This is it! The Pissed Off Voter Guide for San Francisco's November 2026 election.
November 2026:
Protect Democracy from the Billionaires!
Statewide Offices
Governor: No Endorsement
Lieutenant Governor: No Endorsement
Secretary of State: Shirley Weber
State Controller: No Endorsement
State Treasurer: No Endorsement
Attorney General: No Endorsement
Insurance Commissioner: Jane Kim
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Richard Barrera
Board of Equalization, District 2: Sally Lieber
San Francisco Offices
US Congress, District 11: Connie Chan
US Congress, District 15: No Endorsement
State Assembly, District 17: No Endorsement
State Assembly, District 19: No Endorsement
Public Defender: Mano Raju
Assessor-Recorder: Joaquin Torres
Supervisor, District 2: No Endorsement
Supervisor, District 4: No Endorsement
Supervisor, District 6: No Endorsement
Supervisor, District 8: Ranked Endorsement: #1 Gary McCoy, #2 Michael Nguyen
Supervisor, District 10: Non-Ranked Dual Endorsement: J.R. Eppler and D.J. Brookter
SFUSD Board of Education: Virginia Cheung, Reina Tello, Ryan Hazelton
City College Board of Trustees: Leah LaCroix, Bunny McFadden
City College Board of Trustees Partial Term: No Endorsement
BART Board, District 8: No Endorsement
Judges
CA Supreme Court: Retain all (Groban, Evans)
First Court of Appeals: Retain all (Smiley, Banke, Wilson, Desautels, Stewart, Fujisaki, Petrou, Simons, Chou, Burns)
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Prop A: Weaken citizen oversight: No
Prop B: Public bank: Hell Yes!
Prop C: Housing Trust Fund: Yes
Let’s DOGE San Francisco: Stop the Mayor’s Charter Reform Power Grab
Prop D: Reduce ballot initiative access: Hellllllll No!
Prop E: Decrease government spending oversight on contracts: Hell No!
Prop F: Mayoral power grab: Hell No!
Prop G: Great Highway compromise: No Position
Prop H: Parcel tax to fund Muni: Yes, and…
Prop I: Affordable housing guarantee act: Oh Hell Yes!
Prop J: Close foreclosure tax loophole: Yes
Prop RTM: Regional transit sales tax: Yes, and…
Statewide Ballot Measures
Prop 1: $11 billion affordable housing bond: Yes
Prop 2: Budget stablization and expand rainy day fund: No position
Prop 3: Extend high income tax for schools and healthcare: Hell Yes!
Prop 4: Legalize public campaign financing: Hell Yes!
Prop 5: State recall reform: Hell Yes!
Prop 37: $25B bond for new home buyers: No position
Prop 38: $8.4B bond for billionaire’s immunology research projects: No
Prop 39: Require ID to vote: Hell No!
Prop 40: Billionaire wealth tax: Hell Yes!
Prop 41: Wealth tax poison pill audit requirements: Hell No!
Prop 42: Poison pill to prevent future wealth taxes: Hell No!
Prop 43: Limit local voters' ability to pass local taxes: Hell No!
Prop 44: Burdensome requirement for health clinic spending: No
Prop 45: Limit environmental CEQA review: No
Real people (pissed off ones) do the researching, endorsing, writing, editing, designing, and distributing of the Pissed Off Voter Guide. No oligarch or AI had a hand in any step of creating this voter guide.
Want to know why we recommend voting this way?
Keep reading for our research and snarky analysis!
Not in San Francisco?
We focus on SF, but if you are in the Bay Area we recommend voting with Bay Rising Action's 2026 midterm voter guide for Oakland, Alameda, Contra Costa, Sonoma and beyond!
Voting Logistics
Register to Vote at any Post Office or online at RegisterToVote.ca.gov. If you’re registered by October 19th, you’ll get a ballot in the mail. But in SF you can always register in person at City Hall up until Election Day. You can also register at any polling place on Election Day: just ask to cast a provisional ballot. Call 415-554-4375 for more info.
WHEN?
October 5th: Early voting starts at City Hall, weekdays 8am–5pm.
October 24th: Weekend early voting starts at City Hall, Saturdays and Sundays 10am–4pm.
November 3rd: Election Day! Polls open 7am–8pm. If you’re in line by 8pm you can vote. You can also drop your ballot off at any polling place on Election Day.
WHERE?
Everyone will get a ballot in the mail! Make sure yours is coming to the right place by checking your registration at SFElections.org.
Drop off your ballot early at one of the 37 official ballot drop boxes across the City, starting October 5th through 8pm on Election Day, November 3rd.
Mail your ballot if you can't drop it off. You don't need a stamp, but make sure you sign the envelope and that it's postmarked by November 3rd.
If you’re going to mail your ballot, mail it as early as possible. And don’t forget to sign your ballot envelope!
Where’s your polling place? Check https://SFelections.org/tools/map_poll_time/, call 311, or just go vote at City Hall.
WHAT ELSE?
Did you forget to register? You can still vote! Go to City Hall or your polling place and tell them you want to "register conditionally and vote provisionally!"
People with felony convictions can vote! You can vote even if you’re on parole. Re-register at Restore Your Vote.
Youth can (almost) vote! If you’re 16 or 17, pre-register to vote and your registration will automatically be activated when you turn 18.
Ranked Choice Voting Strategy
SF supervisor races use Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), which allows you to vote for multiple candidates by ranking them. If your 1st choice gets eliminated, your vote gets moved over to your second choice, and so on. This keeps happening until one contender gets 50% of remaining votes.
We can use RCV strategically: to play defense. Sometimes it makes sense to cast an RCV vote for a candidate you don’t love in order to block a candidate you hate.
For instance, juuuuuust hypothetically, say you really don’t want District 8 supervisor candidate and accused sexual assaulter Manny Yekutiel to win. Filling in all 3 spots on your ballot with other candidates in an anybody-but-Manny strategy is the best way to make sure your vote counts to keep Manny out of City Hall. Use ranked choice voting to vote your heart and your brain.
|
Like our voter guide? Share it with your friends, and kick us down a couple of bucks so we can keep printing the guide. For the price of a vegan quesabirria, we can print and distribute 100 voter guides. |
Dear San Francisco,
This voter guide is our love letter, not just to the San Francisco that is, but to the San Francisco that could be - to the world that could be and to the messy and beautiful political process that can get us there.
