BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, JUNE 5, 2018, SAN FRANCISCO ELECTIONS

Responding to the request of my “numerous” (😊) readers, there follow recommendations regarding the upcoming (Tuesday) June 5, 2018, San Francisco elections.  I include state and local propositions as well as recommendations regarding contested races at the state and local level.

Before I get into the weeds here (or perhaps I’m getting to the “weediest” place of all), I need to highlight four contested elections for San Francisco Superior Court judge.  This is an unusual situation, to say the least, but as a practicing attorney and one vitally interested in the judicial system, I need to alert my readers to a very significant threat to judicial independence that requires your urgent attention.

Four Assistant Public Defenders are running against four sitting Superior Court judges.  The judges are Jeff Ross, Curtis Karnow, Cynthia Ming-Mei Lee and Andrew Chang.  The public defenders are not challenging these judges on their records; instead the “sin” of the sitting judges is that they were appointed by a Republican governor.  This is ridiculous.  All four judges are lifelong Democrats; they are all hard working people with exemplary histories of public service.  There is nothing in their political or personal histories that suggests that they are out of tune with their community.  Speaking of the incumbent judge I know best (and I’ve known him for decades), I have never seen a more devoted public servant than Judge Jeff Ross, who could have made a pile of money had he remained in private practice.  Instead he took the path of public service and his conduct on the bench (I also speak from personal experience as a potential juror in one of his criminal cases) was a model of what a judge should be – fair, patient, intellectually honest, and clearly in tune with his community.

Voting out these judges would be a tragedy.  Retaining them with thumping majorities will also send a powerful message against politicizing the bench.

While there is much more than can be said (and there are a bunch of op eds in the local press that say it – here’s an example), please vote in favor of the following:  Judge Jeffrey Ross (Office No. 11), Judge Curtis Karnow (Office No. 7), Judge Cynthia Ming-Mei Lee (Office No. 9), and Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng (Office No. 4).

And now to the rest of the ballot (if you can’t handle the length of this post, there’s a “cheat sheet” at the end).

GOVERNOR:  ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA

California introduced something commonly known as the “jungle primary” a few years ago.  Under this system, the two top vote getters, irrespective of political party, run in the general election.  One interesting effect of this system is that one political party can be entirely shut out at the time of the general election if the two top vote getters are from the other political party.

Right now Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome is leading in the polls.  Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and John Cox, Democrat and Republican, respectively, are in a close race for the second position.  The Republican candidates are, to put it mildly, unattractive – one seems to try to “out Trump” the other.  So from my perspective it would be better for the State of California to have two Democrats fighting it out in the general election (it would also help reduce Republican turnout at the general election and might just help flip some House seats in close races).  I am therefore recommending a vote for Mayor Villaraigosa in the primary.

So that you have a broader perspective, in addition to Messrs. Newsome and Villaraigosa, there are two other Democratic candidates for governor who are worth your consideration.  One is former State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Delaine Eastin; the other is State Treasurer John Chiang.  If either had a realistic chance of taking the second spot I would consider them.  Eastin did a fine job as Superintendent of Public Instruction; Chaing strikes me as highly competent (although charisma-challenged, sadly).  The top two candidates (Newsome and Villaraigosa) come off generally successful stints as mayors of big cities.  But both also come with some personal baggage, including marital infidelity and, in the case of Newsome, substance abuse.  In a perfect world I’d probably prefer Eastin or Chaing.  But in an imperfect world I’d prefer to shut the Republicans out of the general election.  So for now, vote for Villaraigosa and come back to the blog for my general election recommendations when the time comes.

