San Francisco Pissed Off Voter Guide for March 2024 Election

Finally! The Pissed Off Voter Guide for San Francisco's March 2024 election.

lpov-ig-explainer-props-final.jpg

lpov-ig-explainer-dccc-final.jpg

lpov-ig-explainer-judicial-final.jpg

March 5, 2024:
Don't Feed the Trolls!

Democratic Party Offices

Member, Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC): the Labor & Working Families Slate

DCCC Assembly District 17 (East Side)

Peter Gallotta
Kristin Hardy
John Avalos
Jeremy Lee
Vick Chung
Patrick Bell
Gloria Berry
Adolfo Velasquez
Michael Nguyen
Sydney Simpson
Joshua Rudy Ochoa
Sal Rosselli
Jane Kim
Anita Martinez

DCCC Assembly District 19 (West Side)

Natalie Gee
Greg Hardeman
Frances Hsieh
Leah LaCroix
Connie Chan
Queena Chen
Sandra Lee Fewer
Mano Raju
Hene Kelly
Gordon Mar

Federal Offices

US Senator: Barbara Lee
US Representative, District 11: No Endorsement
US Representative, District 15: No Endorsement

State Offices

State Senate, District 11: No Endorsement
State Assemblymember, District 17: No Endorsement
State Assemblymember, District 19: No Endorsement

Judicial Offices

Superior Court Judge, Seat 1: Michael Isaku Begert
Superior Court Judge, Seat 13: Patrick Thompson 

State Propositions

Prop 1: Money for Behavioral Health and Treatment Beds: Yes 

City Propositions

Prop A: Money for Affordable Housing: Yes
Prop B: More Tax Money for Cops: No
Prop C: Tax Breaks for Downtown Developers: No
Prop D: Tighten City Ethics Rules: Yes
Prop E: More Police Surveillance and Car Chases with Less Oversight: Hell No!
Prop F: Forced Drug Screening for the Poor: Just Say No!
Prop G: Make Algebra Great Again: No

Want to know why we endorsed things this way?
Keep reading for our research and snarky analysis!


Voting Logistics

Register to Vote at the Post Office or online at RegisterToVote.ca.gov. The deadline to register is Feb 20th, but in SF you can 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. 

Register as a Democrat: Unless you’re registered as a Democrat, you can’t vote for crucial local Democratic party offices (the DCCC). You can switch over before Feb 20th at SFelections.org, or until Election Day at City Hall. (Note: If you’re registered ‘No Party Preference’ you can request a Democratic ballot but it will only have the Presidential race on it. So switch if you can to weigh in on the local stuff!)

WHEN?

February 5th: Early voting starts at City Hall, weekdays 8am-5pm.

February 24th: Weekend early voting starts at City Hall, Saturdays and Sundays 10am-4pm.  

March 5th: 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?

Drop off your ballot early at one of the 34 official ballot drop boxes across the City, from February 5th through 8pm on Election Day, March 5th. 

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 March 5th.

Where’s your polling place? Check SF Elections' Voting Lookup Tool, 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 still vote even if you’re on parole. Re-register at Restore Your Vote. Don’t let the Man disenfranchise you.

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.

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 few pupusas, we can print and distribute 100 voter guides. 

Help us out!

 


Dear San Francisco,

Here is your Pissed Off Voter Guide for the March primary – an election that’s way more important than it looks.

There’s a primary for President, of course, and Barbara Lee is our hope for U.S. Senator, but the other state and federal primary races are basically uncontested. As usual, the key shit is local.

The DCCC races are crucial. They could swing November’s elections for mayor and the Board of Supervisors, because DCCC members will choose the “official Democratic Party slate” that thousands of SF voters follow. We’re endorsing candidates who will fight for working families and battle City Hall corruption.

Two perfectly reasonable incumbent judges are being challenged from the right. It’s a close race because of unlimited spending by fake “outraged citizen” PACs who are desperate to blame crime on anyone but the mayor and her D.A.

And the ballot measures….are we being trolled? Unpopular Mayor London Breed is facing re-election in November, so she’s veering to the right with a trio of useless and cruel wedge issues (Prop C, Prop E, and Prop F) which would give tax breaks to downtown developers, weaken citizen oversight of the police, and drug-screen poor San Franciscans. Which really is some bullshit. Reverting to these failed strategies would only make the City’s problems worse. 

Cue the troll farms – a well-funded network of astroturf PACs like GrowSF, TogetherSF, and Stop Crime SF. They’re spending millions on this election to convince us that the City is a cesspool run by progressive bleeding hearts and that the only solution is a tough-on-crime, tough-on-drugs, tough-on-schools, tough-on-poor-people crackdown. 

Don’t be fooled, San Francisco – we can’t buy into the doom-loop narrative. Let’s flip the script and get ready for November, when we can vote for solutions to the City’s real problems of wealth inequality, lack of affordable housing, and mismanaged government. In the meantime, don’t feed the trolls!

Love,

The League


Democratic Party Offices

Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC): the Labor and Working Families Slate

Two slates of candidates are competing to control the local Democratic party, and the winner will make official endorsements for the November 2024 election. Many voters turning out to defeat Trump in November will vote the Democratic slate for SF’s down-ballot offices, trusting whatever names are splashed all over the party’s well-funded barrage of election mail. In other words, whoever wins this race could ultimately pick the next mayor, as well as supervisors for Districts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11. 

If the DCCC is hijacked by the “moderate” slate funded by billionaires and real estate developers, they’ll try to sweep away renters, working families, and future district elections.

Fortunately, there is an alternative: the Labor and Working Families slate

Labor and Working Families Slate

This badass team of union organizers, community leaders, educators and activists, is fighting for more affordable housing to address homelessness, more government oversight to tackle corruption, and more economic equality to keep working families in San Francisco. 

Anita Martinez and Vick Chung are elected City College trustees, who ran on their own progressive slate in 2022 to stop class cuts at City.

Jane Kim, John Avalos, Sandra Lee Fewer, and Gordon Mar are former supervisors, all of whom have delivered significant legislation to help immigrants and working families gain economic independence, protect renters and fight for affordable housing, save City College, and help San Francisco transition to renewable energy.

Connie Chan is the current District 1 Supervisor and progressive hero who protected vital City services for renters and families as Budget chair during 2023’s austerity budget cycle, including protecting funds for children, seniors, and the homeless. As Supervisor she has been a champion for immigrants, working families, and small businesses as they work to recover from the pandemic.

Mano Raju, as the City’s elected Public Defender, advocates for supportive services to keep vulnerable San Franciscans out of court and out of jail, while pushing for resources to help people re-enter society and be good community stewards.

Leah LaCroix is a current Vice Chair of the DCCC and has helped deliver Free MUNI for Youth as chair of the SF Youth Commission.

Gloria Berry has fought for reparations for Black San Franciscans on the SF Reparations Committee. 

