Where the endorsements stand, one weekend out
This is the late-cycle endorsement snapshot, written one weekend before Election Day. We’re publishing it now because some voters will be filling out their ballots over the weekend and want to know whether anything important has shifted in the institutional landscape since our earlier endorsement post.
The short answer: the Yes coalition has held together and modestly expanded; the No coalition remains the same five ballot-argument signers plus CST. We’ll update this post in place if anything material changes between now and Tuesday morning.
Yes on Measure H — institutional endorsements
Per the Yes for RVSD Schools committee (FPPC #1479035), as of this writing:[1]
Federal and state elected officials
- Jared Huffman, U.S. House Representative, CA-2
- Mike McGuire, California State Senator
- Damon Connolly, California State Assemblymember
County
- Brian Colbert, Marin County Supervisor, District 2
- John A. Carroll, Marin County Superintendent of Schools
San Anselmo
- Steve Burdo, Mayor
- Yoav Schlesinger, Town Council
- Tarrell Kullaway, Town Council
RVSD trustees (all five)
- Rachel Litwack, Board President
- Chris Landles-Cobb, Board Clerk
- Shelley Hamilton, Trustee
- Daniel Cassidy, Trustee
- Anna Marsh, Trustee (despite her February dissent on placement, in favor of a larger increase)
Trustees from neighboring districts
- Emily Ulhorn, TUHSD Trustee
- Jenny Holden, TUHSD Trustee
- Ida Times-Green, TUHSD Trustee
- Brad Honsberger, Miller Creek SD Trustee; President, Marin County School Board Association
- Mo de Nieva-Marsh, San Rafael City Schools, Area 3 Trustee
Civic organizations
- Marin County Democratic Party
- League of Women Voters of Marin County
- Ross Valley Teachers Association
- YES Foundation
No on Measure H — institutional opposition
The five signers of the official Argument Against:[2]
- A. Sean Aguilar, real estate asset manager; 25-year RVSD parent and volunteer
- Denyce Volger-Codoni, retired Vice President of Marsh McLennan Insurance
- Jeff Wells, San Anselmo resident
- Richard Barham, 25-year San Anselmo resident
- George Jackson, school fundraiser
Plus the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers (CO$T), with Mimi Willard as president — running organizational opposition without a dedicated “No on H” campaign committee.
What we know about late-cycle dynamics
A few practical observations from the past two weeks:
No formal Marin IJ editorial endorsement of Measure H has been published as of this writing. The IJ editorial board endorsed Measure I (Sausalito Marin City sports field bond) and took no position on Measure D (LCM bond) in their April 22 editorial. They have not yet published a Measure H endorsement; that may or may not come before June 2. (Their general pattern with school operating-revenue measures is to support them, but absence of an endorsement isn’t a No signal — they sometimes don’t take positions on contested measures.)
No organized No-on-H committee has emerged. Per Ballotpedia’s tracking, no opposition committee has been registered with the Marin County Registrar of Voters as of the publish date of this post. CST opposes the measure programmatically but is not running a dedicated No-on-H committee comparable to the NoOnERVSD effort against the 2025 Measure E. If that holds through Election Day, the absence of a funded opposition committee is a structural advantage for Yes — though as we’ve seen with the 2024 rent-control results, formal opposition organization isn’t always necessary for a No vote to win in Marin.
Yard signs are visible across both Fairfax and San Anselmo. Yes signs from KeepRVSDSchoolsOpen.org are noticeably more numerous than informal No signs. This isn’t a direct vote indicator — yard-sign visibility correlates loosely with vote share — but it does suggest the Yes campaign has more on-the-ground volunteer infrastructure than the opposition.
The trustees have shown public unity around Measure H. All five sitting trustees endorsed the measure, including Anna Marsh whose February board-vote dissent argued for a larger increase. Public unity in a contested measure is a stronger signal than it sounds — boards that fracture on placement don’t always recover that unity for the campaign.
What we don’t know
The polling has not been updated publicly since Godbe’s December 2025 presentation. The campaign committees have not (to our knowledge) commissioned and released additional polling, and there are no public independent pre-election polls of Marin school measures.
So the most-recent public read on the actual vote remains the December poll’s ~65% favorability with a 4–5% margin of error. The trajectory over the campaign cycle is unknown to anyone outside the campaign committees.
What this means for your ballot
Endorsements aren’t a substitute for working through the decision yourself. We’ve laid out the case for Yes, the case for No, and the various analytical pieces throughout this post series. Each voter ultimately decides based on what they think the right call is.
But the institutional landscape going into the final weekend is meaningfully tilted toward Yes. The federal, state, county, and town elected officials whose constituents are voting are nearly uniformly endorsing. The League of Women Voters and the teachers’ union are endorsing. The trustees are endorsing. The Marin County Democratic Party is endorsing. Trustees from three neighboring districts are endorsing.
Voters who reach a different conclusion are entitled to do so, and we’ve represented the No case fairly throughout this site. But the people who have professional obligations to study questions like this carefully — the elected officials, the school trustees, the LWV, the trustees from neighboring districts who have the institutional context — overwhelmingly arrive at Yes.
That’s part of why we recommend a Yes vote on Measure H.
If your ballot is sitting on the kitchen counter as you read this, please consider returning it this weekend. Two days from now is too late.