Photo by Parker Johnson on Unsplash

Matt’s 2018 San Francisco Voting Guide

It’s that time of the biennium everyone: mid-term elections!

For better or worse, as citizens of San Francisco, we don’t have an opportunity to stick it to President Trump and Congress by unseating some despicable enemy of the country like Devin Nunes, but we do get to vote on a few dozen elected officials and sixteen ballot propositions! Woo-hoo…? At least reading dozens of articles, endorsements, voter guides, and ballot materials has distracted me momentarily from my creeping anxiety surrounding this election and taking back the House (the Senate is a lost cause… sigh.)

Hopefully, my distillation of those materials will help you, dear fellow citizen, make more informed choices at the ballot box (if you’re actually going to the ballot box, please sign up for vote-by-mail; it’s so, so much nicer).

Critical Tools: San Francisco Chronicle Voter Guide, The Los Angeles Times, YIMBY Party Voter Guide, the SPUR Voter Guide, and Ballot.fyi is kind of useful.

Note: I’ve ordered these as they appear on the San Francisco mail-in ballot.

Ballot 1

Voter Nominated Offices

• Governor: Gavin Newsom. He’s endorsed by nearly everyone, has decades of experience, and will continue Governor Brown’s excellent work. I’ll admit, he loves the limelight a bit too much for my taste and has a bit of an air of entitlement, but he has a tremendous wealth of experience. Oh, and his opponent is a joke. As the SF Chronicle summarized: “Gavin Newsom was diving into the deep end of California politics and policy, running for mayor of San Francisco, when John Cox was still an Illinois resident in pursuit of the pipe dream of becoming its U.S. senator in 2003.” (Fun fact: Cox lost that Senate race to a guy named Barack Obama.)
• Lt. Governor: Ed Hernandez. There are two great options here, but Hernandez has experience in Sacramento and a more inspirational personal journey. The SF Chronicle and LA Times agree.
• Secretary of State: Alex Padilla. An incumbent, who’s done a good job in general, and specifically on fighting Trump’s rhetoric on illegal voting. The SF Chronicle and LA Times agree.
• Controller: Betty Yee. By all accounts, she’s done a good job; keep her in office. The SF Chronicle and LA Times agree.
• Treasurer: Fiona Ma. Not many people think about the State Board of Equalization (it’s an antiquated piece of bureaucracy that needs to be abolished). Ma was elected to that board and resisted the natural urge to levy the powers of her office; instead taking the admirably responsible position of advocating for reform from within. Through that effort, she earned the trust of this taxpayer and she has the professional accounting credentials to make a great treasurer for our state. The SF Chronicle and LA Times agree.
• Insurance Commissioner: Steve Poizner. A chance to prove I’m not a partisan hack; wonderful! Poizner once held this post as a Republican and tried to persuade the legislature to make it a non-partisan office (it’s a regulator, so it should be non-partisan, right?). He did a great job then and should be put back into office. Furthermore, Poizner is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing: he believes in climate change, he aggressively protected consumer rights, and has campaigned on improving health insurance coverage. The SF Chronicle and LA Times agree. (Fun fact: CA is the 5th largest insurance market in the world!)
• Attorney General: Xavier Becerra. Becerra was appointed by Jerry Brown and I trust his decision-making over my research. The other guy is a Republican who faces numerous allegations of judicial misconduct.
• Board of Equalization Member, District 2: Malia Cohen. I noted above that my admiration for Fiona Ma stems from her political courage in advocating for the abolition of an office she was elected to. That office is the Board of Equalization. It should go; it’s a waste of tax payer money. Malia seems like the better choice here, but the SF Chronicle sums it up in the title of their endorsement: “Chronicle Recommends: Malia Cohen, we guess, for tax board.”

Federal Offices

• Senate: Diane Feinstein. She’s 84. That’s the oldest Senator in a body that’s not exactly known for it’s youth. That makes her the 8th oldest Senator of all time. By the end of her next term, she’ll be the 5th. What’s more, she’s sitting on a guaranteed Democratic seat in the most populist state in the Union — we shouldn’t have a shortage of options here. Frankly, I’m frustrated she hasn’t done the noble thing of stepping aside for a new generation, but, *sigh*, I sure did love that she was on the Judiciary Committee during the Kavanaugh hearings. And Leon isn’t the answer. The SF Chronicle and LA Times agree.
• House, District 12: Nancy Pelosi. My feelings are in a similar vein to those expressed above about Feinstein. But with Pelosi, it’s a much longer, more conflicted, more nuanced discussion. Fortunately, I don’t have to engage with that discussion here because the choice between her and Lisa Remmer couldn’t be clearer; Nancy should get another term.