We believe in voting for a future in which normal people can afford to live here, public services have the funding they need, and those with the most pay their fair share.
This ballot gives us many opportunities to say hell yeah. And there is plenty of BS to vote against too. To wit:
-
Send a progressive champion to DC by voting for Connie Chan for Congress!
-
Bring neighborhood voices to City hall by voting for Gary McCoy (#1) and Michael Nguyen (#2) for District 8 Supervisor and J.R. Eppler and D.J. Brookter for District 10 Supervisor.
-
Continue the work of the SFUSD teachers strike by voting for Virginia Cheung, Ryan Hazelton, and Reina Tello for School Board.
-
Protect City College for future generations of San Franciscans by voting for Leah LaCroix and Dr. Bunny McFadden for City College Board of Trustees.
-
Send a shot across the (yacht) bow to fund schools, hospitals, and our social safety net. Vote Hell Yes! on Prop 40: The Billionaire Tax.
-
Bring that same energy home by voting Hell Yes! on Prop I: Affordable Housing Guarantee Act, to spend luxury real estate tax money on affordable housing.
-
Foil the plot to weaken our democracy by voting Hell No! on Prop 41, Prop 42, and Prop 43, the tech billionaires’ poison pill sabotage of state and local wealth taxes.
-
Clear out the mayor’s pile of anti-democratic ballot measures: Vote Hell No! on Prop A, Prop D, Prop E, and Prop F.
There’s scads of state and local candidate races on the ballot too. Add in the possibility of switching things up nationwide, and this election is poised to be legendary. The paper guide is all you need, but we have even more details and analysis below!
Let's win this thing for our neighborhoods, our schools, and our city.
Love,
The League
San Francisco Offices
US Congress CD11: Connie Chan
We are proud to endorse Connie Chan for Congress! We can’t think of a better champion to join the new wave of leaders wresting the reins of government away from nefarious Republicans and status-quo Dems.
Connie’s track record shows she can lead with her values and still get shit done. Connie immigrated with her family to SF’s Chinatown as a teenager, cut her teeth as a community organizer, and worked her way up in politics, maintaining her commitment to social justice the whole way. As District 1 Supervisor and budget chair, Connie has been a champion for renters, small businesses, seniors, and working families in the Richmond and across the city. She’s accountable to the communities she comes from and not to corporate donors.
While Connie’s first order of business in DC would be working with allies to fight back against Trump’s harmful cuts, reckless wars and evil policies, it’s her vision for what government can do for everyday people (and her track record to prove it) that we're really excited about. We can trust Connie Chan to hit the ground running in Washington to pass Medicare for All, fund truly affordable housing, regulate AI, restore the social safety net, end US funding of genocide, and tax the goddamn billionaires. For her entire political career, Connie has honed her skills at building coalitions - an essential skill for building power locally and nationally, and for stemming the tide of shit coming out of the White House.
We know Connie is the best choice to help lead the country and ensure SF gets our share of federal funds, and we’re not the only ones– teachers, nurses, labor unions, tenant advocates, immigrant and LGBTQ+ leaders, and even our longtime frenemy Nancy Pelosi agree: Let’s send Connie Chan to Congress!
And as if electing a smart, super-competent progressive in Congress weren’t exciting enough, it would also keep Scott Wiener from the national stage. Which is great news because Scott Wiener is terrible.
Why is Scott Wiener terrible? Let us count the ways. Oh wait, we already have in our previous voter guide writeups. To recap: he’s madly pro-cop and pro-developer, he lost the California SEIU endorsement because he opposed the Overpaid CEO tax, and let’s not forget his cringey campaign AI bot debacle. Oh, and don’t fall for what he’s pushing on the glossy mailers - those housing policies he’s bragging about passing are single-handedly responsible for the overdevelopment ruining (and ignoring the needs of) local communities throughout the state. While yeah, he has been prolific as a legislator over the past decade or so, if those policies were so great why does our housing situation still suck so much?
But the biggest red flag has major implications for someone running for congressional office, since foreign policy—specifically, military spending— is a big part of the job. Scott Wiener has been a vocal defender of Israel’s occupation and apartheid practices throughout his career, and a backer of military aid to Israel.. When Connie Chan co-sponsored a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, Wiener condemned it. While the rest of us watch in horror as mass murder unfolds every day in Gaza, with scholars and international institutions labeling it a genocide, Wiener infamously refused to label it as such until he deemed it was a political liability not to.
In fact, Wiener co-sponsored Assembly Bill 715, which tried to shut down criticism of Israel by gaslighting it as antisemitism, going after schools, teachers, and textbooks, and, in the words of the ACLU, “policing what can be said in classrooms” about Israel. That’s the kind of behavior we need less of from politicians in Washington, not more.
We need a leader whose track record shows she can lead with San Francisco values while still getting shit done, take Congress’s responsibility to oversee military spending seriously, and fight for the dignity and rights of all people. Let’s send Connie Chan to Congress!
US Congress CD15: No Endorsement
Ok, the incumbent, Kevin Mullin, is going to win. He’s a centrist YIMBY who believes in being “an active leader in the fight to protect America’s innovation economy.” He’s running against a Republican whose main issue is “getting men out of women’s sports.” Mullin is proud of his endorsement by the state party, and sure doesn’t need ours.
State Assembly, District 17: No Endorsement
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
State Assembly, District 19: No Endorsement
Incumbent Catherine Stefani is running for reelection against a Republican. She was the most conservative member of the Board of Supervisors, and in her first two years in the Assembly established herself firmly on the side of those corporate-cash-tilted-scales of Sacramento Democrats.
We’re particularly pissed off about her key role in killing AB1157, which would have extended rent control and eviction protections to single family homes, and cut in half the increases allowed under rent control. Stefani was one of five Democrats to abstain on AB1157 in committee, leaving it three votes short of surviving. Given her history of anti-tenant votes at the BOS, we’re not surprised, but still pissed.
We appreciate that Stefani has continued her track record as a leader on gun control in Sacramento, but on way too many other important issues, she doesn’t share our values. No Endorsement.
