SF League of Pissed Off Voters

Thank you, San Francisco! Thanks to everyone who donated to help us print the voter guides, thanks to everyone who helped pass them out, thanks to all you who shared the voter guide...thanks for all of the love! We're already getting excited to do it again for the November election. We'll be back with our take on the June election soon.

Click here for the printable version of our voter guide! 

National Races
US President - Bernie Sanders
US Congress D12 - Preston Picus
US Congress D14 - Jackie Speier
US Senate - Kamala Harris

State Races
State Senate District 11 - Jane Kim
State Assembly District 17 - No Endorsement
State Assembly District 19 - No Endorsement

Local Races
Superior Court Judge Seat 7 - Victor Hwang

Democratic County Central Committee
DCCC AD 17 (Eastside of town):
Wade Woods
Cindy Wu
Petra DeJesus
Bevan Dufty
David Campos
Jane Kim
Frances Hsieh
Rafael Mandelman
Sophie Maxwell
Alysabeth Alexander
Tom Ammiano
Jon Golinger
Pratima Gupta
Aaron Peskin

DCCC AD19 (Westside of town):
Norman Yee
Leah LaCroix
Sandra Lee Fewer
Brigitte Davila
Hene Kelly
Myrna Melgar
Eric Mar

State Propositions
Proposition 50 - Suspending Sketchy State Legislators without Pay - Yes

Local Propositions
Proposition A - $350 Million Bond for Public Health, Homeless and Firehouse Facilities - Yes
Proposition B - Expand the Set Aside for Rec and Park - No
Proposition C - Fix the Affordable Housing Requirement - Yes
Proposition D - Require Investigations of Officer-Involved Shootings - Yes
Proposition E - Update Paid Sick Leave - Yes
Proposition AA - Parcel Tax to Save the Bay and Wetlands - Yes

National Races

US President - Bernie Sanders
Getting money out of politics, reducing income inequality, taking the Democratic party back from neoliberalism, what’s not to love?! We’re feeling the Bern (and we’re a little sad to not be able to support the first viable female presidential candidate). We’re glad Bernie has gotten people so fired up, and we hope they stay engaged and get involved with local politics too. This November we’ll also be voting to elect new supervisors in key districts, including some badass progressive women.

US Congress D12 - Preston Picus
Picus is a public school teacher taking on Nancy Pelosi and the democratic establishment. He’s a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, hoping to pick up some down-ballot love. Unsurprisingly, his number one issue is campaign finance reform. He’s an excellent choice for a protest vote against Nancy Pelosi, who doesn’t always represent *our* San Francisco values.

US Congress D14 - Jackie Speier
Speier is a career politician who is running unopposed. At the national level, she’s a California progressive: she’s aligned with our values of LGBT equality, restrictions on gun ownership along with background checks, and has been vocal about addressing climate change with legislation.

US Senate - Kamala Harris
While Kamala isn’t aligned with our values 100% of the time, she’s pretty damn progressive by national standards, and many Leaguers are inspired by the opportunity to elect a woman of color to represent San Francisco values in DC. Plus, since this is a ‘top two’ primary, we want to make sure super scary Orange County Democrat Loretta Sanchez doesn’t make it onto the November ballot!

A few days after our endorsement vote, Public Defender Jeff Adachi and the Board of Supervisors called for Harris to launch a “civil pattern and practice” investigation of the SFPD, which would have the power to shake up the department. She responded by assigning someone in her office to monitor the Department of Justice’s non-binding investigation of the Department, and she’s said that she’ll step in if that doesn’t bring needed reforms. The cynics in us think that’s a convenient way to delay any action until after the election. We’ll be keeping an eye on that for when we consider our November endorsements.

For some more context, here’s our our endorsement writeup for Kamala from November 2014 for Attorney General:
“Harris is a Democrat and the incumbent. She’s been tough on transnational gangs, and in the fight for marriage equality she was a total badass: she forced several bigoted Republican County Clerks to issue marriage licenses after Prop 8 was overturned. When the banks settled with the states on foreclosure fraud, Kamala held out to get more money for California.

However, since then, we haven’t seen any follow through on prosecuting any of the bankers or cracking down on other predatory lending. And she’s not 100% aligned with League values: she’s opposed to legalizing marijuana, and just days after SF’s City Attorney sued landlords who evicted tenants to run illegal Airbnb hotels, Harris held a fundraiser at Airbnb, co-hosted by Uber and other tech giants.”