State Assembly

• State Assembly, District 17: David Chiu. Assemblyman Chiu deserves to be re-elected. He’s been pretty good on housing and transportation.

Non-Partisan Offices

• State Judicial Retention Elections: Vote Yes on Everyone. A quick explainer here on why you’re just voting yes on everyone. California Supreme Court Justices and California Courts of Appeal judges are nominated by the governor to 12 year terms, but they are required to stand for retention elections at the end of that term. These are basically recall elections; you vote “no” if there’s reason to boot them. None of them deserve to be booted. (Fun fact: James Humes made history as the first openly gay justice appointed to the California Courts of Appeal in 2012.)
• State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Marshall Tuck. This is an incredibly important office and a rather contentious election. To vastly over-simplify, Tuck is a reformer and Thurmond is an ally of teachers unions. I’m a fan of both (I love teachers! They should be paid much more!), but I have to agree with the SF Chronicle’s assessment that Tuck has proven his willingness to fight tough battles on behalf of the future of the children of California; whereas Thurmond has repeatedly shied away from principled stances and aligned himself with the status quo.
• San Francisco Community College Board: vote for everyone but Davila. You vote for three board members here and there are four candidates; so effectively, you’re just deciding which one to boot. And boy is it hard to figure out! There’s not a lot of press coverage on this one, but the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) oversees a $174M operation and plays a critical role in our City’s educational system. Olivieri is the only challenger here; everyone else is an incumbent. And despite that fact, he’s racked up an impressive set of endorsements; including the new mayor, London Breed and YIMBY. The CCSF doesn’t seem like the best run operation, and Davila hasn’t even been responsible enough to regularly make filing deadlines, so I say she’s the weakest link; goodbye.

Ballot 2

Member, Board of Education (pick 3)

• Michele Parker, Phil Kim, and Alida Fisher? Honestly, analyzing 18 different candidates for school board seats is too much even for me… three of the seven San Francisco Unified School District board seats are up for grabs and no incumbents are running. So, responsible or not, I’m relying on the SF Chronicle to sort through the madness. They endorse Michelle Parker, Phil Kim and Alida Fisher. YIMBY only endorses one candidate: Michelle Parker, calling her “an unusually well-qualified candidate.”

Okay, now for the fun stuff… finally!

California State Propositions

Quick note: I’ve cross-checked the endorsements from YIMBY, SPUR, SF Chronicle, and LA Times. I specifically call out “yes” or “no” endorsements. If I don’t mention one of them, it just means that the organization declined to endorse one way or the other.

