Matt’s June 2018 San Francisco Election Voter Guide

With all the campaign signs, unwanted flyers on door-stoops, and glad-handing politicians, one may think that it’s finally (finally!) November.

Alas my friends, we’ll have to wait a few more months for California’s annual orgy of democracy and satiate our hunger for an anti-MAGA day with this local preview. That’s right, this Restoration-Hardware-catalog-sized voter guide is only for a smattering primaries, special elections, and (because, California) some ballot initiatives.

So, let’s exercise our civic duty and dive into this asterisk of an election!

Critical Tools: San Francisco Chronicle Voter Guide, YIMBY Party Voter Guide, and SPUR Endorsements.

Explainer on California Open Primaries

Stick with me; this is kind of confusing…

In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 14, which amends the California state constitution to create an open primary system. Instead of a partisan primary system where each policial party’s members select their top candidate for an office to send to the general election (like in a presidential election), this amendment creates a system where all voters in the state can vote for their preferred candidate, of any party, and the top two get sent to the general election.

This system makes it possible (and in California, it’s likely) for two candidates of the same party to face-off for an office in November. While it’s strange to have, for example, two Democratic candidates for Senate on the ballot in November and no Republicans, this system has significant benefits. Instead of relatively low-participation primaries becoming the effective decision point for an election (in California, the Democratic primaries for statewide offices effectively became the meaningful election), voters now get a real choice come November. (Good or bad, it still feels strange; I concede that.)

And with that, let’s get to it.

Primaries

United States Senate — Dianne Feinstein… maybe

Sigh; she should have hung up her spurs and rode into the sunset years ago (she’s literally the oldest person in the Senate; which is not known for it’s youth). I’d jump at the chance to vote for a new progressive voice that’s a little less Clintonian-centrist, and a little more Obama-pragmatic. Kevin de Léon has emerged as Feinstein’s foremost challenger, but I’m not yet convinced he’s the better option. While I admire Léon’s work both as a political organizer and a state Senator, he’s challenging Feinstein from the populist left. I need to learn more.

If you’re torn like I am, you can take solace in the fact that it’ll be Feinstein vs. Léon in November.

Also endorsed by: SF Chronicle, LA Times, President Barack Obama.

United States Representative, District 12 — Nancy Pelosi

What can I say, I have similar feelings about Pelosi (although, she’s a comparatively plucky 77), but there’s no better alternative here. Taking on Pelosi is surely political suicide for any serious Democrat, so the race hasn’t exactly attracted the cream-of-the-crop.

Governor of California — Gavin Newsom

I really like Antonio Villaraigosa, and I sincerely hope he finds a bright future in progressive politics, but Gavin Newsom is the best choice here. Newsom has a tremendous amount of experience (Mayor of SF, Lt. Gov.), a notoriously deep command of the issues, a personal platform years in the making, and a newly pragmatic view of policy-making (forged through his tumultuous-turned-respectful relationship with Governor Jerry Brown).

He has his fair share of faults to be sure (a bit of a pretty-boy who loves a camera and a history of legislative duds), but by all accounts, he’s learned a great deal as Lieutenant Governor.

Also endorsed by: SF Chronicle. The LA Times chose their hometown mayor, Villaraigosa.

The Rest of the Primaries

The name of the game here is voting for someone reasonable enough so that we have two decent options in November.

• Lt. Gov — Jeff Bleich: The field seems to be narrowing around Democrats Bleich, Kounalakis and Hernandez and Republican Harris. I have no clue who any of these people are. The SF Chronicle has a reasonable sounding endorsement of Bleich, so that’s good enough to last me until I do more research in November.
• Secretary of State — Alex Padilla: An incumbent, who’s done a good job fighting Trump’s rhetoric on illegal voting.
• Controller — Betty Yee: She’s running for reelection and her foremost challenger is a political novice.
• Attorney General — Xavier Becerra: I honestly have no clue here and it seems to be a close race. Becerra was appointed by Jerry Brown and I trust his decision-making over my research.
• Treasurer — Fiona Ma: She seems to be running away with it. I barely know anything about her, but she has experience and good credentials.
• Insurance commissioner — Steve Poizner: He’s a former Republican turned independent, but we’ve all made mistakes. The Chronicle likes him.
• Board of Equalization Member, District 2 — who cares: I had to research what the hell this is and it turns out that it’s a boondoggle of an office that everyone advises be disbanded. (If you’re OCD like me and can’t help but complete one of these arrows, I guess Cohen?)
• State Assembly, District 17 — Alejandro Fernandez: There are only two candidates, so unless a write-in wins, these two will be on the ballot again in November. And, honestly, there’s no way Chiu loses, but I dislike the guy.
• JUDGES — Curtis Karnow, Cynthia Ming-mei Lee, Andrew Cheng and Jeffrey Ross: The all-caps isn’t a typo, it’s absurd that any of these incumbent judges are being challenged. Apparently, a public defenders office mounted a campaign to unseat these judges; even though all four are universally respected.
• State superintendent of public instruction — Marshall Tuck: I’m running on fumes here (so many primaries!), so I’ll let the SF Chronicle speak for me: “a Bay Area Assembly member and a former Solano County community college administrator compete to run the state Department of Education.”

San Francisco Elections

Mayor — London Breed

First Choice: London Breed has the most realistic and impactful stances on the city’s two major crisis: housing and homelessness. If you have time, her Medium piece is impressively comprehensive. Similarly, her stance on homelessness is as compassionate as the other candidates but marries that compassion with proposals for real action.