LT. GOVERNOR – Jeff Bleich

Former U.S. Vice President John Nance Garner once described his job as not “worth a bucket of warm spit.”  I can see his point – the biggest job of the Lieutenant Governor is waiting for the sitting Governor to die in office.  So I won’t spend a lot of time on this particular post.  I like Jeff Bleich because he is a lawyer who is very well thought of by his peers, because he was Barack Obama’s Ambassador to Australia, and seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate.  I’m leery of his principal Democratic opponent, Eleni Kounalakis, also a former Obama ambassador, because she is the daughter of real estate developer and big-money Democratic contributor Angelo Taskopolous and I don’t care for dynasties that are founded on that kind of basis.  Beyond that I’d basically flip a coin and for those of you out there who are into cracking glass ceilings maybe a vote for Amb. Kounalakis isn’t such a bad thing after all.

SECRETARY OF STATE – ALEX PADILLA

Padilla is the incumbent, running for reelection.  The main jobs of the Secretary of State involve making sure that the voting system works and, much more under the radar, the handling of business registrations and filings.  I’m not aware of any scandals or other disqualifying events that should cause the voters not to retain him.  I’m not impressed by any of his opponents.

CONTROLLER – BETTY YEE

This is another “quiet” statewide position.  The Controller handles thoroughly boring things like tracking state expenditures (including audits where needed), administering unclaimed property, sitting on various statewide retirement fund boards, and functioning as a member of the State Board of Equalization, which has an even more incomprehensible role in the setting of and adjusting certain kinds of taxes.  As was true of Alex Padilla, the incumbent, Betty Yee, has done a competent job and is free of scandal – so you may as well keep her in place for a second (and final) term.

STATE TREASURER – FIONA MA

The State Treasurer is responsible for the state’s investments; some have described the job as consisting of being the State’s chief banker.  John Chaing, the current Treasurer, is retiring as a result of his running for Governor.  Fiona Ma is a former (relatively moderate) member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with a good legislative track record.  She is also a productive former member of the State Assembly.  She strikes me as a reasonable choice for the position.  As the current Chair of the State Board of Equalization she has the requisite background and I am not particularly impressed by anyone else running in this race.  In this era where specialization is under attack by the political equivalent of “Know Nothing-ism” I want experienced people handling the State’s money.  

ATTORNEY GENERAL – XAVIER BECERRA

Xavier Becerra was appointed by Governor Brown to replace Kamala Harris when she was elected to the U.S. Senate.  He seems to be carrying on Senator Harris’s aggressive campaigns to champion the public interest through the courts.  His principal Democratic opponent, current Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, likely would do a fine job, too.  On the “liberal-to-progressive” scale, Becerra is to the left of Jones.  Considering the state of the country as a whole, I think I prefer someone in the job who is more to the left but in fairness this is a hard choice.

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION -- MALIA COHEN

The State Board of Equalization administers several different kinds of taxes:  sales and use tax, property tax, certain special taxes, and adjusts ("equalizes") appeals involving franchise tax and state income tax.  Very little of what the Board does is particularly visible to the public -- put it in the category of obscure but nevertheless important state agencies.  There are four members of the Board who are elected by "district" -- i.e. there is geographical representation here.  In addition the Controller sits on the board so that it has a total of five members.  San Francisco is situated in the Second District.

The candidate I recommend, Malia Cohen is a sitting (and relatively moderate) member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  She strikes me as quietly competent and that is actually quite a tribute in the superheated world of San Francisco politics.  There are other Democratic candidates here who probably would do a good job, too.  But I’ve never heard of them and I have heard of Supervisor Cohen.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER -- RICARDO LARA

The Insurance Commissioner has a significant role in focusing public attention on the setting of insurance rates and is responsible for regulation and licensing of insurance companies.  The office is not nearly as powerful as the name suggests.  But it is significant nevertheless. 

I recommend State Senator Ricardo Lara.  It's a bit of a tough choice as a former Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, is also running, and Poizner was extremely effective when he held the position from 2007 to 2011.  The problem with Poizner was that he resorted to some seriously ugly immigrant bashing when he unsuccessfully ran for Governor (as a Republican) back in 2010.  I just can't let that go.  Poizner and Lara have similar policy goals -- focusing on insurance issues that address the impact of climate change, hold insurers accountable and boost consumer education.  Poizner has experience but has baggage.  Lara lacks the experience but seems to be focusing on the right issues.  He's also endorsed by Governor Brown and virtually every other major Democratic office holder you can think of.  Poizner is running, this time, as an independent and while I think he is sincere, I just can't pull the trigger in light of the anti-immigrant stances he took when he thought it expedient to do so. 