State Offices

State Senate District 11 - Jane Kim
UPDATE: Bernie endorses Jane?!? Bernie Sanders endorsed eight progressive candidates for state legislature and Jane Kim is one of them! How cool is that?
The TL;DR version of why we're voting for Jane: 

Both Jane Kim and Scott Wiener are smart, talented, ambitious politicians that have supported safer streets and building lots of new housing. But as a progressive, Jane Kim led tough negotiations with developers to maximize affordable housing. Meanwhile, Wiener’s neoliberal approach is content to let developers maximize their profits and let the market sort things out.

On public safety, Wiener prioritizes hiring more cops over everything else and sides with the Police Officers Association who think the SFPD is doing a bang-up job. Kim sees the public’s lack of trust in our police department as a threat to our public safety, and knows that reforming SFPD’s culture, along with funding education, job training, and mental health services, is what will make us safer.

Jane Kim goes way back with the League. When she first ran for the School Board back in 2004, she started her stump speech by saying she was inspired to run for office by the national League’s book, “How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office.” She’s part of the crew of organizers who founded the San Francisco chapter of the League in the wake of Matt Gonzalez’s 2003 Mayoral campaign.

As Supervisor, sometimes she seems like that: an OG progressive organizer, representing and empowering District 6 communities, which include many of the City’s most vulnerable residents. And sometimes she seems like a savvy and ambitious politician, negotiating deals with the power players in the City and setting herself up for bigger things...not that there’s anything inherently wrong with being a savvy and ambitious politician. We need a bunch of them on our side if we’re ever going to kick all the stupid white men out of office!

Because Jane represents downtown and SOMA where many of the new mega-developments are happening, and because the Mayor has either no ability to or no interest in negotiating with developers, Jane’s become the City’s de-facto negotiator:

• On the Giants’ Mission Rock development, the Mayor signed on to the original deal for 15% affordable housing. Jane Kim and John Avalos worked with community leaders to negotiate that up to 40% after they bluffed putting a competing measure on the ballot.
• She also negotiated a significant increase in affordable housing and community benefits at the “5M” mega-development at 5th and Mission. That one got ugly, unfortunately, with awesome neighborhood groups like United Playaz and SOMCAN clashing over the final deal.

For several years she served on the Land Use Committee where she got into many important but technical legislative debates with Scott Wiener. She led the charge to protect rental housing from condo conversion and brokered a compromise on CEQA reform in a way that streamlines environmental review while still preserving community’s ability to hold developers accountable.

Unfortunately, we have to bring up what we consider Jane’s biggest fumble: when she supported the Twitter tax break. We wish she would have stood with progressives to call Twitter’s bluff. They were never going to move to Brisbane!

The state legislature is kind of an enigma to us. It seems like a giant cesspool of lobbyist money and corporate Democrats and actual Republicans. We don’t know why anyone would want to make that commute, but we’re glad Jane does, and we think she’ll make a great State Senator.

A little about Scott Wiener
Although Wiener has been okay on some issues like Muni, biking, and nightlife, we have fundamental philosophical differences with him. 

Wiener’s record on criminalizing the poor and homeless is unforgivable: from supporting the Sit-Lie law to outlawing sleeping in the parks to evicting recycling centers to supporting Ed Lee’s inhumane, ill-conceived and counterproductive sweeps of the Division Street homeless encampments, Wiener is one of the architects of the City’s current failed “crackdown on homelessness.” This crackdown has needlessly driven the homeless into more residential areas where they are less comfortable and more disruptive to neighborhoods.

Wiener is one of the Police Officer Association’s last allies on the Board of Supervisors. He prioritizes hiring more cops over more progressive solutions to crime like reentry services and he pushes the cops and D.A. to lock up more people for low-level, nonviolent crimes. He opposes Mark Leno’s bill to provide basic transparency on police misconduct records. In fact, when he opposed Sheriff Mirkarimi’s attempt to reduce the jail population by expanding the electronic monitoring program, he said our jails were too empty and we need to lock up more people!

Wiener is also a strong ally to the real estate industry. He tried to water down the affordable housing requirements for the new high-priced group housing projects, and he watered down the transit impact fee developers pay, which cost Muni millions. Whenever there’s a debate between developer’s profits and public benefits, expect Wiener to vote for the developer’s profits.

