Lee’s June 5th, 2018 San Francisco Voting Guide

As Dinah Sanders correctly notes, in a one-party state like California, “Primary elections can seem less important, but they are actually when we have the greatest opportunity to create political change.” So fire up the ballots.

PART 1: THE PEOPLE

1. Governor

Remember, it’s a primary. The top two winners of this election, regardless of party, will go to the November ballot. So don’t waste your vote on Gavin Freakin’ Newsom. He’ll get there just fine without your vote or mine.

I myself will be voting for John Chiang. He’s the state treasurer who knows that “Fiscal policy is social policy” . I’m here for the guy who dares to poke Prop 13, even tentatively.

I can’t recommend Antonio Villaraigosa, unfortunately, because of his focus on local government control. In California’s housing crisis, local control means empowering wealthy areas to crush new housing developments and ship their poor people off to Vallejo. We can’t encourage this sort of thing.

2. Lieutenant Governor

Per the Chron: “There’s not much for the lieutenant governor to do, and the job’s current occupant once said the best thing the state could do would be to get rid of it. “ Nonetheless, the lite gov sits on the California Coastal Commission and on the UC Board of Regents, and that’s where Newsom once was, so it doesn’t pay to count it out entirely. In a perfect world, I’d vote for ex-Richmond mayor Gayle McLaughlin, but she’s unfortunately not a serious contender, so my vote goes to Eleni Kounalakis. Why should only men get to coast into politics on family money, indeed. But she’s got politics experience, she’s on record as opposing any expansion of offshore drilling (there’s that State Lands Commission seat) — and she told the NRA to F off. My kids go to a California school: I’m voting for the gun control candidate.

3. Secretary of State

Alex Padilla. Anyone who can get the endorsement of the Chronicle and the Guardian is a special fella. He’s the voter’s rights, transparent elections guy.

4. Controller

Betty Yee. Likewise, though in this case, she’s an experienced financial officer running against a Republican “entrepreneur”.

5. Treasurer

Fiona Ma is going to win this one. Why not vote for Vivek Viswanathan, the guy literally running across the state to campaign against corporate/PAC/special-interest money in politics? Bonus: his ideas seem really good.

6. Attorney General

Incumbent Xavier Becerra has been fighting the Trump agenda since day one, and honestly doing an extremely good job. Dave Jones sounds like he’d be good too, probably? But this is a vital job and we should keep the guy with a proven record of effectiveness in the role.

7. Insurance Commissioner

You should vote for Kermit the Frog before you give your vote to raging anti-immigrant xenophobe cowardly-Republican-running-as-no-party Steve Poizner for anything up to and including state dog poop collector. Why not vote for perfectly good state senator Ricardo Lara? He has political experience, and he’s already written one bill in an attempt to bring single-payer health care to California.

8. Board of Equalization Member, District 2

The Mercury News pretty much says it all: “Pick [Malia] Cohen for tax board that should be shut down.” “Cohen is the only District 2 candidate who seems to have a sense of what she would do if elected. She wants to ensure the board carries out its few remaining duties well and transparently and that it rebuilds its relationship with the employees who are left and with county assessors around the state.”

9. United States Senate

I am voting for Dianne Feinstein because this is no time to get rid of our most effective Democratic operatives.

10. United States Representative

Nancy Pelosi. Same deal.

11. State Assembly Member, District 19

Phil Ting was a co-sponsor of SB 827. While not perfect, it was still the most energetic attempt we’ve seen in a while to address the housing crisis on a state level. I’m pleased to vote for him.

12. Judges of the Superior Court

This is a weird one. The Guardian explains it:

“Under the state Constitution, Superior Court judges are elected officials, but the law has a loophole: If a judge steps down in the middle of their term, the governor appoints the replacement. And unless someone comes forward to challenge that incumbent, the race never even appears on the ballot.

The vast majority of judges in the state who retire or otherwise leave the bench do so in the middle of their terms. So it’s rare that an open seat comes up.

There are good arguments that judicial seats shouldn’t be subject to the electoral process. Federal judges don’t have to stand for election; that gives them the ability to make decisions without fearing political backlash. (The unanimous decision desegregating the schools in Brown v. Board of Education would never have survived a plebiscite in 1954, nor would the judges who signed it.) California appellate and Supreme Court judges aren’t elected, and only have to face the voters every 12 years for confirmation.

But the California Constitution gives voters the say over local judges — except that voters typically don’t pick local judges. The vast majority are appointed by the governor.

And governors of California, for the most part, don’t appoint San Francisco public defenders to the bench. In the past 30 years, only one person has gone directly from the job of defending indigents charged with crimes to the judgeship. Yes, former PDs can become judges, but typically only after they have gone to work in the private sector.

Those are some of the facts that define the four judicial races on the June ballot.

In an unusual move, four deputy public defenders, frustrated with the direction of the courts on issues like bail reform, decided to challenge incumbent judges.”

So no one is saying these are bad judges. Curtis Karnow, specifically, “is a particularly odd target for this ambush from the left. His 2008 article in the Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, “Setting Bail for Public Safety,” is often cited by progressives who want to reform a bail system that discriminates against he poor. He has developed courses to help officers of the court identify and prevent implicit bias in the system. He is one of the few San Francisco judges equipped to take on complex cases about technology.” per the Chronicle. So definitely vote for him. But for the other three? I honestly don’t know.