Jeremy Lee is an affordable housing manager in Chinatown who fought for a fair district map on the 2021 redistricting task force.

Queena Chen and Natalie Gee, daughters of Chinese immigrants, got their start as community organizers in Chinatown. Queena is a transit activist serving on the SFMTA’s Citizen Advisory Committee and co-founder of the Rose Pak Democratic Club. Natalie is a community organizer who has championed language access as a progressive legislative aide.

Greg Hardeman, Patrick Bell, and Kristin Hardy are longtime organizers with their labor unions, representing elevator workers, plumbers, and healthcare workers (IUEC Local 8, UA Local 38, and SEIU 1021). 

Sal Rosselli is president of the National Union of Healthcare Workers.

Sydney Simpson is a progressive union nurse who organizes with the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club.

Hene Kelly is a retired teacher and current Medicare For All activist who advocates for seniors and people with disabilities.

Peter Gallotta is a current Vice Chair of the DCCC. His leadership and organizing has kept the local Democratic Party progressive and a voice for the people. Peter is an activist for clean energy and LGBTQ+ rights.

Adolfo Velasquez is an educator at SF State who has supported low-income students at State and City College.

Joshua Rudy Ochoa works for the SF Youth Commission and, as a student activist, helped raise SF State’s campus minimum wage.

Frances Hsieh is a labor organizer who champions the voices of immigrants, women and Asian-Americans in city government. 

Michael Nguyen a.k.a. Juicy Liu, is an attorney, LGBTQ activist, and drag queen. Michael uses his performance drag to bridge the LGBTQ and API communities.

Let’s take back City Hall from corrupt downtown interests and build a city that works for everyone. Vote for the Labor and Working Families DCCC slate!

Labor and Working Families Slate

Hey! Remember, only registered Democrats can vote in this super important DCCC election. You can get a Democratic Party ballot by registering as a Democrat with the Department of Elections. See Voting Logistics for more info.

^Back to Top


Federal Offices

US Senator: Barbara Lee

Most folks who know Congressperson Barbara Lee on the national stage remember her now legendary refusal to vote for  the disastrous open-ended authorization of war in Afghanistan in the weeks after 9/11– the only member of Congress to do so. Lee eloquently voiced her argument in favor of decency, patience, and healing, and set the standard for American leadership for decades.

Lee’s political life began as a volunteer with the Black Panther Party’s breakfast program, then as president of the Black Student Union at Mills College. Lee was inspired to vote and enter electoral politics after a 1972 Mills visit by Shirley Chisholm, the political trailblazer who was then running for president, and became the first Black woman elected to the U.S. Congress. Lee  joined the staff of Congressman Ron Dellums, a stalwart Black progressive who later served as  Mayor of Oakland. 

In 1990, Lee was elected to the California State Assembly from Oakland; in 1996 she was elected to the California State Senate, and in 1998 she was elected to the U.S Congress, where she has served ever since.

Lee opposes the death penalty, backs reproductive freedoms, and supports shrinking the U.S. military budget. She has worked to decriminalize cannabis and ensure equitable access to the marijuana industry, advocates for Medicare For All, and works for housing affordability. Lee chairs the Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus, the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, and the Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, as well as many progressive congressional groups. Basically, she’s a badass. Let’s send Barbara Lee to DC!

OMGs we get to vote for Barbara Lee twice! 

As with California’s other Senate seat recently vacated under unusual circumstances, this Senate seat also requires two separate, simultaneous, elections—both on the same ballot. One election will be for the remaining few weeks of Feinstein’s term, and one will be for a full six-year term. Vote for Lee twice in the March primary– but remember you will have to vote twice again on the November ballot.  

^Back to Top

US Representative, District 11: No Endorsement

Look, Nancy Pelosi is gonna win, no surprises here. She doesn’t need our endorsement. Every two years our members debate if we should endorse her: do her national contributions outweigh her lack of leadership back at home and justify the shade she loves to throw at progressives? See our 2018 or 2014 voter guides for more thoughts on that. Her most recent unconscionable move in our book? Her insulting and witch-hunty calls for the FBI to investigate those of her constituents calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, saying they might be getting paid by Russia—or, as she suggested in October 2023, that they should “go back to China.” 

^Back to Top

US Representative, District 15: No Endorsement

Okay, incumbent Kevin Mullin may be a “proud member of the Dads Caucus” who brags about his high-school past as DJ “Cutmaster Kevvy Kev.” But he’s endorsed by the state establishment, gets lots of mainstream money, and has no serious opponent– so he doesn’t need our endorsement. Side note: it’s such a drag to have nothing but blah candidates for Congress. Until there’s someone we can get excited about, we’re staying out of it.


State Offices

State Senate: No Endorsement

Scott Wiener, foiled in his ambitions for Congress by Nancy Pelosi’s iron grip on office, is reduced to running again for State Senate, challenged only by a handful of hopeless wannabes. Yes, he’ll win, and will bring his pro-cop, pro-business, pro-development agenda back to Sacramento, while touting his “progressive” bonafides nationally as a battler for trans rights. Even though he’s good on some issues like transit, biking, and nightlife, we have serious policy disagreements with Wiener and can’t support him. (See our 2020 and 2016 voter guides for more on that.) Since he’s left for Sacramento, Wiener has personally authored some of the most cynical legislation ever, restructuring state and local government power for the profit of his real estate backers. We’re seriously worried about Wiener’s stumping in San Francisco with Garry Tan for the reactionary DCCC slate especially after Tan’s image has been emblazoned on death threats to a number of politicians. Wiener’s endorsement of real estate and tech millionaire-funded candidates means no endorsement from us. 

^Back to Top

State Assemblymember, District 17: No Endorsement

The League is not endorsing in this race this year. We supported incumbent Matt Haney in his previous runs for the Board of Ed and Board of Supervisors, and he’s even been to several of our meetings. But by the time he ran for Assembly in 2022, he was distancing himself from his previously progressive record. While he’s done some good things in Sacramento for renters like himself, Haney’s 180 toward YIMBY housing doctrine and his willingness to attack former allies have given him a (well-funded) seat at the moderate table. Now he’s getting support from GrowSF, and his endorsement of real-estate funded candidates for DCCC– who just happen to be running against progressives for supervisor in November– is just bonkers. We’re sad that we can’t endorse him this time around– do better, Matt!

^Back to Top

State Assemblymember, District 19: No Endorsement

We didn’t endorse either of the two front-runners in this race. David Lee and Catherine Stefani are the only serious contenders looking to replace Phil Ting in the State Assembly. If Stefani wins, the all-white delegation to Sacramento will underscore the tragic fact that San Francisco is losing its Chinese-American representation at all levels. Supervisor Catherine Stefani, hailing from the northern and eastern-most, (as well as wealthiest) corner of District 19, hopes to bring a politics of bland YIMBYism to Sacramento, as long as it is not applied too aggressively in her immediate backyard, in lockstep with her colleagues from the San Francisco delegation like Haney and Wiener. Stefani racked up endorsements and campaign donations from the field of moderate-leaning politicians, most of organized labor, and a coterie of old-money Pacific Heights donors including most of billionaire Ron Conway’s extended family.