Public Defender: Mano Raju
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
Assessor-Recorder: Joaquin Torres
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
Supervisor, District 2: No Endorsement
Supervisor, District 4: No Endorsement
Supervisor, District 6: No Endorsement
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
Supervisor, District 8: Ranked Endorsement: #1 Gary McCoy, #2 Michael Nguyen
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
Supervisor, District 10: Non-Ranked Dual Endorsement: J.R. Eppler and D.J. Brookter
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
SFUSD Board of Education: Virginia Cheung, Reina Tello, Ryan Hazelton
The teachers’ strike earlier this year was a stunning show of power and solidarity by the union and the community. Together, we showed up for the schools our kids deserve—and won! Educators got long-delayed raises, family healthcare benefits, and an easing of special education workloads.
But the work to restore trust and fix our schools is far from over. On top of the myriad problems stemming from chronic underfunding, school closures are back on the table, AI companies are trying to worm their way into our kids’ educations, and there’s been no move to hold the district accountable for its questionable financial practices that have been contributing to budget chaos for years. District leadership is still striving to starve us with austerity instead of investing in SFUSD, so this is the moment to hoist our banner even higher, and stack the school board with a slate of strong progressive candidates: Virginia Cheung, Reina Tello, and Ryan Hazelton.
All three are backed by UESF, the strike-leading teachers' union.. UESF is, objectively, the strongest progressive force in San Francisco right now. During the strike, UESF proved it could organize educators and teachers and bring in all kinds of community members to the fight, winning a level of popular support that shocked the mayor and his downtown cronies. We’re thrilled to build power with a coalition of San Franciscans who won’t settle for endless cuts and bloated bureaucracy. Another way is possible —let’s build better schools together!
Virginia Cheung is a SFUSD parent, a longtime leader in the nonprofit world, and a strong advocate for families and educators. She worked with local groups to help pass “Baby Prop C” to expand access to early childhood education, actively organized parents in support of the educators’ strike, and serves on the board of Parents for Public Schools. She knows how institutions work, understands the vital role of public education for all San Francisco kids, and she’s ready to bring that leadership to SFUSD.
Ryan Hazelton is the executive director of Mariposa Kids afterschool and summer programs, and the chair of the SF Childcare Planning & Advisory Council. His extensive experience on non-profit boards means he knows how to read a budget, how to call bullshit on a budget, and how to hold leaders accountable. We should mention that some of our members are suspicious of Ryan's previous stint on the board of a charter school with a poor record for family engagement and support for students with disabilities. But he’s not there anymore, and more members felt that his recent actions and endorsement from UESF show that he’s on the right track as someone we can trust to round out a progressive majority on the Board of Education.
Reina Tello is a single parent of SFUSD kids (and an SFUSD graduate herself) and has been an organizer with PODER for decades. She’s active with the People’s Budget Coalition and the Public Bank Coalition, and an advocate for community schools. She knows how to work in coalitions, and has strong ties to the communities that SFUSD has traditionally failed to serve or engage. We can’t wait to watch Reina transform SFUSD’s sorry excuse for “community engagement" – with major decisions like a new school assignment system and potential school closures on the horizon (again), we need a tried-and-true community organizer on the Board.
You might be wondering why we’re not endorsing incumbent Alida Fisher. While she’s been a champion for special education students and we’ve endorsed her in the past, a majority of members were disappointed that she didn’t use her position to do more to end the strike sooner – or prevent it in the first place. While of course we can’t speak to what was happening behind closed doors, there were many public meetings where she could have pushed Superintendent Su and the school district finance staff to do more. From what we could see, Matt Alexander was the only board member publicly standing with families and educators, pushing district leaders to explain their misleading budget numbers, and offering an alternative to austerity. Fisher’s current support for Phil Kim, GrowSF’s favorite school board president and for sure the biggest obstacle to getting our educators what they deserve, has us even more disappointed. It was a close vote, but Alida didn’t earn our endorsement this time.
There’s an astonishing amount of money being spent on school board races, by the same tech/big money/conservative donors who are funding Lurie’s charter “reform” power grab. Whatever you do, do NOT vote for anyone endorsed by the big money-backed slates from SF Parents Coalition, GrowSF, or, you know, the mayor. Their refusal to align with educators during the strike showed their true colors. Especially avoid Laurance Lee, a windbag and recall hawk; Autumn Brown Garibay, who actively discouraged parents from joining the picket line during the strike; Tim Tung (a newbie who’s was apparently recruited to juice up the moderate bloc by his sister Nancy Tung, chair of the SF Democratic Party,) or Phil Kim, a charter-school guy who ran the school closures project and tried to break UESF.
We have a choice between leaders who buy the doom-loop narrative and are ready to preemptively gut our public school system with endless budget cuts, and leaders who have a vision for fully-funded, world-class schools and a commitment to making them a reality. And the turnout of ordinary people supporting their teachers during the strike shows that we’ve got the votes to win— if we stick with the union.
With Cheung, Hazelton, and Tello on the board alongside Matt Alexander, we’d have 4 votes out of 7 and a real shot at working toward a new vision for SFUSD. Vote Chung, Hazelton, and Tello for SF Board of Education!
City College Board of Trustees: Leah LaCroix, Bunny McFadden
City College Board of Trustees Partial Term: No Endorsement
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
BART Board, District 8: No Endorsement
Full Voter Guide Writeup in Progress - Check Back Soon!
Statewide Offices
Full Voter Guide Writeups in Progress - Check Back Soon!
Judges
Full Voter Guide Writeups in Progress - Check Back Soon!
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Prop A: Weaken citizen oversight: No
Prop A is mostly focused on purging "inefficient" government commissions from the city charter. Okay, some of these commissions are just places for city officials to park their friends, and a few, like the “Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners” might not be absolutely vital to the city’s functioning. But Prop A throws away the baby with the bathwater by also targeting some important voter-approved independent oversight commissions, which we think is shady AF.
Prop A specifically targets the Our City, Our Home Oversight Committee. This committee was created in 2019 by an overwhelming majority of San Francisco voters to provide citizen oversight over the new Our City, Our Home homeless services fund. Funded by a new gross receipts tax on big businesses, Our City, Our Home has raised over $300 million annually, which is spent on assisted living facilities, supportive housing, and mental health treatment facilities.
Thousands of San Franciscans rely on these subsidized services to stay housed. Because a lot is at stake, and it's a lot of money, voters also created the Our City, Our Home Oversight Committee to track the money, to inspect service contracts, and to give a voice to the unhoused who depend on these services.