Some of our allies have suggested we should support Wiener for Senate because he can do less damage there and we could hopefully replace him with a progressive on the Board of Supervisors. But we’re not going for that. We want his neoliberal, poor-bashing political career to end here when he’s termed out in 2018.

Vote for Jane Kim for State Senate.

State Assembly District 17 - No Endorsement
State Assembly District 19 - No Endorsement

To be honest, when we think of the California state legislature, we hear Obi-Wan saying, “you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.” On pretty much all of the crucial issues, big money interests have a vice grip on our state legislature and block the important reforms we need. We’ve seen way too many crucial campaigns get shot down in Sacramento: from limiting Ellis Act evictions to funding affordable housing to expanding rent control to taking on Prop 13. This is especially frustrating considering the strong majorities the Democratic Party has in both the state Senate and Assembly, and the role that California could play as a national trend-setter.

San Francisco’s two incumbent representatives in the State Assembly are up for re-election: David Chiu in Assembly District 17 (the east side of town) and Phil Ting in AD19 (the west side of town). They’re both running essentially uncontested against rando, no-name Republicans.

We feel a little ambivalent about both of them. Compared to their colleagues in the Democratic caucus, they’re clearly towards the progressive end of Sacramento. But we haven’t seen them champion bold progressive legislation the way our man Tom Ammiano used to do.

One thing we’re especially concerned about Phil Ting is how last year he appeared to carry PG&E’s water with AB-1110, a statewide version of last November’s Prop G, which would give dirty, dangerous PG&E an unfair advantage in how it defines renewable electricity compared to CleanPowerSF, our new 100% renewable alternative to PG&E. Luckily AB-1110 didn’t pass, but only after a lot of opposition activism from climate activists that could’ve been better spent on more constructive campaigns.

We’re no experts on the intricacies of state-level politics, and no one we trust is either, so we’re not endorsing anyone for the Assembly. We’ll be either leaving this one blank or writing in our dream candidate.

Local Offices

Superior Court Judge Seat 7 - Victor Hwang
With a 23-year track record as a civil rights attorney, public defender, and district attorney, Victor Hwang has serious experience and social justice chops. He’s tried almost 100 cases to a jury verdict, including prosecuting hate crimes and sex trafficking. Named a “Local Hero” by the Bay Guardian & the Chinese World Journal, he’s a way better choice for judge than the Mayor’s right-hand man, Paul Henderson. Side note: It’s so weird to vote for judges!

Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! If you’re a registered Democrat, we need you to vote for all of these people!

SF is a one-party town - literally every single elected official in the City is a Democrat! That’s why the biggest fight on the June ballot is for control of the Democratic County Central Committee. The DCCC is super important because they decide what gets the *official* Democratic Party endorsements (i.e. lots of soft $$).

We are supporting the Reform Slate to undo the real estate industry takeover of the DCCC. The “corporate Democrat” faction of the DCCC is full of conflicts of interest: the realtors’ lobbyist, Google’s lobbyist, staff for the Mayor, and a campaign consultant for Airbnb!

The Reform Slate we’re endorsing includes several activists we ❤❤❤ like Frances Hsieh, Alysabeth Alexander, and a host of women of color steppin’ up to rep. If you’re a Democrat, please hunt through the huge list of candidates to vote our slate.

The conservative wing of the City’s Democratic Party has their own slate and they’re deceptively calling it the “pro-housing” slate. Umm no. Sorry. Consistently voting with the side that wants to profit off of housing is NOT pro-housing! Let us count a few of the ways the current pro-realtor majority on the DCCC is awful:

1. The current chair of the DCCC is the lobbyist for the Realtors Association--probably the most anti-tenant, pro-housing-speculation group in town! How awful are the realtors?
   • They’ve successfully blocked every statewide attempt to reform Ellis Act evictions.
   • They support unfettered conversion of rent controlled housing into condos.
   • They sued the City to overturn restrictions on combining multiple apartments into mega-condos. 
   • They led the campaign against 2014’s Anti-Speculation Tax.
2. The current DCCC opposed last November’s Prop F to regulate Airbnb rentals in the City, which means hundreds of former apartments continue to be rented out to tourists instead of residents. How exactly is that pro-housing?? Bonus Airbnb sketchiness: 
   • Airbnb donated $10k to the DCCC a month before that 2015 vote. And DCCC member Tom Hsieh was working on Airbnb’s “No on F” campaign, but didn’t recuse himself from the vote!)
   • This year, Airbnb dumped $245,000 into this June election days after Supervisors Peskin and Campos introduced a way more mild version of short-term rental regulations. Tens of thousands went to shady DCCC candidates.
3. In July 2015, the DCCC voted down a resolution supporting police reform measures based on Obama’s “Task Force on 21st Century Policing,” in a show of solidarity with the thuggish Police Officers Association. That’s right. Five months before the SFPD shot and killed Mario Woods, the conservative majority of this influential body of San Francisco political leaders sided with the POA’s opinion that everything is fine with the SFPD. 