David Lee is making a fourth run for office, this time with the backing of local progressive leaders from the west side and Chinese progressive communities. We didn’t endorse Lee in his three previous runs for Supervisor of D1, because there's always been a stronger candidate in the race. We’re taking another look at him this time, considering our allies backing him like Connie Chan, Jane Kim, Mark Leno, Sandy Fewer, and Norman Yee. We like his focus on public education and uplifting AAPI community voices. But that wasn’t enough to convince a majority of our members to back Lee, so we ended up with no endorsement.

Sacramento Reality Check

Look, outside the Bay Area, politicians like Wiener, Haney, and Stefani are seen as lefty progressives because they believe in gun control and are perfectly glad to be photographed with drag queens. But just because Moms for Liberty doesn’t like you, it doesn’t mean you share our values. If you’re representing San Francisco, not being a bigoted asshole should be the floor, not the ceiling. We need champions for truly affordable housing, police accountability, policies that keep working families in the city, and systemic checks on the wealth inequality that’s destroying our communities. If you look below their surface-level actions and, of course, follow the money, these guys don’t cut it. 

^Back to Top


Judicial Offices

Superior Court Judge, Seat 1: Michael Isaku Begert
Superior Court Judge, Seat 13: Patrick Thompson

Superior Court judges oversee civil, criminal, and traffic courts. We heartily endorse the two incumbent judges.

Judge Michael Isaku Begert

Seat 1: Judge Michael Isaku Begert presides over collaborative courts, which divert San Franciscans charged with minor crimes away from jail and into drug treatment, mental health, and job-counseling services. Begert knows these programs are effective and wants to see them continue. One of the good guys!

Judge Patrick Thompson

Seat 13: Judge Patrick Thompson is relatively new to the bench, currently working in the courts’ pretrial system. We like his take on fairness: “I don’t coddle criminal defendants. I don’t coddle defense attorneys. I don’t coddle prosecutors.” He’s a stand-up judge who won’t be bullied.

Our courts are under attack by conservative PACs looking to blame anyone but the mayor and her DA for the fentanyl crisis and crime. They want to amplify a Fox News narrative in which San Francisco is a lawless hellhole that needs more cops, draconian laws, and hanging judges…but that MAGA-uncle rant-at-Thanksgiving horseshit has no place in our political dialogue.

Our justice system is far from perfect, but these two judges are part of the solution. Vote for Judge Begert and Judge Thompson!

^Back to Top


State Proposition

Prop 1: Money for Behavioral Health and Treatment Beds: Yes

Prop 1 modifies an existing state tax (2004’s Mental Health Services tax of 1% on incomes over $1 million) so the money can be used to address substance abuse, and would require a chunk of the money raised to go to housing and supportive services. This prop also includes a $6.38B state-level bond, put on the ballot by the state legislature, and supported by majorities there and by the governor. If it passes, CA borrows money now to address urgent needs and pays it back over time. The new money from this bond would go to: 

  • County health departments, with grants for organizations that provide behavioral health treatment to create more inpatient and residential treatment beds (about $4 billion)
  • Permanent supportive housing for people with behavioral health disorders who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness (about $2 billion, half earmarked for veterans)

The bond money would provide an estimated 11,000 more treatment beds and supportive housing units, with outpatient services for over 27,000 people.

If you’re running a clean-up-the-streets campaign (and who isn’t? See, for example, London Breed, the mods’ DCCC slate, future President Newsom, or SF’s Prop F) it’s mandatory to rage against all those “homeless crazy people” and “drug addicts” who refuse to get treatment. But here’s the reality: there are nowhere near enough treatment beds for people who need them. Not in San Francisco, with our county hospital’s grand total of 44 acute psychiatric beds, and definitely not in California’s poor rural counties. And any unhoused person lucky enough to get past bureaucratic requirements,and move into short-term rehab is unfortunately out of luck when it’s over: most folks who come from the street are discharged right back to the street

The state desperately needs more clinicians, treatment beds, and housing to help Californians struggling with mental health and/or substance use disorders that aren’t getting what they need from existing outpatient services with limited capacity. Right now their only options are languishing on waiting lists, cycling through emergency rooms—or ending up in jails and prisons, which have become the state’s de facto psych and drug treatment centers. This bond would also allow mental health money to also be spent on substance use disorder treatment and housing so people can stay mentally healthy. 

Dear readers, we do want you to know that this one is a little tricky. While a majority of our members ultimately voted to endorse Prop 1, our discussion was more nuanced. Of course, we  worried about endorsing anything with this much money backed by the supremely slippery Gavin Newsom, whose Prop 1 catchphrase “treatment not tents” (ugh eyeroll) recalls his notorious “Care Not Cash” initiative from way back when he was SF mayor, which helped cause the problem he now decries

More importantly, some in the mental health and disability rights communities are concerned that the facilities built with the bond money from Prop 1 could include forced treatment programs, potentially opening the door to a return to the bad old days of nightmarish asylums (the words “voluntary” and “unlocked” were removed from earlier versions of the legislation). And we agree with mental health advocates that it’s majorly effed up for the legislature to craft these bills without consulting or centering the needs of folks who access these services. This is especially important because Prop 1 changes how money from the long-standing tax should be spent, effectively diverting money from some existing services to expand programs that include substance use disorder treatment and housing support. There are ways to fill these gaps with new funds from Medi-Cal and other sources, but Prop 1 places the burden on local health systems to figure that out.

So yes, this prop has its faults and this isn’t going to single-handedly fix our clusterf*ck of a behavioral health system. But ultimately, we’re going with a yes on this one. The tax funds will still go through local health departments that can determine how to best meet their communities’ needs, they’ll have more resources to address substance use disorder in addition to mental health, and the bond puts money toward a persistent gap in the system. While nobody wants to see a return to draconian institutions, we do need more money for supportive housing, and treatment facilities that offer an alternative to jails.

We say Vote Yes!

^Back to Top


City & County Propositions

Prop A: Money for Affordable Housing: Yes

San Francisco’s affordable housing has mostly been funded by federal and state money. But that’s been cut, so the city needs to rely more on taxes, developer fees, and/or bonds. Unfortunately, the city reduced the amount that developers are required to kick in for affordable housing, and no politician is gonna risk floating a new property tax before an election… but San Francisco still has to  build 46,000 affordable units by 2031 or be penalized by the state. Thus, this bond. 