If Prop A passes, this voter-mandated oversight committee would be removed from the protection of the city charter and could be dissolved by a simple majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. Lucrative city contracts will be awarded without citizen oversight. Unhoused residents will not have a voice in City Hall. For these reasons, we cannot support Prop A and recommend a No.
Prop B: Public bank: Hell Yes!
It doesn’t take a degree in economics to look around and see that the current financial system is failing everyday San Franciscans. What if, instead of Wall Street nickel and diming us on behalf of corporate shareholders, we could have a citizen-run bank, quite literally investing in our city?Prop B takes the first step toward establishing a public bank in SF, authorizing the city to establish a municipal finance corporation (MFC). The MFC would be able to make loans but not take deposits. After three years, the MFC would convert to a public bank that takes deposits.
Creating a public bank has been a progressive policy goal for many years, starting with organizing from long-time Leaguer John Avalos, which led to a Public Bank Coalition, who took the fight to the State to receive enabling legislation led by former Assemblyman David Chiu. A workgroup was formed through the Tax Collector’s Office, who issued a white paper charting next steps for this process. All told, Prop B is the culmination of almost two decades’ worth of community organizing, legislative analysis, and financial modeling.
It’s been a progressive policy goal for so long because Big Banks have been failing us since before Occupy Wall Street, and it’s only gotten worse since then. Venture capital has warped the market with its priorities, and investments in the greater public good have been edged out, as a result. The City and County of San Francisco does a lot of banking, and a public bank has many benefits. There’s cost savings from having more control over public dollars not dependent on the whims of Big Banks, there’s the benefit of values alignment so we can mitigate harm, and practically this allows the city to set up its own low-cost lending program for everything from small business loans to construction loans for affordable housing.
For affordable housing to be built, we need our own bank. Right now, when the city builds affordable housing, it needs to take out loans to fund the construction. These loans come from private banks and come with lots of strings attached. And if there’s no financing, none of it gets built. If San Francisco owns the banks, it would allow us to facilitate affordable housing construction, particularly social housing. As a recent case in point, 1633 Valencia opened up with 145 units of supportive housing for seniors. Construction was much faster and cheaper than typical projects, thanks to public financing.
The cherry on top? Prop B is the perfect pair for Prop I: the affordable housing guarantee act. Prop I creates the dedicated funding stream for building affordable housing, and Prop B will provide cheaper construction financing for affordable housing, allowing the city to build more units faster. Let’s write the next chapter of this public bank saga together—vote Hell Yes! on Prop B!
Prop C: Housing Trust Fund: Yes
Former Mayor Ed Lee created the Housing Trust Fund in 2012 as a permanent source of funding for affordable housing production and preservation. It has raised over $468 million since then, but to be honest it was a mixed bag: the original deal lowered the requirements for including affordable housing in private developments, and it’s been capped at $50 million annually which means we’re leaving money on the table. With our worsening affordable housing crisis and a looming 30-year sunset date on the original fund, the time is right for Prop C to re-up and raise the cap on the fund.
Proposition C simply the Housing Trust Fund through 2058 and raises its annual funding cap from $50 million to $125 million. But of course, nothing is ever easy in the land of housing policy! In 2026, the wheeling-and-dealing continues. While we’re not happy that another backroom deal was cut to gut our affordable inclusionary program in exchange for increasing the cap in this new version of the Housing Trust Fund, the reality is that we desperately need any funding we can get.
The new dollars for the Housing Trust Fund will come from predicted property tax increases that would come from more housing being built year over year. This means we won’t see any funds in the HTF for a couple of years, but once there’s money in the fund, the Board of Supervisors could bond against that debt (just like Prop I).
Now, about that cap. Affordable housing providers testified at the Board of Supervisors that raising the cap to $125 million is the minimum needed to unlock the dozens of affordable housing projects in the queue in need of capital to break ground. This figure falls short of the $17 billion public subsidy that the Mayor’s Office of Housing says we’d need to meet state mandates for affordable housing, and the Capital Planning Committee puts it closer to $20 billion. But, like we said: we need it all, and we need it yesterday. If you claim to be “pro-housing” and are opposing funding for affordable housing, we call BS. (SF YIMBY, we are looking at you…). Vote Yes on C for more affordable housing (eventually)!
Let’s DOGE San Francisco: Stop the Mayor’s Charter Reform Power Grab
We hoped Mayor Lurie would be more independent and open to working with people who disagreed with him. Spoiler alert: he isn’t, and now we’re pissed off at Denim Dan.
As soon as he got elected, the Mayor started following the DOGE playbook: freezing hiring, laying off city workers, and consolidating departments and commissions in the name of “efficiency.” Next on his list? CHARTER REFORM.
Before his sham Charter Reform Working Group had even finished its work, Lurie wrote his own charter amendments without even a public hearing. The city charter, which is like our constitution, already gives the mayor way more power than other cities. But now he’s pitching these billionaire-backed charter amendments that will weaken citizen oversight, grant mayoral superpowers to slim down city government, and lock the changes in by restricting ballot initiative access.
Lurie is demonizing City workers, saying Props D, E, and F will fix a corrupt City Hall. Dude, you run City Hall!! You’re the one who gave your unqualified bros at OpenGov a sweetheart contract for PermitSF, which is way over budget and behind schedule.
Charter reform at this scale should be a conversation that involves everybody, not a sneaky backdoor power grab. Which is why we are recommending Hell No! on Props D, E and F.
Prop D: Reduce ballot initiative access: Hellllllll No!
Prop D increases the number of signatures needed for voter initiatives, making it much harder for anyone but the super-wealthy (who can buy armies of paid signature-gatherers) to get props on the ballot. It even makes it harder for the Board of Supes to put something on the ballot! If Prop D passes, we’d have to collect 4 times as many signatures to put anything on the ballot, which would further silence the voice of everyday San Franciscans at the ballot box. Vote Hellllllll No! on Prop D.
Prop E: Decrease government spending oversight on contracts: Hell No!
Yes, government spending is notoriously inefficient and rife with corruption. But Prop E is not the answer. Currently the Board of Supervisors holds public hearings before approving any city contract above $10 million. Prop E would raise that threshold to $25 million.
