Skip to main content
  • Elena Condes

  • Elena Condes an LGBTQ+ Latinx attorney who has been in private practice in the Bay Area for over 20 years. Her practice offers criminal defense, work-related crimes, clearing criminal records, and other services. In her campaign materials, she says she will bring together all of her experiences to provide “equal access to justice” for all. 

    Condes is currently the treasurer for East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association, which she has been a member of for 18 years. She also served on the board of Women Defenders, a professional organization of women criminal defense attorneys and served on the Executive Committee of Alameda County Court Appointed Attorneys Program (CAAP). 

    Condes received the sole endorsement from the East Bay Times, who said Condes “stands out as the best experienced and most familiar with the workings of Alameda County courts. Condes’ practice focuses on courtroom advocacy that’s a key part of the day-to-day operations of the local judicial system.” Condes has been endorsed by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Carol Brosnahan, the judge who is retiring and leaving this seat open. 

    Condes received her undergraduate degree from the University of Arizona and her law degree from Golden Gate University School of Law. 

    Condes is being challenged by Mark Fickes, a partner at Partner, Cannata O’Toole Fickes & Olson, who previously worked at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Lilla Julia Szelenyi, an administrative law judge for the state workers compensation agency.


    Based on our analysis, Elena Condes is the best choice for judge in Alameda County. 

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Elena Condes

    Elena Condes an LGBTQ+ Latinx attorney who has been in private practice in the Bay Area for over 20 years. Her practice offers criminal defense, work-related crimes, clearing criminal records, and other services.

    Elena Condes an LGBTQ+ Latinx attorney who has been in private practice in the Bay Area for over 20 years. Her practice offers criminal defense, work-related crimes, clearing criminal records, and other services. In her campaign materials, she says she will bring together all of her experiences to provide “equal access to justice” for all. 

    Condes is currently the treasurer for East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association, which she has been a member of for 18 years. She also served on the board of Women Defenders, a professional organization of women criminal defense attorneys and served on the Executive Committee of Alameda County Court Appointed Attorneys Program (CAAP). 

    Condes received the sole endorsement from the East Bay Times, who said Condes “stands out as the best experienced and most familiar with the workings of Alameda County courts. Condes’ practice focuses on courtroom advocacy that’s a key part of the day-to-day operations of the local judicial system.” Condes has been endorsed by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Carol Brosnahan, the judge who is retiring and leaving this seat open. 

    Condes received her undergraduate degree from the University of Arizona and her law degree from Golden Gate University School of Law. 

    Condes is being challenged by Mark Fickes, a partner at Partner, Cannata O’Toole Fickes & Olson, who previously worked at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Lilla Julia Szelenyi, an administrative law judge for the state workers compensation agency.


    Based on our analysis, Elena Condes is the best choice for judge in Alameda County. 

    Elena Condes

    Elena Condes an LGBTQ+ Latinx attorney who has been in private practice in the Bay Area for over 20 years. Her practice offers criminal defense, work-related crimes, clearing criminal records, and other services.

  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES On Prop 13, School and College Facilities Bond

  • This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford. 

    The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments. 

    The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.

    Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water. 

    We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford. 

    The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments. 

    The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.

    Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water. 

    We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.

    This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford. 

    The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments. 

    The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.

    Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water. 

    We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.

    CA Prop 13

    This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system.

Locate My Guide

Find your guide by automatically detecting your location or by entering your voting address.

Choose My Guide

You can also choose your jurisdiction from the following list below