California Proposition 1Yes/No questionProposition 1Ballot question

    AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

    A yes vote means

    The state could borrow $11.25 billion through general obligation bonds to support veterans and affordable housing programs.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. YesYes61.0%6,733,027
    2. NoNo39.0%4,296,574
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 2Yes/No questionProposition 2Ballot question

    INCREASES STATE’S RAINY DAY FUND. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Increases California's Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns. Fiscal Impact: State budget reserves would be higher.

    A yes vote means

    State budget reserve rules would change so the Rainy Day Fund holds more money, and the state would make extra debt payments for longer.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. YesYes61.3%6,759,767
    2. NoNo38.7%4,260,447
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 3Yes/No questionProposition 3Ballot question

    PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND HEALTH CARE BY EXTENDING EXISTING TAX ON HIGH INCOMES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education. Fiscal Impact: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.

    A yes vote means

    An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. YesYes60.6%6,733,849
    2. NoNo39.4%4,380,460
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 4Yes/No questionProposition 4Ballot question

    REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.

    A yes vote means

    State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used and how.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. NoNo50.3%5,474,047
    2. YesYes49.7%5,406,205
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 5Yes/No questionProposition 5Ballot question

    CHANGES RECALL ELECTION PROCESS FOR STATEWIDE OFFICERS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment. Fiscal Impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.

    A yes vote means

    Recall elections would no longer ask who should fill the vacancy; vacancies typically would be filled by special election or appointment.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. YesYes52.0%5,562,022
    2. NoNo48.0%5,134,433
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 37Yes/No questionProposition 37Ballot question

    CREATES LOAN PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE-INCOME BUYERS OF QUALIFIED NEW HOMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3% down. Bonds repaid by mortgage payments, not State. Fiscal Impact: No direct state or local costs.

    A yes vote means

    The state would create a homebuying assistance program funded by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds repaid by homeowners' loan payments.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. YesYes62.3%6,834,106
    2. NoNo37.7%4,132,590
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 38Yes/No questionProposition 38Ballot question

    AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.

    A yes vote means

    The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support immunology and immunotherapy research by California research institutes and universities.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. YesYes54.2%5,963,079
    2. NoNo45.8%5,032,758
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 39Yes/No questionProposition 39Ballot question

    PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification. Fiscal Impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.

    A yes vote means

    Voters would be required to present additional identifying information, such as government-issued identification, to elections officials each time they vote.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. NoNo60.6%6,774,474
    2. YesYes39.4%4,407,227
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 40Yes/No questionProposition 40Ballot question

    IMPOSES ONE-TIME TAX ON CERTAIN TAXPAYERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit. Fiscal Impact: Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires.

    A yes vote means

    The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. NoNo52.8%5,909,899
    2. YesYes47.2%5,288,424
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 41Yes/No questionProposition 41Ballot question

    PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Fiscal Impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.

    A yes vote means

    The State Auditor would review programs funded by new special taxes, and the state might not be able to exclude new special tax spending from its spending limit.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. NoNo54.9%6,035,499
    2. YesYes45.1%4,961,912
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 42Yes/No questionProposition 42Ballot question

    PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.

    A yes vote means

    The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. YesYes51.6%5,733,734
    2. NoNo48.4%5,371,123
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 43Yes/No questionProposition 43Ballot question

    LIMITS VOTERS’ ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.

    A yes vote means

    Certain voter-proposed local special taxes would require two-thirds voter approval instead of a majority.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. NoNo57.3%6,257,179
    2. YesYes42.7%4,667,905
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 44Yes/No questionProposition 44Ballot question

    REQUIRES COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS SPEND 90% OF REVENUE ON PROGRAM SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.

    A yes vote means

    Certain private nonprofit health clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue each year on providing health care services.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. NoNo82.1%8,946,122
    2. YesYes17.9%1,955,845
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • California Proposition 45Yes/No questionProposition 45Ballot question

    MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.

    A yes vote means

    Certain public and private projects would be eligible for new environmental review and court challenge procedures with tighter time limits.