U.S. SENATE – DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Incumbent U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein has ably represented California in the U.S. Senate for decades.  She has significant seniority and clout even with the Democrats in the minority.  While Bernie Sanders Democrats don’t like her, characterizing her as a “moderate,” in my opinion pushing too far to the left is unwise in the long-run.  That is why I prefer her over her nearest opponent, State Senator Kevin De Leon.  By way of illustration, I’d love Elizabeth Warren to be President; but odds are that she is too far to the left to get elected.  That may break my heart but that’s the way it is.  Play it safe here.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – DISTRICT 12 – NANCY PELOSI

This is a no-brainer for me.  Even if you think that Representative Pelosi has stayed on too long as Minority Leader of the House, she is an extremely effective legislator, a champion fundraiser, and a solid liberal-to-progressive voice in the Congress.  Frankly I think she has received something of a bum rap just for being in the same position so long – the key to effective legislation in the House is party discipline and Leader Pelosi has done a remarkable job of cat herding – the Democratic Party is more a coalition than a real political party.  Producing near unanimous Democratic House votes time and again is actually quite an achievement.  I see no one among her opponents who I would even consider as an alternative.

STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 19 – PHIL TING

Phil Ting is the incumbent.  Former S.F. Assessor-Recorder.  No scandals (all the more remarkable as one of his predecessors as Assessor-Recorder did hard time – really).  Solid liberal voting record.  Works for me.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO. 4:  ANDREW Y.S. CHENG

Vote for sitting Judge Andrew Cheng to send a strong message against politicizing the San Francisco Superior Court Bench and supporting judicial independence.  I know Judge Cheng less well than the other three sitting judges but he has been warmly recommended by Judge Jeff Ross, and that that is more than enough for me.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO. 7:  CURTIS KARNOW

Vote for sitting Judge Curtis Karnow to send a strong message against politicizing the San Francisco Superior Court Bench and supporting judicial independence.  As a further reason to do so, Judge Karnow runs one of the complex litigation departments of the Court and is considered a “judge’s judge.”  He is also the editor of the leading civil procedure practice guide.  It would be just awful to lose him.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO. 9:  CYNTHIA MING-MEI LEE

Vote for sitting Judge Cynthia Ming-Mei Lee to send a strong message against politicizing the San Francisco Superior Court Bench and supporting judicial independence.  Judge Lee inherited a mess when she was elected by her peers as Presiding Judge of the Court – budget cuts and a pressing need for automation to help fill the gap.  She weathered the storm.  She was also highly respected by both prosecutors and defense counsel when she worked as a prosecutor in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO. 11:  JEFFREY S. ROSS

Vote for sitting Judge Jeffrey S. Ross to send a strong message against politicizing the San Francisco Superior Court Bench and supporting judicial independence.  Super competent, devoted to justice – simply the best public servant on the bench I have ever encountered.  We cannot afford to lose people like him.

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION – MARSHALL TUCK

You could describe this job as the State’s Principal School Principal.  The Department of Public Instruction directs all functions of the State Department of Education, which the Superintendent chairs the State Board of Education and executes its policies.  While school districts are hyper-local, state aid forms a significant part of local district budgets and state rules and regulation have a pretty significant impact on local school districts.

Tuck is a bit of a mixed bag.  He has a long history of involvement in public education.  He narrowly lost to the current incumbent, Tom Torlakson, the last time around.  Tuck is a Democrat who, according to his Wikipedia listing, was “’roundly booed’” during his speech to the state Democratic Party Convention, which endorsed his opponent, Assembly Member Tony Thurmond.  Tuck was CEO of the “Partnership for LA Schools” with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.  He claimed significant improvements in test scores; the Los Angeles Times disagreed.  On the other hand, he has the endorsements of the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, and former Obama Administration Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, among others.