Most of it— $240 million —is for funding just 1,500 units already in the housing pipeline, but stalled for lack of money. Another $30 million is for preserving sites like those in the Small Sites Program (about 60 units) and $30 million goes to 120 beds of supportive housing for domestic violence survivors. All worthwhile and necessary, in our book.

This measure is supported by the supes and the mayor. It requires a two-thirds vote to pass: As if that pressure weren’t enough, it will also be a predictor for the popularity of future bonds. If it fails (the way the transit bond did last year) despite our obvious need for housing funds and  support from all the players, that would be very bad news for any future affordable housing measures, and for other public infrastructure initiatives. Eeek. So tell all your friends: Vote Yes on Prop A!

Side Plot on Climate Bond Drama

Climate activists pushed to add $50-100 million to this bond for electrification and efficiency retrofits of existing affordable housing, but the Supervisors and Mayor said no, because there isn’t room in the City’s capital plan. The capital plan established a policy that we will only issue new bonds as old bonds are paid off, trying to keep City property taxes at the same level since 2006. We think it’s time to reconsider that policy for key needs like housing and climate. That makes it even more important that Governor Newsom step up on leading a state climate bond for the November ballot. Unfortunately it looks like we shouldn’t get our hopes up. :/

^Back to Top

Prop B: More Tax Money for Cops: No

You know it’s bad when progressives and conservatives agree on anything related to the San Francisco Police Department. And—get ready— the League is on Mayor Breed’s side here!

This is one of two measures on this ballot aiming to turn back the clock on policing reforms (see also Prop E). In the summer of 2020, following George Floyd’s murder, there was a flurry of activism against over-policing, with a focus on alternative community safety strategies. In the November 2020 election, our supervisors unanimously submitted a ballot measure to remove minimum staffing rules for the SFPD, saying; “For the last 25 years, the minimum staffing requirement has handcuffed San Franciscans and our budget, and it hasn’t made our city safer.” Voters agreed at the ballot, and police staffing minimums were removed from The City charter. Yay! Victory! 

So wait, why are we even talking about establishing a minimum again? 

Here’s the background: Supervisor (and former SFPD spokesman and “copaganda” strategist) Matt Dorsey drafted a proposition to mandate more new police hiring and retention without a source of funding, which is policy code for “cut other City services to pay for recruiting bonuses”. Then Supervisor (and mayoral challenger) Ahsha Safaí amended the prop, making police hiring dependent on future new funding, most likely a tax, and the supes voted to put it on the ballot. Breed and Dorsey went ballistic, calling the amended version a devious “cop tax.” Now public-sector unions (which want more public safety hiring, including medics and firefighters) are backing it, and Breed and her allies are urging voters to vote no.  

On top of the minimum staffing nonsense, Prop B would require an expensive new tax, take money away from the city’s general fund, and establish a “Police Officer Staffing Fund” which the department would then have  broad discretion over — i.e. a nice little SFPD recruiting slush fund. What could possibly go wrong? (Dorsey wants to do a pro-SFPD reality show and SFPD recently did recruiting trips to friggin Texas, hunting for new cops!)

We are sticking with the voters’ previous decision, and saying no to more cops. Just like our dear friend London Breed: Vote No on Prop B.

^Back to Top

Prop C: Tax Breaks for Downtown Developers: No

Prop C would give tax breaks to downtown developers who sell their commercial property after converting it to residential use. We can debate the merits of that given our affordable housing shortage, but there’s also a sneaky backdoor clause that could remove the entire property transfer tax entirely. No, thanks!

Backstory: In November 2020, we won a huge victory with Prop I, which increased the City’s property transfer tax on luxury properties sold for over $10 million, generating over $300 million to stabilize the budget and fund affordable housing. (The Supervisors created the Housing Stability Fund to direct Prop I money to social housing, but the Mayor refused to spend that money on housing. WTF?!)

So for decades, the City let developers build gobs of office towers downtown without including enough housing. Now with the work-from-home revolution, downtown is empty, and the office vacancy rate has skyrocketed to 34%. The City desperately needs housing, so, yeah, maybe it makes sense to convert some empty offices to homes.

But do we really need to give fatcats a tax break for what will almost certainly be high-priced condos? And does poor Mr. Moneybags who made a bad investment in office space deserve to be bailed out? Plus, we lose out on tax money that would have gone toward affordable housing? Yuck.

If all that weren’t bad enough, Prop C slips in a clause allowing the real estate transfer tax itself to be changed by the Board of Supervisors, which means a pro-real estate Board could completely eliminate it. And y’all know how we feel about undoing the will of the voters – not on our watch! Vote No on Prop C.

^Back to Top

Prop D: Tighten City Ethics Rules: Yes

The San Francisco Ethics Commission was created by voters in 1993. It’s in charge of everything connected to clean government: anti-bribery rules, election campaign finance, lobbying, preventing conflicts of interest, and so on. It advises City employees on how not to break the ethics rules, enforces the rules, and sometimes pushes for even better and stronger rules.

The Ethics Commission put this prop on the ballot to firm up the City’s lax laws on gift-giving, tighten various loopholes, and make it harder for the Board of Supervisors to monkey around with ethics rules in the future. They started drafting it a few years ago, in response to the bonkers corruption kablooie that put former DPW head Mohammed Nuru in federal prison (and ended the careers of various other City bigwigs and contractors.)  The Ethics Commission tactfully said it wanted to “address demonstrated shortcomings in the City’s ethics laws and help prevent future acts of corruption like those identified through numerous recent investigations into the conduct of City officials and those doing business with the City.”

The details are pretty arcane, and it’s hard to write comprehensive regulations to prevent impropriety without getting too  finicky. For example, the rules specify that City officials can’t enjoy “office courtesies” like tea or bagels at a business more than four times a year, which makes sense… but imagine the recordkeeping!

It’s hard to draw the lines in the right place when you’re regulating the relationship between government employees and the businesses, nonprofit contractors and   individuals they need to work closely with day in and day out.  You want to outlaw sketchy gift-giving, but not accidentally block valid partnerships or make it illegal to invite your next-door neighbor to your BBQ, because the ribs you got were kinda expensive and six months from now the company she works for is going to apply for a permit from a board you sit on. But it’s not that hard to smell when something’s fishy. 

Side note: The Ethics Commission is supposed to be able to advise people about the ethics of sticky situations, but it’s severely understaffed. We think the commission  should receive guaranteed funding in proportion to the City budget, to help our government and our elections stay squeaky clean. 

Ethics rules are complex and tricky to get right. But ultimately, we’d prefer to weed out the corruption that’s plagued City government for years, so we lean toward strictness rather than laxness. And we trust the Ethics Commission. In fact, if recent egregious scandals weren’t enough to convince you that this prop is needed, check this out: The union for highly-paid and powerful City managers, the Municipal Executives Association, was required to have a series of meetings with the Ethics Commission before the commission could submit Proposition D to the voters. The MEA tried to kill the prop by dragging their feet so obnoxiously during the meeting-scheduling process that they forced the Ethics Commission to miss two different deadlines to get it on the ballot? If the people who would be regulated by this prop are already resisting it, it’s definitely needed. Vote Yes on Prop D.