This is a problem. Mayor Lurie already has a track record of demanding shady sweetheart contracts for his political allies (see OpenGov contract). Prop E also gives the City Administrator sweeping new powers and extends their term from 5 to 10 years. The City Administrator would have “exclusive authority” over most contracting laws and the Board of Supervisors could only vote down their legislation, not amend or propose anything of their own. Isn’t that supposed to be the legislative branch’s job?! Vote Hell No! On Prop E.
Prop F: Mayoral power grab
Prop F is like dangerously pumping steroids into San Francisco’s strong-mayor system. When Mayor Breed demanded advance signed resignation letters of her appointees, the City Attorney (politely) said that was illegal. Prop F would let any Mayor remove a commissioner who didn’t follow their directions. No advance resignation letter needed. What’s the point of having commissioners if they only vote the Mayor’s line??
Mayor Lurie has already broken the charter prohibition against hiring “deputy mayors.” Prop F would legalize this and allow him to pay his deputies more to run the city for him while he focuses on livestreaming Taco Bell Cantina openings.
Prop F would also allow the mayor to merge city departments on a whim, potentially without any checks and balances or even a hearing. Unilateral decisions like that could lead to more outsourcing, layoffs of city workers, and shittier services–which is why department mergers currently require legislation and public hearings. The Mayor is banking on his popularity to blind SF voters into yet another harmful “reform”. And even if you like this mayor, no mayor should have this much power. Vote Hell No on Prop F!
Prop G: Great Highway compromise: No Position
Prop G would open the Great Highway to cars from Monday - Friday, leaving it available for commuters during the work week and open as Sunset Dunes Park on weekends and holidays.
By now, we all know the history: During COVID, the Great Highway was turned into a slow street to provide more space for people to be outside. The program was popular with many people so the city kept the program going on weekends. In 2024, the people voted to officially turn the space into a full-time park. This is in line with the city’s 2021 Climate Action Plan, which recommends decreasing space dedicated to cars. It also acknowledges the reality that the road often needed to be closed when it filled up with sand. Sunset Dunes, as the park is now called, has art installations, a skate park, and public hammocks. It provides ample car-free space right next to the ocean for biking, walking, and wishing you’d brought a warmer jacket. A whole generation of SF kids is learning to ride their bikes out there, and a lot of people are really loving it.
But many San Franciscans, including a majority of people in the Sunset district, have felt railroaded by the whole process. They even recalled their Supervisor over it. While the West Side definitely has its share of passionate Sunset Dunes supporters and some of the park haters are Sea Cliff dwellers bemoaning an extra few minutes in their Cybertrucks, efforts to reopen the road to cars have been led by long-time, working-class, and BIPOC residents in the Sunset and the Richmond. They say that banning cars on that stretch of the Great Highway means more traffic on alternate routes like Chain of Lakes and smaller surface streets, making parking suck and commutes longer for West Side residents who are chronically underserved by Muni. Throw in Mayor Lurie’s “family zoning plan,” which allows for more development near the waterfront, and it’s no surprise that rents are soaring in these traditionally more affordable neighborhoods, with Sunset Dunes as a major selling point for real estate developers and speculators.
Voters on both sides of this issue are pissed off, and we get it. Supporters say Prop G is a compromise that balances the needs of park visitors and local residents who depend on the highway to get to work and school. Opponents say this defeats the purpose of having a park there at all, since they’d have to remove play equipment and other features currently placed in the road. Is it fair for voters citywide to have a say in what happens in one neighborhood? Is it fair for people lucky enough to live by the ocean to block the rest of us from enjoying it as a car-free space? Does closing one road actually get more people out of their cars in a way that helps the climate, or do people just drive their pollution-mobiles across the city to get to the park? The debates are endless! Even the creator of “the compromise” doesn’t support it anymore. What pisses us off the most is that instead of trying to develop consensus about how to use this shared space, leaders have used this as a wedge issue creating divisions that distract from other priorities.
Ultimately, we wish park advocates and city leaders had done more to engage local neighbors in the process, get the necessary infrastructure (especially public transportation) in place, and mitigate some of these challenges before pushing Sunset Dunes through. But since we don’t have a time machine, we’d love to see people on both sides coming together in solidarity: for more parks and green space, better transit and accessibility, displacement protections and housing affordability—we want it all!
We aren’t taking a position on this one, so you make the call. And let’s pray to Poseidon we can stop arguing about this soon!
Prop H: Parcel tax to fund Muni: Yes, and…
Prop H would bring badly needed funds to Muni via a parcel tax on San Francisco properties. This would be the City’s first progressive parcel tax, meaning single family homeowners would pay less than small apartment buildings, which would pay less than big office towers.
We’ll definitely vote yes on Prop H, but it isn't perfect: Landlords can pass through half of the tax bill to tenants, and the Mayor insisted on adding a $50k tax cap for giant multifamily apartment buildings, once again sparing the wealthy and leaving money on the table. We’re frustrated that Muni is being held hostage by corporations that want to pass the cost of transit to regular people instead of paying increased transit sustainability fees, but we certainly can’t do without Muni, which Prop H will fund to the tune of $150 million a year. Vote Yes.
Prop I: Affordable housing guarantee act: Oh Hell Yes!
In November 2020, 58% of SF voters approved the original Prop I to increase the transfer tax on luxury real estate (5% for properties over $10 million, and 6% for properties over $25 million), with the clear expectation that these funds would be used for affordable housing. Since its passage, Prop I has generated over $504 MILLION in revenue—which would be great news, except almost half of these funds have been used for non-housing purposes, against the will of voters.
To make matters worse, now Mayor Lurie wants to repeal the luxury transfer tax altogether, as a gift to his mega-wealthy real estate investor friends and family (he’s calling it a “slush fund,” which is weird since it’s his people who would be in charge of the money!).
To restore its intended purpose, Prop I is back on the November 2026 ballot as the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act (AHGA). While it’s a new measure, it wouldn’t create a new tax—it would simply direct the already voter-approved transfer tax toward its original goal of funding affordable housing and preventing displacement.
Well, if it didn’t work the first time, why would it work now? Unlike the previous measure, which couldn’t mandate the money to go to affordable housing (which means it could be diverted at the whim of the politicians in power), Prop I uses a city workgroup report led by the Mayor’s Office of Housing to set in stone an expenditure plan for how the transfer tax money will be spent every year. These funds will be explicitly earmarked for building new permanently affordable housing, rehabbing public housing, expanding co-ops and land trusts, and pioneering innovative social housing for a wider range of incomes. Prop I is also the only measure on the ballot that dedicates funds to rent relief and eviction defense. It also requires the City Controller to perform annual audits to ensure accountability.