I therefore took a look at Assembly Member Thurmond’s record.  He served on a local school board (Contra Costa County) before his election to the Assembly and has some legislative accomplishments impacting on education, particularly when it comes to funding programs.  But I didn’t see a lot of hands-on experience in administration beyond his days on the Contra Costa County School Board.

Digging a little deeper, the subtext here (based on the Chronicle’s endorsement of Tuck) is that Tuck is a potentially disruptive (in the good sense) force relative to the state’s education establishment, including the very powerful California Teachers Association.  Thurmond is not and there clearly seem to be systemic problems with the state’s schools that would benefit from a reformer at the helm.  So all things considered, I’m recommending Tuck.

MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO:  KIM/LENO/BREED or LENO/KIM/BREED

San Francisco has a ranked choice system for electing citywide office holders.  After the initial count, if no candidate has a majority, second choice votes are factored in; if that does not produce a majority, then third place votes are also considered.  So it is very important that you vote for at least two, and preferably three candidates so ensure that the system really works.

I’m torn between Jane Kim and Mark Leno.  Kim is super-bright and strikes me as an effective member of the Board of Supervisors.  But she is also a lock-step “Progressive,” which is code in this City for a far left-leaning political orientation that is generally anti capitalist and devoted to identity politics.  I don’t entirely mind the orientation but I do mind the lock-step.  Supervisor Kim was one of the votes that resulted in the retention of disastrous Sheriff Ross Mirkirimi after the late Mayor Lee tried to remove Mirkirimi from office after his misdemeanor conviction for false imprisonment of his wife.  (See here for my post on the subject back in the day).  To me that put movement loyalty over the interests of the people of this City and is a major factor in my lack of a clear-cut choice here.

Mark Leno, former Supervisor and member of the State Assembly, is similar in orientation to Supervisor Kim and lacks her baggage.  He seems to have his heart in the right place, too.  But I don’t have the sense that he has any good concrete policy ideas for solving the City’s problems.  He just does not seem as effective.

Supervisor London Breed has a compelling personal story about rising from poverty.  But she is generally regarded as an extension of the late Mayor Lee’s administration, including being unduly beholden to tech interests.  As someone who has lived in this City for almost 60 years, I am really looking for someone who is prepared to address the quality of life issues that have made this place a far less desirable place to live in; of the three candidates above, I believe Supervisor Breed is the least likely to really do something about crime, high rents, homelessness, drug abuse and cleanliness than her rivals for the position.

The remaining contender, former Supervisor Angela Alioto, never struck me as particularly effective when she was in office and largely traded on her father’s name as a former Mayor.  You should therefore rank Supervisor Breed as your number three.

Tough choice (referring to Leno vs. Kim).

STATE PROPOSITIONS

As I’ve warned readers in the past, I am very suspicious of bond issues.  Bond issues are massive public borrowings that are paid off over time, with interest, by succeeding generations.  You can think of them as a form of credit card debt; easily incurred but a huge potential drain on the State’s General Fund, from which the money comes to pay down the indebtedness.  Every dollar used to pay a bond issue off is money not available for current needs.  So I need a really compelling reason to vote in favor of a bond issue.  (Yet, to my surprise, I’m recommending that you vote in favor of all of them – I guess I’m a softer touch than I thought I was.)

On the other hand, there is what I call the “H.L. Richardson Rule,” named after a long-retired Republican state senator and prolific writer of ballot arguments.  Basically, if Senator Richardson was against something, I was almost certainly in favor of it.  So I look to see who endorses and who opposes a ballot proposition in forming my recommendation.

PROPOSITION 68:  VOTE YES

This proposition authorizes $4 billion in borrowing for parks, natural resources protection, climate adaptation, water quality and supply, and flood protection, including some targeted funding for areas of the state (principally inhabited by lower income people) who are park-deprived.  A bit like God and Motherhood (as the expression once ran).  But with interest this bond issue will cost taxpayers $6.53 billion to pay off the bonds.  Prop 68 is endorsed by a veritable Who’s Who of Democratic political leaders (from the Governor on down) and numerous environmental and other public organizations.