^Back to Top

Prop E: More Police Surveillance and Car Chases with Less Oversight: Hell No!

Prop E would remove citizen oversight of SFPD’s surveillance and technology policies, encourage more dangerous police chases for low-level crimes, and bog down any Police Commission reforms the Chief of Police doesn’t like.  (The Police Commission itself, whose members are appointed by the mayor and the supervisors, has recently been a focus of right-wing misinformation campaigns but remains a super-important check on abuses of power by the SFPD.) 

Currently, the SFPD can only adopt a new technology after filing a request with the Board of Supervisors that explains how it will be used (and, more importantly, how it won’t be abused). Prop E allows the SFPD to use any new technology immediately, as they wish, without formal policy, for a full year. Police drones following people? Arming police drones with bombs? AI-powered facial recognition? The cops could run wild with any of those.

On the “chase” front, Prop E allows police to chase anyone “likely” to commit a felony or violent misdemeanor. WTF does that even mean? Sounds like some Orwellian Thought Police or Philip K. Dick’ian Pre-Crime shit to us. And even Police Chief Bill Scott supported SFPD’s current car chase policy before the Mayor put Prop E on the ballot without even holding a hearing at the Police Commission. Since 2018, 38% of SFPD chases have ended in a collision with 36 injuries and 2 deaths. We don’t need any more of these, thank you.

Hmm, what else? Prop E would allow the cops to delay any Police Commission reforms at the Chief’s request, requiring  a 90-day wait and meetings in all ten police stations before the commission could even hold a meeting to consider the policy. It would also reduce transparency, limiting the time cops are allowed to spend on reporting use-of-force incidents.

This measure, backed by the police union, got a hefty $250,000 from crypto billionaire Chris Larsen, and another $100,000 from notorious billionaire powerbroker Ron Conway. But big-money ads can’t hide the fact that this is the opposite of how police oversight should work. Prop E is a cynical, poorly written, fear-mongering attempt by fear-mongering politicians to appear “tough on crime” by reversing important police reforms and letting SFPD go ham with dangerous car chases and unproven technologies. It will make San Franciscans less safe. Vote Hell No on Prop E!

^Back to Top

Prop F: Forced Drug Screening for the Poor: Just Say No!

Prop F is a hateful piece of tough-love posturing by Mayor Breed that would revive the nastiest and least effective aspects of the failed War on Drugs. It would withhold money, shelter, and meals from any recipient of the County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) who refuses to be screened for substance abuse or refuses mandatory treatment if found to be using by a “professional evaluation.” CAAP is a lifeline for the very poorest San Franciscans, including immigrants and refugees. It provides a measly $712/month for housed recipients who make under $7,500 a year (homeless adults get $109/month and a shelter bed in return for 12 hours a week of work.) Prop F threatens to take away these benefits in the name of cleaning up downtown. 

It’s a joke to pretend that this proposition would solve anything. San Francisco is already desperately short on staff and rehab beds, and can’t provide help even to those who want treatment for substance use disorders. Extensive research shows forcing people into treatment simply doesn’t work.

Prop F would almost certainly increase homelessness and cost the City money. If housed CAAP recipients lose their monthly $712, they’ll lose their homes, which means more unhoused people on the streets – each of whom would cost the city over $5,000 a month for shelter alone. It’s cruel and it’s stupid. Just Say No to Prop F.

^Back to Top

Prop G: Make Algebra Great Again: No

Aaand rounding out the wedge salad, we have Prop G: a pointless attempt to tell the school district how to teach math. Wait, are we living in a red state somewhere? What’s with these anti-woke school board takeovers and ballot measures dictating curriculum? School politics have felt especially toxic and disorienting in recent years (spoiler alert: the recalls didn’t fix anything), but since we’re here, this is the backstory on the algebra thing: 

For years, San Francisco Unified School District offered Algebra 1 in 8th grade for all students. But in 2014 the district changed its math sequencing to respond to a troubling pattern: Black, Latinx and low-income students were getting stuck in lower-level math classes, while their peers made it to AP calculus and AP statistics. 8th grade Algebra I was the starting point for this  de-facto racialized tracking that carried through high school. SFUSD moved Algebra I to 9th grade to promote racial equity and improve overall learning, while introducing algebraic concepts in younger grades to help students prepare for higher math. While this change was supported by the district’s African American Advisory Council and in line with updates to the California Common Core standards, some parents felt their kids were being “discriminated against'' for being good at math, both sides called each other racist, and it all flowed riiiight into the raging shitstorm of pandemic-era school battles.  

Anyway, THAT happened and now, nearly a decade after Algebra 1 was moved to 9th grade, it turns out results have been mixed. More students are passing algebra, but racial disparities in upper grades haven’t decreased. There are a million possible explanations for this, including huge gaps in resources between schools, flawed testing systems, and the common practice of some families paying out of pocket for extra math classes so their kids still get ahead. To make matters even more confusing, the University of California has updated their requirements for which classes count toward admission, and the state Board of Education has new guidance on this exact same algebra question.

So everyone agrees it’s time to take another look at math sequencing, and guess what? SFUSD has already committed to bringing Algebra 1 back to 8th grade. SFUSD is collecting input from parents and educators on a new math sequencing plan that’s headed to the school board for consideration on February 13th…That’s right, before we even vote on this prop! Astroturf mods knew this change was in the works, but they put this resolution on the ballot anyway to supercharge the rage machine and bait us into (yet another) draining culture-war fight.

How pointless is Prop G? The reason it’s last on the ballot is because it’s non-binding.. That’s right: The City has no legal authority over the school district, so Prop G won’t even do anything if it passes. Now, SFUSD is far from perfect and we’ll be watching to see how their new plan plays out. But at least that process is happening, you know, at the legal body that actually has jurisdiction over how math is taught. 

Voting no on Prop G doesn’t mean you hate algebra or don’t want kids to go to college. It means you trust educators to do their jobs, understand that the City doesn’t actually have jurisdiction over school curricula, and reject dog-whistle attempts to undermine public education in the minds of SF parents and voters.

Ignore the blowhards. Your eighth-grader certainly will. 

^Back to Top


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 32nd 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:

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

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 few pupusas, we can print and distribute 100 voter guides. 

Help us out!

 


November 8, 2022 Pissed Off Voter Guide

Voting Logistics: 

Register to Vote at the Post Office or online at registertovote.ca.gov. The California deadline to register is Oct 19th, but in San Francisco you can register on the spot and cast a provisional ballot at any polling place on Election Day.

WHEN: 

October 11: Early voting starts at City Hall, weekdays 8am-5pm.