• 1: Yes!! General Obligation Bonds must be approved by voters (this seems silly to me, but a lot of states require it). Prop 1 authorizes $4B in bonds for affordable housing. It’s a huge step towards a more sustainable housing situation in California and enjoyed wide support in the legislature. SPUR literally can’t think of a single con on this on. YIMBY, SPUR, SF Chronicle, and pretty much everyone else agree.
• 2: Yes. Prop 2 is the icing on the cake after Prop 1; it would provide $2B in funds toward the construction and renovation of supportive housing for people suffering from mental illness. This funding was approved by the state legislature in 2016, but has been held up by litigation. Approval of this Prop would resolve the lawsuit quicker. YIMBY, SPUR, SF Chronicle, and the LA Times agree.
• 3: No. Careful, this one’s a bit tricky. Prop 3 seeks to authorize $8.7B in state bonds for water projects and natural habitat restoration; sounds great, right? Well, there appears to be a bit of bad-faith wheeling-and-dealing here. If you recall, voters just approved a $4B water bond measure in June. Unlike Prop 3, that measure was vetted and constructed by law makers; which, among other things, means it has procedures to ensure the money is used properly. This measure on the other hand, did an end-run around the legislature and is backed by many entities that profit directly from the funding. Some of the stuff in here is great, but some of it is a bit dirty. And none of it, once approved, has much accountability attached. There are better, more responsible ways to go about this. YIMBY, SPUR endorse “yes.” The SF Chronicle, LA Times, and notably, the Sierra Club recommend “no.”
• 4: Yes. Authorizes $1.5B in bonds for infrastructure improvements at 13 children’s hospitals across the state. There’s no real opposition to this one. (And, no, I’m not just in support because my wife is a pediatrician; although I would really prefer the ceiling of her call room to not collapse on her.) The LA Times and SF Chronicle agree.
• 5: NOOOO! This one sounds innocent enough but is so, so bad. The infamous Proposition 13 (passed in 1978) keeps property taxes at artificially low levels in California; a policy that disproportionately helps the wealthy, hurts renters, hurts schools, and robs communities of autonomy. If that weren’t enough, Prop 13 allows homeowners 55 and older to transfer their property tax to any new property they purchase. A family friend recently purchased a multi-million dollar property and is paying pennies on property tax because they transferred the rate from a property they bought in the 80s… very nice people, but awful, awful public policy. Fortunately, this transfer is allowed only once (okay, not really “fortunate”, just less terrible than what this Prop proposes). This prop would eliminate that cap and allow unlimited transfers. It’s estimated to cost the state $1B per year, forever. Or, as the LA Times headline summarizes: “Proposition 5 is a cynical, self-serving measure cooked up by the real estate industry. Vote no.” YIMBY, LA Times, and the SF Chronicle agree.
• 6: No! The Legislature finally increased the state gas tax to fund a wide array of long overdue public infrastructure projects. This was a huge win and Prop 6 seeks to reverse it. The Bay Area alone stands to lose $3.6 billion should Prop 6 pass. Again, the LA Times does a nice job of summarizing: “It’s hard to overstate how destructive Proposition 6 would be for California. Vote no.” YIMBY, SPUR, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Governor Jerry Brown, Firefighters, (almost everyone?) agrees.
• 7: Yes!! Yes, yes, yes let’s take another look at Daylight Savings Time and extend it year-round (meaning the summer hours would become the year-round hours — yea for more daylight in evenings!). There’s a bit of confusion around this measure; a vote “yes” will not result in an immediate change. Due to some old state laws, all this measure really does is give the California Legislature approval to consider moving to year-round Daylight Savings Time. And, get this, Federal Law allows states to stop observing DST, but not to make it permanent. So, a federal law change would be needed as well. But this is a step in the right direction! (And, no, it’s not just because I run a calendar company and timezones are the bane of my existence. At least not the only reason.) The LA Times and the SF Chronicle agree.

We’re not done with state props yet…

Ballot 3

California State Propositions Continued

• 8: No. Another slightly tricky one because it’s phrased in such a misleading way. First clue that something sneaky is going on here: a prop that is ostensibly crafted to improve patient outcomes is opposed by the National Kidney Foundation, the Renal Support Network and other major advocacy groups for dialysis patients. Second clue: it’s pushed by the labor union that has been unsuccessfully trying to unionize a few major dialysis providers. The union may be right, I have no idea, but a prop is no way to negotiate this dispute. The LA Times and the SF Chronicle agree that “no” is the way to vote.
• 9: removed! This was the prop to split California into three separate states but the buzz-kills at the California Supreme Court concluded that this would be a little more complicated than a simple majority vote. (I’m still kind of in favor of this… especially after a couple drinks and a rant about how Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California.)
• 10: No! Oh man, this Prop is like watching a fire spread and turning to an arsonist for help. Prop 10 would entrust local governments with more authority to set rent controls. With rent out of control, I’m sure this feels like a logical step to many, but history has shown that price control measures reliably produce worse results for everyone; especially when they’re locally controlled and applied inconsistently between adjacent cities. These measures paradoxically increase average rents, reduce supply, and make local regulators into king makers. This is why rent control is universally rejected by economists. But don’t take my word for it, I found the SF Chronicle’s analysis to be pretty spot on. SPUR also urges a “no” vote while the LA Times endorses the measure (seemingly out of desperation to try anything in light of the mounting housing crisis, which I sympathize with).
• 11: No. This one is a bit tricky as well, but reasonable minds can disagree. Prop 11 requires ambulance workers to remain on call during their paid work breaks (among a few other things). This sounds reasonable, but the back story is important: the legislature is working on this but the final bill stalled in negotiations. It seems they’re still working on it but one of the parties got impatient and is now pushing this prop. So, it comes down to whether you think we should jump the process through direct democracy or let the legislature do their job by coming to an agreement among all parties. Of course, I always support the latter. The SF Chronicle urges a “no” vote, but the LA Times finds this to be a sensible policy and isn’t as concerned by the process arguments.
• 12: No. I don’t know, I’m torn on this one. In 2008 voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 2, which outlawed “battery pens” for chickens (when you imagine stacks of small chicken cages rising up to the ceiling of warehouse sized barns, you’re thinking of battery cages). Enforcement went into effect in 2015, and as a result, farmers moved to large colony pens (basically cramming chickens into large indoor areas that aren’t caged but still overcrowded). This prop goes further and imposes regulations on the sizes and layouts of these hen houses. I agree with the sentiment and aims of this prop, but I feel that the ballot box is the wrong way to regulate one of the state’s biggest industries. The SF Chronicle urges a “no” vote while the LA Times sides with the chickens.