At a time when our housing affordability crisis verges on catastrophe, we should be demanding that the Big Real Estate corporations and developers who are creating the crisis—and profiting from it—be part of the solution. Prop I does just that by protecting the luxury transfer tax for affordable housing. Vote HELL YES! on Prop I—again!
Prop J: Close foreclosure tax loophole: Yes
Yeehaw! A way for the city to claw back some revenue from real estate hustlers who skirt paying San Francisco’s (reasonable) transfer tax on commercial buildings. Currently, all foreclosures are exempt from the transfer tax. Prop. J would close that loophole for commercial buildings, while keeping small residential buildings, single-family homes, condos, and co-ops (you know, the places people live) exempt.
Right now, new buyers (including corporations) can just buy the loan from a property’s lender (a type of sale which isn’t taxed) instead of buying the building itself (a sale which is taxed), and then foreclose on the old owner and take over the building without paying a dime to the city. What a scam!
Under Prop. J, owners of commercial buildings (including corporations) can’t dodge the transfer tax via foreclosures any longer. Prop J will calculate the transfer tax based on the market value of the sale, not the (far, far lower) value of the loan.
Since the rest of us aren’t affected by Prop J, this is a no-brainer to raise more money for the general fund to pay for vital city services. Jackie Fielder, Bilal Mahmood, SEIU, and Mayor Lurie (ikr??) are all supporting, and so are we. Vote yes.
Prop RTM: Regional transit sales tax: Yes, and…
Prop RTM is a regional sales tax that will fund public transit across San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties. If all five counties vote yes on Prop RTM, we will pay a sales tax of 1% in SF (0.5% in the other counties). Prop RTM is expected to bring in $1 billion annually to fund regional transit agencies, with $310 million going to BART and $160 million to Muni.
BART estimates that without Prop RTM funds, it would have to close 15 stations and cut up to 70% of service. Muni would have to cut 20 lines and end regular bus service at 9pm without the combined funds of Prop RTM and the Prop H parcel tax.
We’re pissed off that working people across the Bay Area will have to pay more sales tax, while rich corporations dodge their responsibility to fund our public transportation directly. Still, we implore you to vote Yes on Prop RTM, and let’s keep fighting for a better plan to fund transit.
California Ballot Measures
Prop 1: $11 billion affordable housing bond: Yes
Prop 1 would refill the state’s coffers for affordable housing to the tune of $11.25 billion doll-hairs! Most of that would go to building and renovating affordable apartments, with smaller amounts going to programs that support veterans, farmworkers, students, Native American tribal members, renters, and other Californians struggling to afford housing. In general, bonds are a good way to cover priorities with a high price tag (and goddess knows building in CA ain’t cheap!). We especially like that Prop 1 tackles the “3 P’s” of affordable housing: production of new housing, preservation of existing units, and protections against displacement. As with all bonds, this one needs ⅔ of the vote to pass so let’s vote Hell Yes on Prop 1!
Prop 2: Budget stablization and expand rainy day fund: No position
This measure would double the state’s capacity to siphon tax revenue into a “rainy day fund” for use during budget shortfall years. Given that we’re not sailing in the smoothest economic waters, having a larger rainy day fund could protect basic social services in the event of…I don’t know, an AI bubble burst that causes a massive recession? On the other hand, Federal money has been slashed by you-know-who, and we need all the money we can get right now to stop the bleeding. Some argue that having too much of a rainy day fund gives the state less flexibility and creates a slush fund of taxpayer dollars that are meant to be used.
There’s no projected cost in the short term, and this could have real benefits for those who rely on state services in the event of future budget shortfalls. Or, it could harm those who depend on services by siphoning away money we need to pay for them. We’re a No Position on this one, so you make the call.
Prop 3: Extend high income tax for schools and healthcare: Hell Yes!
Prop 3 would extend an existing tax on high-earning Californians (individuals making $361K or more annually, and couples making more than $721K). Set to expire in 2030, this tax generates billions of dollars each year for the state’s General Fund and pays for public services including schools, health care, and prisons (yeahhhh, we don’t love that part). So, Prop 3 is basically just asking if we can stick with this modestly higher tax rate for the top 2% to fund, well, everything.
CA voters have already voted to approve this twice in 2012 and 2016. And this time, the tax would become permanent! This is cash we’re already counting on, so if it doesn’t pass, we’re screwed [gritted teeth emoji]. Vote Hell Yes! On Proposition 3!
Prop 4: Legalize public campaign financing: Hell Yes!
The way campaign finance currently seems to work is: Only chumps obey the limits on campaign donations to candidates. If you’re rich enough, you can give a bazillion dollars to any PAC you’d like—and they can give it to the candidate. Or they can give it to a “cause” that broadcasts the candidate’s name. And thanks a lot, SCOTUS, as of this year there’s no longer a limit on how much a party can spend in coordination with a candidate. Yikes.
But here comes Prop 4 to save the day! It would overturn the 1988 proposition that banned state and local governments from establishing public financing for campaigns. Public financing is a way for communities to counter the power of big-money campaign contributions by setting public money aside for small-dollar candidates who agree to fundraising limits. San Francisco is a charter city, so we’ve had public financing since voters approved Prop O in 2000. Since then, it’s helped level the playing field in SF elections so that the candidate with the most money isn’t always guaranteed to win.
If Prop 4 passes, it would be legal to create public financing programs for statewide executive campaigns, City College and School Board campaigns, and even BART Board campaigns!
Public financing matters. Look at the case of kick-ass New York Attorney General Leticia James, who says she won her early races for City Council and Public Advocate because of public financing, since she didn’t come from family wealth or know mega-donors. Without public financing, the deck is stacked in favor of any super-rich guy/blue jeans heir who decides it would be fun to buy an election this time around. Prop 4 is supported by everyone from the League of Women Voters to the ACLU, the California Democratic Party, California Common Cause, and the Working Families Party. It’s one basic way to un-stack the deck, at least a little bit. (Also, state Republicans hate the idea of public financing, which only makes us love it more.)