Second Choice: Mark Leno is an admirable and principled public servant. While his policy positions strike me as more of the same San Francisco populism (unrealistic rhetoric without teeth), he would make a fine mayor

Last Choice: Jane Kim has proven to be a fierce campaigner, but don’t be fooled. Her history of pandering to the electorate, taking the easy way out, and unhinged protectionism makes her a terrible choice for the city. I picked a random person for my third choice vote.

London Breed is also endorsed by the SF Chronicle, YIMBY, Senator Kamala Harris, Scott Weiner, and a whole bunch of others.

Board of Supervisors, Distrct 8 — Jeff Sheehy

He’s better on housing than the others and endorsed by YIMBY. Rafael Mandelman seems relatively pragmatic as well and is a reasonable choice if you’re looking for someone slightly more liberal; the Chronicle endorsed Rafael.

State Props

68 — yes. ($4B in bonds for parks & natural resources.) Philosophically, I really do not like budgeting through props. Budgeting is precisely what we elect representatives to do and props bind the state’s ability to respond when times and circumstances change. That said, a prop to authorize bonds is slightly less offensive and, hey, I like parks.

69 — yes. (Requires increased gas tax funds to be used for transportation.) I like this one less than 68, but the backstory persuades me to vote yes: anti-tax forces are pushing for a repeal of the gas tax altogether under the premise that it’s not being used for transportation. This prop short-stops that campaign.

70 — no. (Require a 2/3 super-majority to spend revenues from cap-and-trade fund.) Anytime you see a prop that would create a legislative super-majority requirement, vote no. These are almost always back-door campaigns to create legislative gridlock. If you don’t like how the legislature votes, vote someone else in, don’t break the system.

71 — no. (Delays implementation of ballot-initiatives until after all votes are counted, not just election night votes.) I’m torn. While counting every vote feels uncontroversial, why bind the state’s hands if a vote tally is obvious?

72 — yes. (If a homeowner installs a rainwater recovery system, don’t require that homeowner to get the property value reassessed.) Droughts are the new norm around here. Property owners who take extra steps to conserve shouldn’t be penalized for that effort. There’s no real opposition to this one.

Regional Measure

3 — yes. (Increase bay area bridge tolls and funnel it to BART and other mass transit.) Bay area bridge tolls are already high (just ask my wife), but man-o-man does BART need help. In an ideal world, the regional municipalities would band together to help better fund the region’s mass transit, but this is not an ideal world. If you’re on the fence, I recommend giving the Chronicle’s editorial in support a quick read. YIMBY and Spur are also in favor.

City and County Props

We’re on the home stretch; just 9 more props to go!

A — yes. The SF Public Utilities Commission can already issue bonds to fund new water facilities, but it generally has to use cash for energy-generating facilities. This gives the SFPUC the authority to issue bonds to expand green-energy projects and it’s subject to the same oversight as other bonds. Uncontroversial in my mind.

B — yes. If people want to run for elected office, they shouldn’t be allowed to use their appointed position on a city board or commission as a platform.

C — no. This one is tricky. First, note that this and Prop D are mutually exclusive; so if you’d rather fund homelessness, vote no here and yes on D. That said, I’m very, very much in support of increasing access to early childhood care and education, but increased taxes on commercial landlords will get passed to tenants, who will either increase the cost of their goods to consumers or relocate. There are better ways to push these policy aims. The Chronicle and Spur urge a no vote; YIMBY went no-endorsement.

D — no. If you’re unmoved by my worry that raising commercial taxes will hurt small business owners and increase the cost of living in SF, then go ahead and vote yes here. Between Prop C and D, this is the better of the two. That said, the policy implications of this prop don’t appear to have been well considered. There’s a political backstory to recent changes to commercial tax assessment in the city, and this may hurt some hard-won victories. The Chronicle and YIMBY endorse a yes-vote here; Spur forgoes an endorsement.

E — yes. The ballot initiative here reads as though voters are deciding whether to ban flavored tobacco products, but it’s effectively asking voters to stop the Board of Supervisor’s citywide ban that they already voted to enact. I’m sure this is a distinction without a difference for most voters (tobacco is a public health scourge), but I, personally, would feel conflicted using direct democracy to limit consumer choice. That this is a measure by the tobacco industry to try to stop a passed law makes this decision much easier.

F — yes. I was initially skeptical of this one. Being a liberal lawyer, I’m all for establishing a “civil Gideon,” but I also know that tenants in San Francisco are very well represented and have access to a lot of non-profit resources. That all said, I was surprised to see that both YIMBY and Spur are in support. Reading Spur’s analysis is persuasive: other measures across the United States have been successful in reducing homelessness while also reducing overall costs to the city.

G — yes. We need more teachers and this grants a $5500 raise to teachers. It’s silly that we need to do this through a prop, but the ends justify the means here.

H — no. This is the result of a spat between the Police Commission and SFPD officers’ union. The union is annoyed and trying to circumvent the commission’s work, which is moving towards policies that allow tasers anyway. Even if you’re pro-tasers, know that the Chief of Police, the president of the police commission, and the mayor are all against this. As is the Chronicle, YIMBY, and Spur.

I — no. This is pure silliness. Various parties are upset that the Warriors are relocating from Oakland. This prop does not stop that move, it has no binding policy attached to it, and it doesn’t address the fact that team owners, not cities, decide when to move a team. It’s a hollow prop that shouldn’t be on the ballot.

Wow, that was a lot. For those who got all the way to the end, thanks for sticking it out and for doing your civic duty. Stay sharp for the real fight: November is only 6 months away.