That’s shameful. And if that wasn’t bad enough, these conservative democrats have added an Orwellian twist by calling themselves the “Progress Democrats.” But really they’re just a well-funded attempt to continue the status quo of the Ed Lee-Gavin Newsom-Willie Brown machine that has been running our City into the ground for the last twenty years. That’s not our Democratic Party. And that’s why we’re voting for the Reform Slate.

Assembly District 17 (Eastside of town):
Wade Woods
Cindy Wu
Petra DeJesus
Bevan Dufty
David Campos
Jane Kim
Frances Hsieh
Rafael Mandelman
Sophie Maxwell
Alysabeth Alexander
Tom Ammiano
Jon Golinger
Pratima Gupta
Aaron Peskin

Assembly District 19 (Westside of town):
Norman Yee
Leah LaCroix
Sandra Lee Fewer
Brigitte Davila
Hene Kelly
Myrna Melgar
Eric Mar

State Propositions

Proposition 50 - Suspending Sketchy State Legislators without Pay - Yes
This one is a little weird. Remember back in 2014 when Leland Yee and two other state Senators were facing various felony charges? The only options their fellow senators had for disciplining them was to either kick them out of office or suspend them with pay. Prop 50 will give the legislature the option of suspending their colleagues without pay, but it raises the threshold to do so from 50% to 2/3rds.

Local Propositions

Proposition A - $350 Million Bond for Public Health, Homeless and Firehouse Facilities - Yes
A $350 million bond that includes seismic upgrades and other improvements for SF General, the SFFD Ambulance system and neighborhood firehouses. This is also the first time the City has proposed funding for fixing up homeless shelters and neighborhood health clinics in a bond, which we think is a good precedent to set. The original plan was for the bond to fund rebuilding the Animal Care and Control Center. While the ACC does important work and the City eventually needs to build a new facility for vulnerable animals, we agree with the decision to prioritize facilities that provide services to vulnerable humans.

We’re not a big fan of bonds because they can be abused like the City’s credit card. But we appreciate that the City’s bond program has been well managed and used to build long-term capital projects. That makes our interest payments to the banks feel more like mortgage payments than credit card payments.

Proposition B - Expand the Set Aside for Rec and Park - No
💩💩💩 Of course we love parks, but the way Rec & Park is run these days makes us think twice about expanding their funding. Prop B is a significant increase in the amount of the set-aside and it extends it for another 15 years (until 2046). Current budget is $64 million (even though the current set-aside only mandates $46 million). This charter amendment would lock in the $64 million and increase it by $3 million a year over the next 10 years. The set-aside would then be adjusted annually based on the growth of the discretionary budget. If the City was facing a budget deficit over $200 million, the growth in the setaside could be temporarily suspended.

What we like about it: We appreciate the work Supervisor Avalos did to build in some accountability for Rec and Park’s efforts to address the shameful inequities in our parks system. The City’s annual Parks Maintenance Standards report is crystal clear: parks and playgrounds in the northern neighborhoods are in great shape, while the southern neighborhoods (Bayview, Hunters Point, Excelsior, OMI, etc) have a bunch of sketchy rundown parks.

Prop B will require Rec and Park’s Strategic, Operational, and Capital Plans to all include an analysis of the inequities in the system, make recommendations for fixing them, and then evaluate how effective those improvements are the next year. The Board of Supervisors would then take an up-or-down vote to approve or disapprove of the Strategic and Capital Plans (but for some reason, not the Operational Plans). Considering the way Rec and Park has been unaccountable to anyone, we hope that will be an improvement. The Board couldn’t modify or reject the plans, but if they were motivated to, we hope they would straighten Rec and Park out through the department’s budget.