A public financing proposition came to voters in 2010, after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision unleashed a tsunami of campaign spending. It lost then —but now it only needs 50% plus one, and we’ve had a while to understand how important it is. Let’s finally make it work! Hell Yes on Prop 4!
Prop 5: State recall reform: Hell Yes!
It’s weird how many recalls we’ve been through, right? Some of the strangest have been efforts to recall the California Governor in 2003 and 2020. Those ballots each had two questions: one for the recall itself, and another asking who should step in if the recall is successful. Cue a looooong list of random characters, reactionary recallers, and D-list celebrities — any of whom could actually end up running the state under this confusing setup, even with less than 50% of the vote!
Prop 5 would change the recall process for state officials so that if there’s a recall election, we’d only vote on that first question: Should this person be recalled? If it’s a Governor and a majority of voters say yes, the Lieutenant Governor would step in to fill the vacancy until the next election. The other state offices this applies to would have a specific and transparent process for replacements (like appointments or special elections) in the case of a recall, rather than opening up some weird grab-bag of randos.
Proponents of Prop 5 argue that it will give voters more of a say in who gets elected after a recall, and keep the recall process from being abused as a do-over for unwanted election results or unpopular decisions. As much fun as it is to watch statewide political hijinks with a big bowl of popcorn, we agree that Prop 5 will make recalls more democratic and less like a game show. Vote Hell Yes! on Prop 5.
Prop 37: $25B bond for new home buyers: No position
In England, the people blame not being able to go out, eat healthy, or afford rent on the “Cozzie Livs” (cost of living). Here in San Francisco, we call it business as usual (or something more profane). Prop 37 is a big pile of money to subsidize mortgages for home buyers across California.
We like that Prop 37 aims to bring home ownership within reach for more Californians - it’s an essential asset for housing stability and building generational wealth, and it feels more impossible for most of us each year. The program would be available to low and middle-income households (earning up to 200% of the local median income) as long as they can put down at least a 3% downpayment, which is cool.
But, two things kept us from endorsing Prop 37. First, this measure does nothing for renters who are in desperate need of a lifeline and may not be in a position to buy a home any time soon. Second, Prop 37 mandates that prospective buyers be the first purchaser of the home that they’re purchasing with these funds. Read: It’s only for newly built properties. Wait, what?? While this measure would undoubtedly help first-time home buyers, it’s also a major boon for vampire developers that’s couched in the language of solving the affordability crisis. We have no position.
Prop 38: $8.4B bond for one billionaire’s immunology research projects: No
Prop 38 is put on the ballot by Gary Michelson, a benevolent rich dude. He’s used his money to sponsor decent legislation in the past, regulating animal testing, banning fur, and helping parents with continuing adult education. Prop 38 would give $4.2 billion to Michelson’s immunology institute at UCLA, while the other $4.2 billion would be given out as competitive research grants to universities and non-profits over the next 20 years.
Michelson argues that the $8.4 billion cost would pay for itself through Prop 38’s requirements that some portion of the financial benefits from the research would go back to the state. But who knows what those will be? It could take decades for any money to trickle-down to real needs in California. Immunology is an important research priority, but we’re against rich people pushing through ballot initiatives that use our bond dollars to support their own science projects. Vote no.
Prop 39: Require ID to vote: Hell No!
Prop 39 is a bullshit Voter ID law put forth by Trump’s lackeys to stoke fears of “illegal voting” this November. MAGA Republicans put Prop 39 on the ballot, even though massive voter fraud is a straight-up myth. Experts overwhelmingly agree that widespread voter fraud— both in California and nationally—is a "Big Lie." So why are Republicans pushing Prop 39, which would amend the California constitution to require voters to show government-issued ID at the polls? Maybe because they’re afraid of voters.
Under Prop 39, voters would need to give the last four digits of a government ID, such as a driver’s license number, at the polls. The measure would also require election officials to maintain voter registration lists with citizenship checks, and to verify IDs before counting ballots.
This proposition comes on top of all the voter suppression measures at the national level—gerrymandering to weaken Black districts , trying to end mail-in voting, encouraging states to make it harder to vote, and railing constantly about “voter fraud.” By establishing strict voter ID laws, with layers of cumbersome “verification,” Prop 39 would create unnecessary hurdles for students, seniors, low-income residents, and people with disabilities, who are less likely to have up-to-date driver’s licenses. Ultimately, the plan would lead to longer lines at the polls, and eligible voters having their ballots tossed out. Fewer votes, less democracy: that’s the MAGA plan.
Prop 39 is also super-wasteful. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year in an attempt to fix a problem that everybody agrees doesn’t exist. It’s a costly political stunt we can’t afford. The good news is we only need 50% of voters to shut this thing down—vote HELL NO on Prop 39!
Prop 40: Billionaire wealth tax: Hell Yes!
Most Californians–about 39,355,109 of us— are not billionaires and never will be. Meanwhile, millions of us are on the brink of losing our health insurance or food stamps as Washington makes drastic cuts and changes to Medicare, Medicaid, in-home support for disabled people, and SNAP benefits. Even if you’re not impacted by those programs directly, we’re all feeling it: Insurance costs are going up for everyone across the board. Hospitals and clinics across the state, faced with rising numbers of newly uninsured, under-insured, and very sick people, are at risk of closing, and the cash-strapped emergency departments that remain will be overwhelmed. The dominos are falling, and nobody is safe if the entire health care system collapses. We’re staring down a massive crisis, leaving us to wonder: who can actually step up and help?
Proposition 40 offers a pretty straightforward answer: billionaires! California billionaires got t-shirt cannoned with tax cuts from Trump at the same time the administration gutted the safety net. At a time when the rich keep getting richer while everyone else struggles to keep afloat, a billionaire tax is a great idea.
Prop. 40 would ask the state’s estimated 200 billionaires to pay a one-time 5% tax on their enormous wealth (a minimum of $50 million apiece, leaving them more than enough for generations) while raising tens of billions to offset the drastic cuts from Trump’s “Big Beautiful (cough BULLSHIT) Bill.” The tax money would go toward things California families and communities depend on, like health care, hospitals and emergency rooms, schools and community colleges, and food assistance. The tax wouldn’t touch everyday taxpayers or small business owners or even multi-millionaires, and it wouldn’t even apply to the annual income or primary property of billionaires. Prop 40 simply asks those who have “earned” such Scrooge McDuck-scale fortunes within California’s economy to toss a modest, one-time lifeline back to the public infrastructure and systems that they “definitely didn’t exploit” in pursuit of their success.