October 29: Weekend early voting starts at City Hall, Saturdays and Sundays 10am-4pm.  

November 8: 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:

Drop off your ballot early at one of the 34 official ballot drop boxes across the City beginning October 10 or by 8pm on Election Day, November 8. 

Where’s your polling place? Check https://sfelections.org, call 311, or just go vote at City Hall.

If you're going to mail your ballot, you don't need a stamp, but make sure you sign the envelope and it's postmarked by Election Day.

Didn't get your ballot or did you lose it or mess it up? Go request a replacement ballot at City Hall or your polling place. It'll still count.

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! Even if you're still on parole, you can vote. Re-register at Restore Your Vote. Don’t let the Man disenfranchise you

Youth can (almost) vote! If you’re 16 or 17, pre-register and your registration will automatically be activated when you turn 18.


November 8, 2022:
Let's Fix Some Shit!

State and Federal Offices

Governor: No Endorsement
Lt Governor: No Endorsement
Secretary of State: Shirley Weber
Controller: No Endorsement
Treasurer: No Endorsement
Attorney General: Rob Bonta
Insurance Commissioner: No Endorsement
Board of Equalization, District 2: Sally Lieber

US Senator: Alex Padilla
US Representative, District 11: No Endorsement
US Representative, District 15David Canepa

State Assemblymember, District 17: No Position
State Assemblymember, District 19: No Endorsement

Judicial Offices

Supreme Court Judges: Yes on Guerrero, Liu, Jenkins, Groban
Court of Appeal Judges, First District: Yes on Stewart, Tucher, Rodriguez, Petrou, Fujisaki, Brown, Goldman, Jackson, Burns

School Offices

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond
Board of Education: Alida Fisher, Gabriela Lopez, Karen Fleshman
City College Board, 4 Year Term: Anita Martinez, Vick Chung, Susan Solomon
City College Board, 2 Year Term: Adolfo Velasquez

District Offices

BART Director, District 8: Janice Li

County Offices

Assessor-Recorder: No Endorsement
District Attorney: #1 John Hamasaki
Public Defender: Mano Raju

Board of Supervisors

District 2 Supervisor: No Endorsement
District 4 Supervisor: Gordon Mar
District 6 Supervisor: #1 Honey Mahogany #2 Cherelle Jackson
District 8 Supervisor: No Endorsement 
District 10 Supervisor: Shamann Walton

State Propositions

Prop 1: Protect Abortion Rights: Hell Yes!
Prop 26: Legalize Sports Betting in Tribal Casinos: Reluctant Yes
Prop 27: Legalize Mobile Sports Betting: No
Prop 28: K-12 Art and Music Education: Yes
Prop 29: Dialysis Clinic Regulation: Yes
Prop 30: Tax the Ultra-Wealthy for Climate Change: Yes
Prop 31: Ban on Flavored Tobacco: Yes

Local Propositions

Prop A: Retiree Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment: Yes
Prop B: Sanitation & Streets Public Work Reorg: Yes
Prop C: Homelessness Oversight Commission: Yes
Prop D: Affordable Homes Never: Hell No!
Prop E: Homes for Families and Workers: Hell Yes!
Prop F: Library Preservation Fund: Yes
Prop G: Student Success Fund: Yes, Please!
Prop H: Voter Participation Act: OMG Yes!
Prop I: Open JFK Drive + Great Highway to Cars: No
Prop J: Close JFK Drive to Cars: No Position
Prop K: Removed from the Ballot
Prop L: Renew Half Cent Sales Tax for Transit: Hell Yes!
Prop M: Empty Homes Tax: Hell Yes! 
Prop N: City Funding for Golden Gate Park Parking Garage: Yes  
Prop O: City College Parcel Tax: Hell Yes!

Read more

June 7, 2022 Pissed Off Voter Guide

Voting Logistics: 

  • Vote or drop off your ballot at the COVID-safe City Hall Voting Center. Open Monday 8am-5pm and Tuesday from 7am-8pm!
  • Drop off your ballot at by 8pm Tuesday at one of the 24-hour ballot drop boxes.
  • Where’s your polling place? You can also drop your ballot off at any polling place on Election Day. Check sfelections.org, call 311, or just go vote at City Hall.
  • If you're going to mail your ballot, you don't need a stamp, but make sure you sign the envelope and it's postmarked by Election Day.
  • Didn't get your ballot or did you lose it or mess it up? Go request a replacement ballot at City Hall or your polling place. It'll still count.
  • 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! Even if you're still on parole, you can vote. Re-register at Restore Your Vote. Don’t let the Man disenfranchise you.
  • Youth can (almost) vote! If you’re 16 or 17, pre-register and your registration will automatically be activated when you turn 18.

June 7, 2022:
Enough With the Recalls Already!

State, Federal and Local Offices

GovernorLuis Rodriguez
Lt Governor: Mohammad Arif
Secretary of State: Shirley Weber
Controller: Ron Galperin
Treasurer: Meghann Adams
Attorney General: Rob Bonta
Insurance Commissioner: Nathalie Hrizi 
Board of Equalization, District 2: Sally Lieber
US Senator: Alex Padilla
US Representative, District 11: No Endorsement
State Assembly, District 17: No Endorsement
State Assembly, District 19: No Endorsement
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Marco Amaral 
City Attorney: No Endorsement

Local Propositions

Prop A: Muni Bond: Reluctant No Endorsement
Prop B: Tinker with Building Inspection Commission Structure: Sure?
Prop C: Reform Recalls: Hell Yes!
Prop D: Redundant and Unfunded Victim Rights City Department: No
Prop E: Close “Behested Payments” Slush Fund Loophole: Yes
Prop F: End Garbage Collection Corruption: Yes
Prop G: Give Workers Sick Days to Deal with the Apocalypse: Yes
Prop H: Right-wing Recall of DA Chesa Boudin: Hell No!

Read more

Guía de los Votantes Enfadados para las elección de 7 de junio de 2022

¡Logística de votación!

5/9: La votación anticipada comienza en la Municipalidad, de 8am-5pm, de lunes a viernes

5/23: Ultimo dia para registracion para votar

5/28, 5/29, 6/4, 6/5 de 10am-4pm: Días de votación en el fin de semana, en la Municipalidad

6/7: ¡Día de elección! Las votaciones comienzan 7am-8pm.  ¡Si estás en linea a las 8pm, todavia tienes el derecho de votar!

¿Dónde está su sitio de votación?? Revise: tinyurl.com/SFPollingPlace, llame 311, o simplemente puede ir a votar en la Municipalidad. 

¡Las personas con felonías pueden votar! Si tienes felonias todavia puedes votar, aunque estes con libertad condicional. No dejes que te priven tus derechos.

