Paper Trail Politics Election directory My Area

November 3, 2026 General Election · Election night returns

Mono County election results

5,004ballots counted62.9% of 7,959 registered voters
~222ballots left to countcounty estimate
42contests on the ballotwith semi-official returns

Turnout as ballots are counted

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

  • 202662.9%so far
  • 202250.3%(60.1% final)
  • 202474.2%(79.0% final)
Nov 2022 generalNov 2024 generalNov 2026
0%20%40%60%80%Election Day+7 days+14 days+21 days+28 days2022: 60.1% final2024: 79.0% final2026: 62.9%0%20%40%60%80%Election Day+14 days+28 days2022 60.1%2024 79.0%2026 62.9%
Show the data
YearCounty reportHours after polls closedBallots countedTurnout
20222022-11-09 00:494.82,61533.91%
20222022-11-10 17:0945.23,81649.48%
20222022-11-23 12:10352.24,62559.97%
20222022-11-29 12:25496.44,63360.08%
20242024-11-05 23:063.14,52257.93%
20242024-11-06 19:3023.55,76273.82%
20242024-12-03 15:30667.56,16779.00%
20262026-11-03 20:040.12,76634.75%
20262026-11-03 21:451.82,95237.09%
20262026-11-03 22:442.83,51144.11%
20262026-11-04 16:2320.44,94562.13%
20262026-11-06 16:1568.25,00462.87%

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. YesYes70.4%2,399
    2. NoNo29.6%1,007
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono 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. YesYes67.8%2,251
    2. NoNo32.2%1,071
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono 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. YesYes65.0%2,140
    2. NoNo35.0%1,154
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono 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. YesYes68.7%2,264
    2. NoNo31.3%1,031
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono 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. YesYes68.9%2,303
    2. NoNo31.1%1,041
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono 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. YesYes65.6%2,187
    2. NoNo34.4%1,148
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono 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. YesYes69.4%2,306
    2. NoNo30.6%1,017
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

U.S. House 1

  • U.S. Representative District 52 candidates
    1. MMMichael MasudaD63.9%3,093
    2. TMTom McClintockR36.1%1,750
    Mono County voters only12 of 12 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

State Legislature 2

City offices 1

Mammoth Lakes Town

  • Town of Mammoth Lakes Town Council Member8 candidates · vote for 3Top 3 of 8 win
    1. LMLakota Mikulicich24.4%1,347
    2. SSSteve Shatkin19.4%1,068
    3. CRCory Rice15.9%878
    4. DBDanielle Bauman12.1%666
    5. TNTarek Nuttall9.6%532
    6. SSStacey Slichta7.7%425
    7. MBMark Barrow6.3%350
    8. JEJason Elwell4.5%250
    Mono County count5 of 5 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

School and college boards 3

Bishop Unified School District

  • Bishop Unified School District Board Member5 candidates · vote for 3Top 3 of 5 win
    1. CMClaudia Moya-Tanner30.2%139
    2. VFVirginia Figueroa26.1%120
    3. TMTyler McManus19.4%89
    4. JRJoshua R. Nicholson13.7%63
    5. SGScott Gadea10.7%49
    Mono County count1 of 1 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

Kern Community College District

  • Kern Community College District Trustee, Trustee Area 22 candidates
    1. CSChristina Scrivner52.9%1,037
    2. PBPaula Bray47.1%923
    Mono County count7 of 7 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

Mono County Office of Education

  • Mono County Office of Education Board Member, Trustee Area 33 candidates · vote for 2Top 2 of 3 win
    1. DPDrea Perry43.0%1,895
    2. LKLara Kaylor29.5%1,299
    3. DTDave Titus27.5%1,214
    Mono County count6 of 6 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

Special districts 1

Southern Mono Healthcare District

  • Southern Mono Healthcare District Director5 candidates · vote for 2Top 2 of 5 win
    1. JHJoanne Hunt30.7%1,457
    2. SBSophie Bidet24.8%1,179
    3. YPYuri Parisky20.6%977
    4. DRDaniel Ranson12.9%611
    5. MHMatthew Hall11.1%525
    Mono County count6 of 6 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

County, school and district measures 2

  • Measure O – Eastern Sierra Unified School District, School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 BondsYes/No questionNeeds 55% to pass
    Measure OBallot question

    To construct and equip classrooms and career technical education (CTE) facilities at Coleville High School and Lee Vining High School for job skills/career readiness in engineering, science, automotive technology, welding, carpentry, agricultural mechanics and other skilled trades; and improve school safety/security systems, shall the measure be adopted for School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 of the Eastern Sierra Unified School District authorizing $6,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying approximately $19 per $100,000 assessed value ($390,000 annually) while bonds are outstanding, with citizen oversight, audits, and all money staying local?

    A yes vote means

    A YES vote authorizes $6 million in bonds for School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 of Eastern Sierra Unified School District (the Coleville and Lee Vining high school areas), levied at about $19 per $100,000 of assessed value (about $390,000 annually), to build career technical education classrooms and improve school safety and security.

    Needed to pass

    55%

    Source: Mono County Elections, Nov. 3, 2026 General Election – Measures ↗
    1. YesYes64.2%729
    2. NoNo35.8%407
    Mono County count5 of 5 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections
  • Measure P – Mammoth Unified School District, Parcel TaxYes/No questionNeeds two-thirds to pass
    Measure PBallot question

    With funds that cannot be taken by the State and spent elsewhere, shall Mammoth Unified School District's replacement parcel tax measure to attract and retain experienced teachers, preserve smaller class sizes, and maintain and enhance high quality programs including technology, art, music, math, science, and athletics at Mammoth Elementary School, Mammoth Middle School, Mammoth High School, and Sierra High School be adopted at $99 per parcel raising $1.1 million annually for six years with independent oversight, audits, senior exemptions, and public disclosure of all spending?

    A yes vote means

    A YES vote levies a $99-per-parcel tax for six years (about $1.1 million annually, fiscal years 2027-28 through 2032-33) for Mammoth Unified School District, replacing the Measure G parcel tax that expires June 30, 2027; seniors 65 and older living in their homes are exempt.

    Needed to pass

    Two-thirds

    Source: Mono County Elections, Nov. 3, 2026 General Election – Measures ↗
    1. YesYes64.1%1,918
    2. NoNo35.9%1,073
    Mono County count6 of 6 precinctsUpdated November 6, 2026, 4:15 p.m. PTSource: Mono County Elections

About this information

County results come from the Mono 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.