What we don’t like about it: For years we've be upset by Rec and Park's philosophy of privatizing our parks. (See our post about the Mission Playground soccer field fiasco for a summary of how messed up Rec and Park is.) While some folks argue that giving the department more funding will make them less likely to try to profit off our parks, we simply don't trust General Manager Phil Ginsberg, and because the only thing he seems to listen to is money, we're partly voting no on Prop B as a vote of "no confidence" in his leadership.

Also, set-asides are stupid! The more we tie up the City budget with set-asides, the less flexibility there is for balancing the budget in the next recession or when other unexpected things happen. Set-asides also make our budget a popularity contest where things like firefighters and kids and parks get guaranteed money but less sexy stuff like homeless and mental health services, bike lanes, and pedestrian improvements have to fight amongst themselves for the budget scraps.

What’s more frustrating about Prop B is that it appears to be an attempt by Mark Farrell to raise his profile in case he wants to run for Mayor down the road. Farrell has been chair of the Budget & Finance Committee for the last four years! If he wanted to give Rec and Park more money, he could have done that through the regular budget. But that would mean he would have to identify where to cut the money from, or how to raise additional revenue. Instead he can put his face on mailers with parks and playgrounds, and leave it up to the Mayor to balance the books next year. And knowing this Mayor, when he balances the books the most vulnerable San Franciscans will lose out.

Proposition C - Temporary Increase and Future Flexibility for Affordable Housing Requirements - Yes
Prop C will give the City the ability to require market-rate housing developers to build more affordable housing, and it will give the Board of Supervisors flexibility to modify those requirements depending on the housing market and other factors. This compromise ballot measure was authored by Supervisors Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin and put on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.

“Inclusionary housing” is the requirement that market-rate housing developers include some affordable housing units in their projects. For buildings with more than 25 units, Prop C temporarily increases the inclusionary affordable housing requirement to 25% (15% for low-income residents and 10% for middle-income residents) until the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance to update the requirement based on further study.

There are a lot of details to the temporary requirements depending on the number of units in the project and whether the affordable units will be on-site, off-site or if the developer will pay a fee instead. Check out the ballot handbook to geek out on the details.

The Planning Department and Controller are currently doing a study on the fiscal feasibility of various affordable housing requirements that will take into account different types and sizes of buildings in different parts of town. We hope the Board of Supervisors uses that study to create a nuanced policy. The goal should be to find the inclusionary sweet spot where we set the requirement high enough to build as much affordable housing as possible without making it impossible for developers to get financing for their projects.

That sweet spot should be very different in different parts of town. When new condos in hot neighborhoods like the Mission and Hayes Valley are going for $2 million or more, developers should be able to make 30-40% of the units affordable and still make big profits. Meanwhile, developers currently aren’t interested in building in outer neighborhoods like the Sunset and Excelsior even with the tiny current 12% affordable requirement. In addition to geography, the affordable housing requirement should take into consideration the housing market and the costs of labor and materials.

Anytime we talk about asking more from developers, they plead poverty, but it sure seems like they’re making plenty of money. It would be great if they could open up their books so we could have an open and honest debate about this stuff!

For projects that are already in the pipeline, the Board of Supervisors recently passed an ordinance to partially grandfather in those projects. Pre-2014 projects would have to be 13% affordable, projects started in 2014 would have to be 13.5%, and 2015/2016 projects would be 14.5% affordable. Meanwhile, hi-rises over 120 feet would have to be 25% affordable.

Why does this have to be on the ballot? Back in 2012, the inclusionary housing requirement was for 15% of housing units to be permanently affordable to low income residents. But the “City Family” made a deal on November 2012’s Prop C, the Housing Trust Fund, to lower this to 12% in order to get support from developers for the fund, which sets aside new funding for affordable housing.

You can debate whether or not it was a good idea to trade giving market-rate developers a break on building affordable housing in exchange for political support for the City spending more of our tax money on affordable housing. (We’re skeptical.) But there’s no debate that the Housing Trust Fund hard-coding the 12% inclusionary rate into the City’s charter was a stupid mistake! That means that only the voters can modify that number.

We’re excited to see progressives counter overly simplistic “build baby build” rhetoric with real solutions to our housing crisis. The most important thing Prop C does is unstick the inclusionary percentage from the City charter and gives us the flexibility to adjust it without going back to the voters. Prop C will temporarily set the affordable housing bar relatively high at 25% and then make the Board of Supervisors and experts hash out a more nuanced framework going forward.