    Source: California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide ↗
    1. NoNo56.1%6,103,353
    2. YesYes43.9%4,766,652
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State

Judicial retention 9

  • Retention of Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie Earl, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictYes/No question
    Presiding Justice Retention of Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie Earl, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Presiding Justice Retention of Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie Earl, Court of Appeal, Third District be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Retention of Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie Earl, Court of Appeal, Third District on the Court of Appeal for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. YesYes38.0%7,229
    2. NoNo34.5%6,582
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • Retention of Associate Justice Aimee A. Feinberg, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictYes/No question
    Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Aimee A. Feinberg, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Aimee A. Feinberg, Court of Appeal, Third District be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Retention of Associate Justice Aimee A. Feinberg, Court of Appeal, Third District on the Court of Appeal for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. NoNo36.8%7,013
    2. YesYes35.1%6,684
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • Retention of Associate Justice David B. Sapp, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictYes/No question
    Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice David B. Sapp, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice David B. Sapp, Court of Appeal, Third District be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Retention of Associate Justice David B. Sapp, Court of Appeal, Third District on the Court of Appeal for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. NoNo37.7%7,190
    2. YesYes33.4%6,364
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • Retention of Associate Justice Jonathan Renner, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictYes/No question
    Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Jonathan Renner, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Jonathan Renner, Court of Appeal, Third District be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Retention of Associate Justice Jonathan Renner, Court of Appeal, Third District on the Court of Appeal for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. YesYes37.3%7,113
    2. NoNo34.2%6,507
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • Retention of Associate Justice Joshua Groban, California Supreme CourtYes/No questionAssociate Justice Joshua GrobanBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Joshua Groban be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Joshua Groban on the California Supreme Court for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. YesYes71.5%6,320,411
    2. NoNo28.5%2,517,810
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • Retention of Associate Justice Kelli M. Evans, California Supreme CourtYes/No questionAssociate Justice Kelli M. EvansBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Kelli M. Evans be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Kelli M. Evans on the California Supreme Court for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. YesYes72.5%6,401,321
    2. NoNo27.5%2,426,861
    Statewide count23,860 of 23,860 precinctsUpdated November 9, 2026, 7:18 p.m. PTSource: California Secretary of State
  • Retention of Associate Justice Lauri Damrell, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictYes/No question
    Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Lauri Damrell, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Lauri Damrell, Court of Appeal, Third District be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Retention of Associate Justice Lauri Damrell, Court of Appeal, Third District on the Court of Appeal for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. NoNo35.7%6,807
    2. YesYes35.6%6,790
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • Retention of Associate Justice Shama Mesiwala, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictYes/No question
    Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Shama Mesiwala, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Shama Mesiwala, Court of Appeal, Third District be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Retention of Associate Justice Shama Mesiwala, Court of Appeal, Third District on the Court of Appeal for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. NoNo39.4%7,497
    2. YesYes33.0%6,289
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • Retention of Associate Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictYes/No question
    Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, Court of Appeal, Third DistrictBallot question (form set by state law)

    Shall Associate Justice Retention of Associate Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, Court of Appeal, Third District be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

    A yes vote means

    A yes vote keeps Retention of Associate Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, Court of Appeal, Third District on the Court of Appeal for a new term; a no vote removes the justice, and the Governor appoints a replacement.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: California Elections Code § 13203 (retention ballot form) ↗
    1. YesYes36.8%7,017
    2. NoNo34.9%6,650
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

U.S. House 1

  • U.S. Representative District 52 candidates
    1. TMTom McClintockR58.7%11,189
    2. MMMichael MasudaD39.3%7,482
    Amador County voters only47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

State Legislature 3

City offices 5

Ione

  • City of Ione, Councilmember5 candidates · vote for 3Top 3 of 5 win
    1. AMAmanda M. Fisher-Naranjo15.1%1,203
    2. LSLinda Smylie15.0%1,194
    3. WWWes Windley13.5%1,077
    4. JMJack Mitchell11.6%927
    5. DJDave Johnson11.1%883
    6. WTWrite-In TotalsWrite-in1.9%153
    Amador County count2 of 2 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