13. Superintendent of Public Instruction

Tony K. Thurmond is the teachers’ candidate from Richmond, with experience and a solid list of endorsements.

14. San Francisco Mayor

1. London Breed
2. Jane Kim
3. Mark Leno

Dinah Sanders has a good writeup of why I support Breed. Fundamentally, she’s just…the only candidate who seems to understand that we can’t stop people at the airports, and we need to make policy with the understanding that the population of SF is growing and that all those people want to sleep indoors. Jane Kim is smart, progressive, and effective, but I worry that she will be a disaster for housing. Mark Leno…..is not Angela Alioto.

PART 2: THE PROPOSITIONS

2A: STATE AND REGIONAL

68: Water, Parks Bond: YES

Per the Sacramento Bee: “It has been more than a decade since California voters were last asked to approve a statewide bond to upgrade parks and make sure the state’s water supply is clean and protected. This $4.1 billion bond measure is intelligently constructed and a reasonable ask.”

See that language in the proposition text about climate adaptation? This is the thing the states have to do right now because the federal government won’t. It’s up to us.

69: Fuel tax & vehicle fee restriction: YES

Ugh, this is so dumb, we should not be doing ballot box budgeting, but vote yes on this stupid proposition lest next election we get an even stupider proposition requiring transportation money to be spent only on motor vehicle roads. This one explicitly allows for transportation money to go to bike infrastructure and public transit as well. Also it costs nothing.

70: Spending cap-and-trade-revenue: NO

Apparently this was put on the ballot as part of a deal to give Republicans a chance to sabotage greenhouse gas emissions control policies. It is a bad idea and will increase governmental gridlock.

71: Ballot measure effective date — YES

Delays an election result from taking effect until all votes are counted. Logical, good sense, costs nothing. Why is this even a proposition.

72: Rainwater capture systems — YES

This encourages homeowners to install rainwater recovery systems — this is a public good in our drought-vulnerable state — by removing the tax increase that it would otherwise trigger. As the Guardian says, “This is another carve out to the insane Prop. 13, but sure. Vote yes.”

Regional Measure 3: Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan: YES

Raises the bridge toll to provide desperately needed funds to public transit. As SPUR says, “Transit fares and bridge tolls have not increased in parallel in recent years; currently, it costs more to use transit to cross a bridge than it does to drive across a bridge. By indexing bridge tolls to inflation, RM3 would start to correct the imbalance and would keep toll rates at appropriate levels in future years.”

2B: CITY AND COUNTY

A: SFPUC Revenue Bonds: YES

From the Guardian:

“This is a sleeper, a measure by Sup. Aaron Peskin that would allow the Public Utilities Commission, with approval by the supervisors, to issue revenue bonds for clean power projects. It’s attracted very little attention or opposition — but it could be a huge step toward public power in San Francisco.

This city has its own hydropower dam, and by federal law is supposed to run a public-power system. The reason that PG&E still controls the local electric grid is that for more than 100 years, the city hasn’t been able to approve a bond act to build its own delivery system. We generate power; we can’t sell it to retail customers because PG&E owns the lines and polls and meters.

But if the PUC can issue revenue bonds to build out a renewable-energy infrastructure, potentially including a smart grid, we could transform the way we generate, sell, and distribute power in this town. The benefit to the city: Hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, lower power bills, and an end to PG&E’s dirty power. This is a big deal; vote yes.”

Also supported by SPUR, the Chronicle, & YIMBY.

B: Commissioners Seeking Office: WHO CARES

Not me!

C: Commercial Rent Tax for Child Care and Education: …PROBABLY NOT?

I hate to vote against child care, but housing is probably an even more important issue, and more affects the most vulnerable among us. And if C passes, D can’t pass. Here’s an explanation.

D : Commercial Rent Tax for Housing and Homelessness: YES

This is harm reduction for the homelessness problem/housing crisis. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing.

E: Flavored Tobacco Ban: NO

This is ridiculous.

F: Legal Representation for Tenants: YES

Now this is a good idea. An actual attempt to do something to help renters. Supported by SPUR, YIMBY, the SF Tenants Union, everyone but the Libertarians. And it is projected to possibly actually save money by keeping people out of homelessness. Homelessness is expensive for a city.

G: Schools Parcel Tax: YES

Not only does this exempt senior citizens, it also exempts properties that are used as primary residence. So it’s just a very small additional property tax on multiple properties, to pay our teachers. Which we need to do, if we want to keep them. It’s stupid and piecemeal, but if you own multiple properties in San Francisco, you can afford to pay this tax.

H: Police Use of Tasers: NO, GOD, NO

Do not vote for this, please. It was badly conceived and badly executed.

I: Sports Teams: NO

This proposition is meaningless and does not need to be on the ballot. It is literally a dude named Allen Jones wanting to actually write it into city law that it sucks that the Warriors are moving to SF.

Sources:

• By the Bay “Nonpartisan” Election Guide (they didn’t put the quotes around “nonpartisan”, but you and I know they’re there)
• Dinah Sanders’ election slate 2018
• League of Women Voters California Ballot Recommendations
• League of Women Voters San Francisco Pros & Cons Guide
• Mercury News 2018 Endorsements
• San Francisco Voter Information
• San Francisco Chronicle Voter Guide
• Save the Bay Action Fund Voter Guide
• SF Bay Guardian Endorsements 2018
• SPUR (San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association) Voter Guide
• Voter’s Edge California
• YIMBY Endorsements