EL DORADO COUNTY, Calif. — Money couldn’t buy the vote.
El Dorado County voters delivered a substantial early rebuke to Measure S, a proposed countywide sales tax increase, despite a campaign supporting the measure that enjoyed a significant financial advantage.
The third reported election-night results, released by the El Dorado County Elections Department at 11:40 p.m. Nov. 3, showed 20,449 votes in favor and 40,843 opposed.
That translated to approximately 66.6% voting no and 33.4% voting yes among the reported votes on the measure.
The outcome was a striking setback for a campaign backed financially by Marshall Medical Center, which contributed approximately $600,000 to the effort supporting Measure S, according to campaign finance figures cited in pre-election reporting.
The opposition, meanwhile, relied heavily on volunteers, local organizing, and taxpayer advocacy groups.
The message from the early returns was difficult to ignore: A substantial advertising budget does not necessarily translate into public confidence.
A financial advantage that could not overcome opposition
The campaign supporting Measure S had access to considerable financial resources.
Campaign finance disclosures reported before Election Day showed Marshall Medical Center contributing approximately $600,000 to the Yes on S committee since January 2025. Marshall-affiliated organizations and funds reportedly contributed another $50,000.
Other contributors included construction and business interests.
By comparison, reported independent expenditures opposing the measure included approximately $4,540 from Reform California’s political action committee and approximately $690 from Patriots of El Dorado County.
Comparing those identified figures, Marshall’s contribution alone was approximately 115 times the combined opposition expenditures cited above.
That is a remarkable financial imbalance.
The supporting campaign could pay for professional political consultants, advertising, mailers and the prominent Strong as Steel El Dorado campaign signs placed throughout the county.
Opponents described their effort as a grassroots campaign powered by residents who purchased their own signs, distributed information and talked with neighbors.
It was a political David-and-Goliath contest, at least financially.
But the early returns suggest that the larger campaign struggled to persuade voters.
What Measure S would have cost residents
Measure S proposed a 3/8% sales tax increase for 30 years, with projected revenue of approximately $13 million annually.
Over the full term, that represents approximately $390 million in projected revenue, assuming the annual estimate remained consistent.
The measure’s stated objectives included:
-
Updating hospital facilities, equipment and technology.
-
Maintaining access to local emergency rooms.
-
Supporting fire protection and wildfire prevention.
-
Improving emergency response to fires, accidents and medical emergencies.
Supporters argued that these investments were necessary to protect public safety and maintain essential services throughout El Dorado County.
The measure’s long-term financial commitment, however, became a central point of debate.
Voters were not simply being asked to approve a temporary tax to address an immediate emergency. They were being asked to authorize a new sales tax lasting three decades.
For many taxpayers, that distinction mattered.
The hospital funding debate
One of the most contentious aspects of Measure S involved the proposed allocation of tax revenue to a local hospital.
Marshall Medical Center argued that it needed approximately $40 million to address outstanding seismic compliance requirements and other infrastructure concerns.
California requires acute-care hospitals to meet specified seismic safety standards by Jan. 1, 2030, subject to applicable extensions.
The hospital’s financial position also included state assistance. In a September response published by Placerville NewsWire, Marshall Interim CEO Martin Entwistle said the hospital had received a $1.25 million state grant award through the Small and Rural Hospital Relief Program, although the funds had not yet been paid. He described the award as reimbursement for eligible expenses already incurred.
Entwistle also said Marshall had invested more than $70 million in work associated with seismic compliance, while estimating approximately $125 million in total capital needs.
Those figures are important to understanding the debate. The state grant was not $40 million, and it did not eliminate Marshall’s larger infrastructure needs.
However, opponents questioned whether a countywide sales tax was the appropriate way to finance improvements at a private, nonprofit hospital when residents throughout the county would be required to pay the additional tax.
Supporters maintained that the measure would strengthen an interconnected emergency-response system.
Opponents questioned whether the distribution formula and oversight provisions provided sufficient protection for taxpayers over a 30-year period.
The opposing argument submitted for the ballot characterized the arrangement as a “sweetheart deal for a single private hospital.”