Los que esperan al ultimo minuto pueden votar:¡Hay Registro de votantes el mismo día de las elecciones! ¿Se pasó de la fecha límite del 23 de mayo para registrarse para votar? ¿Sabes dónde está la Municipalidad? ¡Vaya allí! Puede registrarse y votar hasta el ultimo día de las elecciones. La inscripción tardía solo estára disponible en el Departamento de Elecciones en el sótano la Municipalidad, no en los lugares de votación regulares.

¡Los jóvenes pueden (casi) votar! Si tienes 16 o 17 años, regístrate previamente y tu registro se activará automáticamente cuando cumplas 18.


7 de junio de 2022

ya basta de retiros del mercado

 

Probadores de La Liga:

Gobernador: Luis Rodríguez

Vicegobernador: Mohammad Arif

Secretaria de Estado: Shirley Weber

Controlador: Ron Galperin

Tesorero: Meghann Adams

Fiscal General: Rob Bonta

Comisionada de seguros: Nathalie Hrizi

Junta de Ecualización, Distrito 2: Sally Lieber

Senador de los Estados Unidos: Alex Padilla

Representante de EE. UU., Distrito 11: Sin respaldo

Asamblea Estatal, Distrito 17: Sin Respaldo

Asamblea Estatal, Distrito 19: Sin Respaldo

Superintendente de Instrucción Pública: Marco Amaral

Abogado de la ciudad: Sin respaldo

Propuestas Locales:

Proposición A: Bono MUNI: Reticente sin respaldo

Proposición B: Jugar con la estructura de la Comisión de Inspección de Edificios: ¿Seguro?

Proposición C: Retiros de reforma: ¡Claro que sí!

Proposición D: Derechos de las víctimas redundantes y sin fondos Departamento de la ciudad: No

Proposición E: cerrar la escapatoria del fondo de sobornos de "pagos indeseados":

Proposición F: Poner fin a la corrupción en la recolección de basura:

Proposición G: Dar a los trabajadores días de enfermedad para lidiar con el Apocalipsis:

Proposición H: Retiro de derecha de DA Chesa Boudin: ¡Claro que no!


Estimado San Francisco,

Te amamos, pero esto es un desastre.

Mira, somos nerds políticos. Escribimos esta guía del votante. Vemos SFGovTV por diversión. Pero los retiros más las primarias significan que esta es nuestra tercera elección este año, lo cual es demasiado, incluso para nosotros. 

Quiero decir, seguro, estamos felices de ver que las Propuestas E y F toman medidas enérgicas contra la sordidez ya que la "Familia de la Ciudad" nos ha estado avergonzando con violaciones de ética y picaduras de corrupción federal. Pero no estamos entusiasmados con las proposiciones sin sentido o los titulares del statu quo que navegan hacia la victoria en sus primarias. Bleagh.

Así que estas elecciones son molestas. ¡Pero sigue siendo esencial! Tenemos que aplastar la destitución derechista de nuestro fiscal de distrito progresista (que solo está tratando de hacer su maldito trabajo) y reformar las destituciones para que los ricos al azar no puedan obligarnos a pasar por esta broma de congreso cuando quieran una repetición cuando su candidato pierde.

Los malos creen que nadie está mirando. Cuentan con una baja participación. ¡Así que haga un plan para votar y comparta esta guía para votantes con sus amigos! Es hora de limpiar la casa.

Con Amor,

La Liga


Más información sobre carrera electoral

 

Proposición C: Reforma de destitución 

Ok, tal como están las cosas, los multimillonarios pueden contratar recolectores de firmas pagados para activar retiros en SF cuando lo deseen. Esto desperdicia el tiempo de todos y el dinero de los contribuyentes. Y los retiros no son una lucha justa: favorecen a los conservadores. Más elecciones=menor participación, lo que priva de sus derechos a los votantes trabajadores, ocupados y tradicionalmente marginados (que se inclinan por el progresismo). Dado que un retiro es técnicamente una propuesta en lugar de un candidato, los límites de contribución financiera de campaña no se aplican y los tacaños pueden financiar a los malos.

Además, según la ley actual, si se destituye a algún funcionario electo de SF, no podemos votar por su reemplazo. Quienquiera que el alcalde designe para ocupar el asiento vacío se postula (y generalmente gana) como titular. Bleagh.

La Propuesta C tomaría medidas enérgicas contra los retiros frívolos al prohibirlos en el primer año de un mandato, o dentro de un año de la próxima elección, y prohibiría que los reemplazos designados se presenten como titulares, para que podamos elegir a nuestros funcionarios electos. ¡Hurra! Vote Sí por la Proposición C.

Proposición E: Cerrar la escapatoria del fondo de sobornos de "pagos exigidos"

La Comisión de Ética de San Francisco, el organismo de control de finanzas de campaña de la ciudad, elaboró ​​este accesorio para cerrar una laguna en nuestras leyes antisoborno. En este momento, los miembros de la Junta de Supervisores no pueden aceptar dinero de ninguna empresa que haga negocios con la Ciudad. Pero pueden alentar a aquellas empresas, cual con contratos están en condiciones de afectar, a hacer donaciones a una caridad favorecida por el Supervisor. Eso se llama "solicitar un pago exigido", y los miembros de extrangeros de City Family usan el proceso para acumular fondos para sobornos en varias fundaciones y organizaciones sin fines de lucro favoritas, que luego dan la vuelta y usan el dinero en formas que benefician al supervisor, su familia o su agenda política.

Proposición E haría más estrictas las leyes al prohibir estas solicitudes mientras se consideran los contratos, y hasta doce meses después de que finalice un contrato aprobado. También hace que sea más difícil para la Junta alterar estas reglas en el futuro. Vote Sí a la Proposición E

Prop H: No dejes que la derecha retire a nuestro fiscal de distrito, Chesa Boudin

En noviembre de 2019 (tiempos queridos), San Francisco eligió a la defensora pública progresista Chesa Boudin para ser nuestra fiscal de distrito. Boudin prometió arreglar el sistema de justicia penal quebrado de SF, que puso a demasiados habitantes pobres y BIPOC de San Francisco tras las rejas y no estaba haciendo que nuestra ciudad fuera más segura.

Desde su elección, Boudin ha hecho exactamente lo que prometió hacer. La lista es larga, pero aquí hay algunos aspectos destacados: puso fin a la fianza en efectivo, estableció una Comisión de Inocencia para revisar los casos de condena injusta, dejó de criminalizar a los jóvenes a través de mejoras de pandillas y cargos de adultos, amplió los servicios de apoyo y la privacidad de las víctimas, aumentó los servicios para los chinos de SF. comunidad en respuesta a la violencia contra los asiáticos, y buscó una rendición de cuentas sin precedentes para los policías que violan la ley.

A pesar de (¿debido a?) este impresionante récord, los mismos tipos conservadores de la ley y el orden que perdieron esa elección en 2019 han invertido millones de dólares en esfuerzos de recolección de firmas y campañas publicitarias para destituir a Chesa. ¡No se deje engañar! Vota Claro Que No a la Proposición H.


