Op-ed: Troubling patterns of Rishi Kumar’s candidacy for Santa Clara County assessor

Public institutions are built slowly, through decades of effort, trust and responsible stewardship. They can be weakened quickly when leadership disregards the delicate balance required to keep essential services functioning.

This is especially true in Santa Clara County, where the property tax system underpins everything from public hospitals and behavioral health to schools, housing programs and transportation infrastructure. The person we elect as county assessor must understand not only the mechanics of the job, but the gravity of its impact on residents.

This is why we are troubled by the candidacy of Rishi Kumar. The pattern of his public actions raises serious questions about the intentions that would guide his leadership in an office that affects every household in Santa Clara County.

Mr. Kumar chaired the No on Measure A campaign, opposing a county revenue measure created to protect the health and hospital system during a period of significant federal cuts. Measure A was crafted to stabilize trauma care, clinics and behavioral health services that families rely on, especially women who often shoulder caregiving responsibilities. In a moment when the safety net required protection, his choice to oppose this effort does not reflect the intentions that many of us expect from someone seeking to manage the very system that funds these services.

During the Measure A debate, Mr. Kumar publicly alleged that the county’s voter information mailers were a misuse of public funds. These allegations were widely reported in local media, despite an absence of confirmed wrongdoing. Public trust is fragile, and claims of misconduct should be made with great care. The willingness to raise such accusations without solid grounding creates real concern about how he views the responsibilities of leadership and the seriousness with which he approaches public integrity.

Mr. Kumar has also advanced a proposal for a substantial property tax exemption for older homeowners. According to his own campaign materials, this proposal would remove $1.5 billion to $2 billion from the county budget each year. Property tax revenue supports health care, housing, child welfare and basic services that families depend on. A proposal with such significant consequences for the entire community requires thoughtful intention, broad consultation and deep understanding. We see none of that reflected here.

Moreover, Mr. Kumar frequently characterizes county departments as wasteful in interviews, forums and campaign materials. While improvement is always possible, broad declarations of waste without comprehensive analysis can undermine confidence in public systems. These statements raise questions about whether he intends to strengthen the institutions families rely on or simply discredit them.

Leadership in the Assessor’s Office requires steadiness, respect for public institutions and an intention to safeguard the stability of the systems that keep our communities functioning. It requires someone who approaches the role with humility, seriousness and a clear commitment to the public good.

As women who understand the weight of responsibility and the importance of systems that work, we believe Santa Clara County needs leadership grounded in sincere intention and genuine care for community well-being. The future of our public institutions depends on it.