The disagreement was not necessarily about whether hospitals, firefighters or wildfire prevention needed additional resources. It was about whether this particular tax structure was the right way to pay for them.
A grassroots campaign answers the spending machine
On Nov. 4, opposition leaders Dan Dellinger and Ray Nutting issued an open letter thanking residents who participated in the campaign against Measure S.
They described their effort as an all-volunteer grassroots operation, with residents making signs, purchasing professionally printed materials and sharing information through conversations and social media.
Their letter also thanked the El Dorado County Taxpayers Association for its white paper analysis and recognized the involvement of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Taxpayer Protection Committee, Reform California, El Dorado Patriots and South Lake Tahoe City Council.
Dellinger and Nutting credited ordinary residents with helping educate voters about what they considered a flawed measure.
Their closing message was straightforward:
“Our success is your success.”
The letter provides a glimpse into the opposition’s strategy: Rather than attempting to match the financial resources of the supporting campaign, organizers concentrated on voter education, neighborhood outreach and taxpayer concerns.
An important distinction about the required vote
Measure S was placed on the ballot through a voter initiative, rather than simply being imposed through a Board of Supervisors tax proposal.
That distinction matters.
Although special taxes generally carry a two-thirds approval requirement when proposed by governing bodies, California court decisions have allowed certain voter-initiated special taxes to pass with a simple majority.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office specifically recognizes that distinction. Consequently, Measure S was presented under the majority-vote standard, not the traditional two-thirds threshold.
The mathematics of the early rejection
The Nov. 3 election-night numbers provide a useful measure of the challenge facing the Yes on S campaign.
At the reported 11:40 p.m. tally:
| Measure S | Votes |
|---|---|
| Yes | 20,449 |
| No | 40,843 |
| Combined total | 61,292 |
The reported figures translate to approximately 66.6% opposition and 33.4% support.
There is a minor numerical discrepancy in the original election-night material: It cites 64,849 total votes, but the two reported vote categories add up to 61,292. The percentages above use the actual sum of the Yes and No figures.
The county cautions that election-night results are unofficial. Its election information page states that results will continue to be updated twice weekly after Election Day until ballots have been tabulated, with Dec. 3, 2026, established as the certification deadline.
The final outcome therefore remains subject to the county’s official canvass.
Money can buy exposure. It cannot buy trust.
Political campaigns spend money for a reason.
Contributions finance advertising, professional messaging, campaign consultants, signs, mailers and the organizational machinery needed to reach voters.
But campaign spending has a limitation: It cannot force voters to accept the argument.
Measure S presented El Dorado County residents with a complicated proposition involving emergency medical services, hospital infrastructure, fire protection and wildfire prevention.
Those are legitimate public concerns.
But voters also had to evaluate the proposed funding arrangement, the financial interests involved, the distribution of revenue and the length of the tax commitment.
The early results suggest that many voters were unconvinced.
Whether their decision reflected opposition to another tax, concerns about Marshall’s financial interests, distrust of the proposed arrangement or a combination of those factors cannot be established from the vote totals alone.
What can be established is that the campaign’s substantial financial advantage did not produce comparable voter support.
The final verdict belongs to the voters
For El Dorado County, Measure S may become an important example of the limits of campaign spending.
The proposal had institutional backing, substantial financial resources and endorsements from organizations concerned about public safety.
Its opponents had considerably fewer documented financial resources but succeeded in presenting an alternative argument that resonated with a substantial portion of the electorate.
There is another lesson here for public officials and organizations considering future tax proposals.
Residents want to know where their money is going, who benefits, how expenditures are controlled and whether the proposed commitment is reasonable.
Those questions deserve answers before Election Day, not after it.
As the remaining ballots are counted, the final result will determine Measure S’s fate.
But the early message from the voting booth is already unmistakable.
Money can buy a campaign. It cannot buy public confidence.
If the early numbers hold, El Dorado County voters will have delivered a powerful reminder that the ultimate authority in a ballot-box decision belongs not to the institution with the deepest pockets, but to the people casting the votes.