¿Quién es la Liga de los Votantes Enfadados?

Somos un grupo de extraños de política enamorados con el clima bipolar que es San Francisco. La Liga se formó en 2004 con el objetivo de construir una mayoría gobernante progresista en nuestra vida. Nuestra contribución en esta guía para votantes: un anillo decodificador secreto para la política de San Francisco. Todos los que tenemos la suerte de disfrutar de la magia de esta ciudad debemos a esta Ciudad linda y luchar para mantenerla diversa, justa y saludable.

Esta guía es para votantes (¡esta es nuestra 30ª edición en San Francisco!) está minuciosamente investigada y completamente sesgada. Así es como educamos a nuestros amigos sobre los temas, entusiasmamos a los votantes progresistas enojados y les recordamos a los políticos vendidos que estamos prestando atención.

¿Quiere participar, tiene alguna pregunta sobre este tema o simplemente quiere tomar una copa con nosotros?

Sociales y maneras de conectarse con nosotros 

Anuncio pagado por la Liga de Votantes Enfadados de San Francisco. Divulgaciones financieras disponibles en sfethics.org.

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


April 2022 Voter Guide

Voting Logistics: 

This election is only for Assembly District 17, the eastern half of the city. You can look up your address to see if that’s you.

Vote early at the COVID-safe City Hall Voting Center in front of Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. Open last two weekends of the election 4/9 - 4/10  and 4/16-4/17 from 10am-4pm. Open weekdays 8pm-5pm starting March 21st!

Drop off your ballot at City Hall during Voting Center early voting hours or on Election Day. Dropping off your ballot means you don't have to worry about the Post Office delivering it in time.

Mail your ballot if you can't drop it off. You don't need a stamp, but make sure you sign the envelope and it's postmarked by Election Day.

4/19/22: Election Day! Polls open 7am-8pm. If you’re in line by 8pm you can vote. Let’s stand in line together! You can also drop your ballot off at any polling place on Election Day.

Where’s your polling place? Check sfelections.org, call 311, or just go vote at City Hall.

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 still vote as long as you’re off parole. Don’t let the Man disenfranchise you.

Youth can (almost) vote! If you’re 16 or 17, pre-register and your registration will automatically be activated when you turn 18.


Assembly District 17: No Endorsement

The San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters members met on March 11th to vote on an endorsement in the April 2022 runoff election which will decide whether Matt Haney or David Campos will represent Assembly District 17 in Sacramento (the seat is vacant because David Chiu got appointed to be the City Attorney). AD17 is composed of the eastern half of San Francisco. The district boundary is actually changing slightly due to redistricting, but this April election is using the old lines. See the map here and check your address here.

After a lot of discussion, no candidates or options received the majority of votes! So we have no endorsement.

In our meeting, we debated the merits and flaws of both Haney and Campos - both of whom the League has endorsed and worked with in the past. Some of us advocated for endorsing both candidates - some of us were more excited to endorse David Campos. Ultimately, these perspectives tied in our membership vote, which means we officially have no position in the race.

 

A little bit about Campos:

Pros: During his time on the Board of Supervisors (2008-2016), Campos was instrumental in several policy efforts: Closing the Healthy SF loophole, crafting the buyout legislation that gets tenants some cash if their landlords move in, and regulating short-term rentals. He’s a hardcore progressive who sticks to his guns (for example, he’s opposed housing developments that don’t include as many Below Market Rate units as he’d like). He would be the first Latinx Assemblymember from San Francisco, and bring more LGBTQ representation to Sacramento. Many old school progressive organizations have given Campos their sole endorsement, and he has the backing of current and past progressive Supervisors like Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen, and Tom Ammiano. 

Cons: Since leaving office, Campos has held several political positions (like head of the local Democratic party) with mixed results. Haney supporters say Campos struggles to build coalitions and is too unwilling to compromise, which could make it harder to get things done in Sacramento. During this campaign season, we’ve been disappointed to see him going negative and we worry this might have the unintended consequence of pulling Haney to the right. And while Campos hasn’t taken direct contributions from corporations, there are plenty of individual donations from developers and CEOs in the ethics filings. Campos is a tried-and-true progressive, we just hope if elected he can play ball at the statewide level and work effectively for the policies our state really needs.

You can read David Campos’s responses to our questionnaire here.


A little bit about Haney:

Pros: Since joining the Board of Supervisors in 2019, Haney has delivered on several key issues that matter to his district: being super involved in the City’s robust COVID response (including tenant protections), bringing City resources to improve sanitation, crafting Mental Health SF with Supervisor Ronen, and advocating for funding to support the Leather/Transgender Cultural District. On housing, Haney is seen as more moderate than Campos because he supports more development at all levels. But his track record is also strong on tenants’ issues, and he’d be one of a handful of renters in the state legislature. His endorsements span the political spectrum, which is an indication that he can be an effective policymaker at the state level. 

Cons: Haney’s critics say he’s an opportunist, having left his seat on the Board of Education to run for Supervisor and now jumping ship 3 years into that job to head to Sacramento (and by the way, we’re not thrilled that if he wins Mayor Breed gets to pick his replacement). The progressive members of the Board of Supervisors who have worked with him closely all endorsed Campos, which is telling. He’s got way more money pouring into his campaign coffers from labor unions as well as developers and the health care industry, which we hope won’t impact his votes if elected. We’re also nervous that he’s gotten cozier with the Mayor and developers as this race has gone on and he’s tried to woo more moderate voters - there’s a fine line between “compromising to get things done,” and “becoming a moderate.” Haney seems like the kind of politician who’s going places - we just hope he remembers who he’s committed to fighting for along the way.

You can read Matt Haney’s responses to our questionnaire here.


Summary: At the end of the day, we’re confident that either one of these guys will be a solid progressive vote in Sacramento, and they’re both strong on the issues that matter most to our members: affordable housing and tenants’ rights, education, and racial and economic justice. So how should you decide? If representation and super-progressive policy stances are most important to you, vote for Campos! Sending a queer, immigrant, Latinx man to represent SF is a big deal. If you prefer a candidate who may be more willing to compromise to get legislation passed at the state level, especially to produce more affordable housing, go for Haney! He’s been a very committed and collaborative policymaker everywhere he goes. If you’re looking for more research, check out this breakdown of their BOS legislative records and a recent video debate. We like them both and have friends and members on both sides of this one.

 

Disappointed with our lack of endorsement?

We are too. All of us would have preferred to take a stance, but we have to stay true to our process - when our member vote is a tie or deadlocked in some way, our leadership committee isn't allowed to overrule that outcome.

We would love more members and input from our communities: that means you, dear reader! Reach out to us, volunteer, donate, and you'll be able to vote in our endorsement process next time around.



Donate Find an Event

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

connect

get updates