Jackson

  • City of Jackson, Councilmember3 candidates · vote for 2Top 2 of 3 win
    1. CGConnie Gonsalves23.6%1,054
    2. SOSteve Oneto21.9%979
    3. SMSierra McLean21.1%944
    4. WTWrite-In TotalsWrite-in0.3%14
    Amador County count3 of 3 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

Plymouth

  • City of Plymouth, Councilmember3 candidates · vote for 2Top 2 of 3 win
    1. WJWendy J. Bottomley29.0%327
    2. RERaymond Estey25.7%289
    3. SMStephanie Moreno20.4%230
    4. WTWrite-In TotalsWrite-in0.8%9
    Amador County count1 of 1 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

Sutter Creek

  • City of Sutter Creek, Councilmember3 candidates · vote for 2Top 2 of 3 win
    1. MSMayla Swift-Burgess28.3%762
    2. ALAaron Linker19.6%529
    3. SFSusan Feist18.5%499
    4. WTWrite-In TotalsWrite-in0.8%23
    Amador County count2 of 2 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • City of Sutter Creek, TreasurerYes/No question
    City of Sutter Creek, TreasurerBallot title

    City of Sutter Creek, Treasurer

    A yes vote means

    The full ballot question is available from the county elections office.

    Source: Amador County Elections ↗
    1. Write-In TotalsWrite-In Totals5.9%80
    Amador County count2 of 2 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

City measures 1

Sutter Creek

  • Measure R – City of Sutter Creek, Appointed City TreasurerYes/No question
    Measure RBallot question

    Shall the office of City Treasurer be appointive?

    A yes vote means

    A YES vote makes Sutter Creek's City Treasurer an appointed position (hired and supervised by the City Council or its designee, such as the City Manager) instead of an elected four-year office, effective in and after December 2026.

    Needed to pass

    Majority

    Source: Amador County Elections, Nov. 3, 2026 General Election – Measure R Question ↗
    1. YesYes52.5%707
    2. NoNo40.9%551
    Amador County count2 of 2 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

School and college boards 2

Amador County Unified School District

  • Amador County Unified School District, Trustee Area 12 candidates
    1. KLKeith Lynch58.7%2,120
    2. SCShane Crowe28.6%1,035
    3. WTWrite-In TotalsWrite-in0.3%11
    Amador County count9 of 9 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections
  • Amador County Unified School District, Trustee Area 22 candidates
    1. RJRonnie Jean Gold62.2%2,461
    2. PAPatricia A. Angeja25.0%989
    3. WTWrite-In TotalsWrite-in0.5%20
    Amador County count7 of 7 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

County, school and district measures 1

  • Measure S – Amador County, Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Fee RenewalYes/No questionNeeds two-thirds to pass
    Measure SBallot question

    To continue addressing community blight by removing and disposing abandoned and wrecked, or dismantled vehicles, shall the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program and the associated vehicle registration fee of $1 per vehicle and $3 per certain commercial vehicles be re-established for a ten year period, generating approximately $55,000 annually to be used exclusively for the removal and disposal of abandoned and wrecked vehicles throughout the county and incorporated cities?

    A yes vote means

    A YES vote re-establishes Amador County's Abandoned Vehicle Abatement fee of $1 per registered vehicle ($3 for certain commercial vehicles) for ten years, raising about $55,000 a year solely to remove and dispose of abandoned and wrecked vehicles countywide, including the cities. Voters rejected the fee in 2022.

    Needed to pass

    Two-thirds

    Source: Amador County Elections, Nov. 3, 2026 General Election – Measure S Question ↗
    1. YesYes65.5%12,473
    2. NoNo29.3%5,575
    Amador County count47 of 47 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 1:54 p.m. PTSource: Amador County Elections

About this information

County results come from the Amador County Elections. Statewide and districtwide totals come from the California Secretary of State. See the source links on each result; counts are semi-official and will change until certification, and no winners are called here.