Okay, home stretch…

San Francisco Propositions

• A: Yes. For a Chinese hoax, it’s impressive how much of the United States is already directly impacted by rising sea levels and climate change. Prop A provides bonds to fund the badly needed replacement of SF’s 100-year old Embarcadero seawall. This measure needs to pass a 2/3 approval bar, so please add your vote to the “yes” column and save (parts of) our city from crumbling into the ocean. SPUR, YIMBY, and the SF Chronicle all endorse the measure.
• B: No. This seems like a well-intended effort to set guidelines for how companies who work with the City of San Francisco protect private personal information, but it has no real teeth, is not well defined, and would create a competing standard with the State. This is better handled by the State of California or (even better) the Feds. SPUR and SF Chronicle both vote “no.”
• C: No. This prop has been getting a lot of attention in the news lately. It adds a tax to the top 300–400 businesses in the city in order to generate $250–300M in yearly revenue to address the homelessness crisis. Marc Benioff (admirably?) has been waging a war of religion in support of the measure, and I was ready to follow his lead. But the SF Chronicle sheds some light here (the entire article is worth the read): “For residents frustrated with the near-standstill conditions, Prop. C might sound like a breakthrough. Instead it would lock in existing spending levels, direct new spending in ways that can’t be amended and subject the city budget to costs that will fluctuate wildly if the economy slides.” So, don’t tell Marc, but I’m voting no. YIMBY and SPUR support Prop C; but SPUR’s support is pretty measured.
• D: Yes. Another tough call. This prop increases the taxes on local cannabis outlets and online retailers with San Francisco customers. I’m supportive of legalization but I also acknowledge that cannabis, like alcohol, is a substance that has significant negative externalities. Now, I can’t tell if this is just a money grab by the Board of Supervisors, or a responsible effort to regulate and control a growing vice industry, but either way, it seems reasonable to me. SF Chronicle votes “no” because they’re worried that this will drive people back to the black market (really? over a 1–5% tax increase?) and everyone else declines to make a recommendation.
• E: No. Prop E forces the city to reallocate a portion of San Francisco’s existing hotel tax for arts-related programs. I support the intent of this measure, but I object to budgeting through ballot props. The SF Chronicle finds me to be an art-hating curmudgeon and urges a “yes” vote.

All the excitement is over and we have to end on a very boring note. But, good news: this final ballot is incredibly easy! The end is within reach.

Ballot 4

Assessor-Recorder

• Carmen Chu: Chu is the incumbent and seems to be doing a good job. The Chronicle endorses her, and that’s good enough for me.

Public Defender

• Choice 1: Jeff Adachi
• Choice 2: Jeff Adachi
• Choice 3: Jeff Adachi. (Note that the instructions on choices 2 and 3 say “must be different from your other choices” and we only have Jeff to choose from…)

Member, Board of Supervisors, District 8

• Rafael Mandelman: Mandelman has an impressive list of endorsements, including YIMBY, the SF Chronicle, and State Senator Scott Weiner. Plus, he shook my hand on the corner of Church & Market.

You’ve done it! 🎉 Take a moment to bask in your civil accomplishments!

Okay, moment over, now go do whatever it takes to ensure that this election is a repudiation of President Trump and a signal to the world that America still has a future as the city upon a hill.