Critics say that if Prop 40 passes, the ultra-rich—who, by the way, already use complicated schemes to avoid paying taxes the way regular people have to—will just move their money out of the state. But it’s kind of a moot argument, since the tax is retroactive, and would apply to billionaires who were living in the state as of January 1, 2026.
And while it’s true two of the most ridiculously rich guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, claim to have left California because of high taxes, their billionaire buddy Jensen Huang has doubled down on his commitment to California, saying he’s “perfectly fine” with a wealth tax if it means he can continue to reap the rewards of doing business here. The doom-mongering of Newsom and other critics who fuss that if the wealth is taxed, job loss and economic catastrophe will follow seems unsupported by evidence. And besides, if the wealth-tax movement continues to grow alongside Republicans’ decimation of public services, we suspect other states will be doing the same thing soon, anyway.
Reasonable voters have expressed concern that this billionaire tax is just a one-time tax and won’t solve ongoing inequality. OK, but why should that stop us from raising money for the state’s most crucial services now?
Passing Prop 40 is not only the logical and moral thing to do, it would also send a loud and clear message to billionaires: You need to finally pay your fair share, and you can’t spend $50 million in attack ads to buy your way out of it. Let’s get this passed as a first step to a national wealth tax! Vote Hell Yes! on Prop 40!
Prop 41: Wealth tax poison pill audit requirements: Hell No!
Prop 42: Poison pill to prevent future wealth taxes: Hell No!
Prop 43: Limit local voters' ability to pass local taxes: Hell No!
Billionaires be flippin’ their shit. In response to the billionaire wealth tax Prop 40, these 3 measures are largely being funded by former California resident and Google co-founder Sergey Brin and his billionaire besties. And, as you may have noticed, they’ve got plenty of $$$ to throw at ad campaigns to mislead and confuse voters.
Propositions 41, 42 and 43 all seek to make it way more difficult to mount campaigns to tax the wealthiest 1%.
Proposition 41 sounds like a good idea since it has all the hallmarks of good governance—ensuring audits of programs funded by new taxes, and enforcing state spending caps to limit waste. But, as usual, the real purpose of the measure is buried in the fine print: it’s a poison pill to retroactively invalidate Proposition 40, the billionaire tax. Nice try, Moneybags!
Proposition 42 says it will protect the retirement and personal savings of regular Californians from government overreach, but once again its main design is ALSO a poison pill to retroactively invalidate Prop 40! Soo original.
Proposition 43 has the unusual and dubious honor of being opposed by its congressional sponsor. State Assembly Member Buffy Wicks is now actively campaigning against her own measure (long story short, she put it on to block something worse). Prop 43 would make it extremely difficult for cities and counties to raise new local revenue, by raising the minimum threshold of passage to a 2/3 super-majority of votes (currently a 50+1 simple majority is required for a voter-led set-aside tax measure to pass.) So, two good reasons to hate this one: 1. making it harder to raise money for local services from the mega-rich, and 2. making it harder to win at the ballot? No effing way!
Vote Hell No! on Propositions 41, 42 and 43.
Prop 44: Burdensome requirement for health clinic spending: No
This sounds good at first glance—nonprofit, federally-funded clinics that care for poor people should spend money on patient care, not on overhead or executive salaries. You might be picturing health care giants like Sutter and Kaiser that may very well be spending their money in the wrong places. BUT this also applies to smaller community clinics like La Clinica de la Raza, Lyon-Martin, and neighborhood health centers. Advocates for these vital health care facilities are opposing Prop 44 because they’re concerned that a lot of what they spend their money on to serve their patients and keep their doors open, like translation, janitorial services, and billing, wouldn’t count as “patient care.” If that’s the case, they could end up having to pay large fines at a time when they’re facing MAGA’s drastic federal cuts to Medicaid and health-care funding thanks to the “Big Beautiful Bill”🤮🤮🤮. Even if those activities do get to count toward the 90%, Prop 44 adds additional paperwork and bureaucratic burden to prove it. Oh, and these determinations would be made not by medical or public health experts but by the CA Attorney General. These clinics are barely keeping their doors open and we need them more than ever.
Do we think clinics should do everything they can to care for patients? Sure. Do we think they should have to spend their time arguing with the state over which operational expenses should count as “patient care? No.
Prop 45: Limit environmental CEQA review: No
This measure would limit the environmental review process for new building projects across the state and restrict the timelines for public comment to 45 days. While we certainly believe that environmental reviews have been disingenuously leveraged by NIMBYs in the past to subvert much needed green energy and housing projects (looking at you, Berkeley), there is nothing in this measure that would prioritize the stuff we need and protect people from being railroaded by data centers and fossil fuel projects. Without those specifics, it’s hard to believe that this measure won’t chip away at necessary environmental protections. Both the Sierra Club and the Building Trades are urging “no” votes, and when those two see eye to eye on something, we should all pay attention. Vote No.
Meet the SF League of Pissed Off Voters
We're a bunch of political geeks in a torrid love affair with San Francisco. The League formed in 2004 with the goal of building a progressive governing majority in our lifetime. Our contribution is this voter guide: a secret decoder ring for SF politics. All of us lucky enough to enjoy the San Francisco magic owe it to our City to fight to keep it diverse, just, and healthy.
This voter guide (our 36th in SF!) is thoroughly researched and thoroughly biased. It’s how we educate our friends on the issues, excite pissed-off progressive voters, and remind sellout politicians that we’re paying attention.
Hang Out with the League!
Want to get involved, got a question about this stuff, or just wanna have a drink with us?
Stay up to date:
- theLeagueSF.org
- [email protected]
- IG: @sfpissedoffvoters
- FB: TheLeagueSF
Paid for by the San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters. Financial disclosures available at sfethics.org.
Thanks for reading! 🥰
|
Like our voter guide? Share it with your friends, and kick us down a couple of bucks so we can keep printing the guide. For the price of a vegan quesabirria, we can print and distribute 100 voter guides. |
-
SF League of Pissed Off Voters published this page in Pissed Off Voter Guide 2026-09-30 20:07:25 -0700