Some background from our last voter guide on WHY we need inclusionary housing: 
What happens when you add a bunch of rich people to a neighborhood? The extra disposable income they bring to the neighborhood creates demand for more service industry jobs, which increases the demand for affordable housing! So maybe those new condos on Valencia open up apartments for a few upper-middle class folks to be able to afford the Mission, but it leads to more service industry workers having to commute from Vallejo to low-wage jobs in the Mission! It’s gotten so bad, businesses can’t find workers to take retail and restaurant jobs in the City.

The City studied this effect back in 2007 in a nexus report and found that to balance out the impact of building new market-rate condos, 30% of them would have to be made affordable! But the City only requires 12% of units in new projects to be affordable--and that was back in 2007 when they assumed the average condo cost $580,000!!

Proposition D - Require Investigations of Officer-Involved Shootings - Yes
Currently the Office of Citizens’ Complaints (OCC) investigates police misconduct only when a complaint is filed. Under Prop D, OCC would be required to investigate all officer-involved shootings that result in death or injury, even if no one files a complaint. However language about timing and cooperation is vague. We'd like to see something with more teeth that holds SFPD accountable for the deaths of Amilcar Perez-Lopez, Mario Woods, Alex Nieto, Luis Gongora, and too many others.

The SFPD is a fucking mess, and it’s a damn shame we aren’t voting on a stronger police reform measure. As one Leaguer put it, Prop D “is literally the least you could do.” Malia Cohen wrote this and the Board of Supervisors unanimously put it on the ballot, but we don’t know if there was any community involvement in this.

The OCC has been chronically understaffed for years, so their investigators have crazy workloads and their investigations take way too long. The OCC also needs to be empowered to initiate its own investigations when they become aware of potential misconduct, and they need the ability to expand investigations to determine if they are isolated incidents or represent patterns of misconduct.

Proposition E - Update Paid Sick Leave - Yes
SF already passed a Paid Sick Leave ordinance, but then the state passed one too. So this prop tweaks a few things to bring it in line with the state law. And makes it better! For example, employees now start accruing PSL on their first day of work instead of after 90 days.

This measure is supported by all eleven Supervisors, the Mayor, the Labor Council, and most importantly for us, is supported by Young Workers United, the badass organizers who led the original Paid Sick leave campaign.

Proposition AA - Parcel Tax to Save the Bay and Wetlands - Yes
This one is pretty cool. It’s a parcel tax on the ballot in all nine Bay Area counties! It will raise $25 million a year for 20 years for restoring wetlands and habitat around the Bay. Considering the way we’ve historically trashed the bay, and considering the fact that sea level rise will be bringing serious flooding way sooner than we anticipated, this is a no-brainer. Prop AA needs to get over 2/3rds of the total vote in all nine counties, which includes some shady conservative areas, so every vote counts for this one.

-----

Pssst…. Are you getting excited for November? We’ve already voted on a few early endorsements for November. We’ll consider other candidates in these races and possible ranked choice voting endorsements in the Fall. 

• Supervisor D1 - Sandra Lee Fewer
• Supervisor D3 - Aaron Peskin
• Supervisor D5 - Dean Preston
• Supervisor D9 - Hillary Ronen
• Supervisor D11 - Kim Alvarenga

If you find yourself amped up about any of this, get in touch with us! We’re always excited to meet new friends. Let’s meet up, get a drink, and pass out voter guides!

Meet the League of Pissed Off Voters

We're a bunch of political geeks in a torrid but troubled love affair with San Francisco. We’re blessed to live in America’s most progressive city, but we’re cursed to live in a city where most of the youth who grow up here can’t afford to live here. Frisco has its own dark history of injustice: redevelopment, environmental racism, the "old boys" network. 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. What are you doing to make a difference?

This voter guide (our 20th in SF!) is how we educate our friends and peers 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?
Join us at happy hour & come party on Election Night! Stay up to date:

• theleaguesf.org
• facebook.com/theLeagueSF
• twitter.com/theLeagueSF

Paid for by the San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters. Financial disclosures available at sfethics.org.

The San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters is a nonprofit political organization registered with the CA Secretary of State - FPPC # 1374879

Email [email protected] for more info!