On the other hand, the opponents are the usual anti-tax Republicans who tend to be opposed to any bond measure and engage in scare tactics to mislead the voters.

So I’m going to vote yes, but without the overwhelming conviction that I’m right to do so. 

PROPOSITION 69 – VOTE YES

Prop 69 is not a bond issue.  It restricts the use of license fee/gas tax money collected by the State so that it is used for transportation purposes only, including public transportation.  I note that one of the ballot arguments in favor is signed by the President of the League of Women Voters – that’s a “tell” to me in poker parlance – consider it the opposite of the “H.L. Richardson Rule.”  The “usual suspects” (the anti-tax gang scaremongers) are on the other side.

This proposition is a little bit like the “earmark” legislation we see on the San Francisco local ballot from time to time, in which revenue is dedicated to a particular project or cause.  I’m usually reluctant to vote for them because they tie the hands of the local legislature in terms of setting funding priorities.

But in this instance I like the idea as it should help convince voters to keep this tax in effect against a pseudo-populist/anti-tax/Conservative Republican effort to roll back the tax altogether via an initiative that is coming down the pike.  Voting in favor of Prop 69 should reassure voters that this money is going to an important public purpose and isn’t simply a revenue grab.

The roads and transportation system are a mess.  We need this money and it’s not being raised via bond issue.  So I’m for it.

Prop 70.  VOTE YES

This proposition requires a legislative supermajority to use the “Cap-And-Trade Reserve Fund.”  While this is not the place to go into detail, basically the “Cap-And-Trade-Program” creates a system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by discouraging greenhouse emissions while collecting revenue from businesses who seek a permit to do so.  The revenues are generally used to fund state and local programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but in theory can be used for other purposes.

The underlying idea here is to force the Legislature, by a supermajority, to come up with a program for spending these revenues by 2024, apparently modeled on how such money is being spent now.

This proposition also suspends some tax exemptions, typically for research and development, starting in 2024, until supermajority authorization is in place.

Governor Brown is on the ballot argument supporting Prop 70.  That matters to me, a lot.

But the usual suspects are not the official opponents.  Interestingly, they include Tom Steyer, venture capitalist/environmental champion, the California League of Conservation Voters and the League of Women Voters.  They argue that this proposition gives too much power to the (Republican) minority in the Legislature over how this money is going to be spent.

I’m going to go with Governor Brown on this one, but the decision here is not clear-cut.

PROP 71.  VOTE YES

This proposition provides that a ballot measure goes into effect five days after the Secretary of State certifies the results of the election unless the ballot measure otherwise provides.  Its purpose is to address some ambiguity in current law.  Makes sense to me and no need to go into an extended discussion.  Nice that something on the ballot is simple.

PROP 72.  VOTE YES

This proposition excludes newly constructed rain-capture systems from the property tax reassessment requirement.  In English, when improvements are made to real property, the property is reassessed for purposes of recalculating the property tax.  If this proposition passes, newly-constructed rain capture systems won’t trigger the reassessment process.  You can view this proposition as encouraging property owners to construct rain-capture systems, like water recycling systems, storage tanks and cisterns.  There is no argument opposing this proposition in the Secretary of State’s Voter Guide.  So this is an easy “yes.”

REGIONAL MEASURES

REGIONAL MEASURE 3 – VOTE YES

This measure would increase bridge tolls on all Bay Area toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge (which is under the control of its own local agency).  The money would be used for transportation purposes, such as buying new BART cars and various road improvements that generally focus on traffic choke points.  It includes other transportation-related improvements such as expanding ferry service and bringing Caltrain to downtown San Francisco.

The ballot proponents are people like State Senator Scott Wiener (the ultimate policy wonk) and Assembly Member David Chiu.  Significantly, the head of SPUR (“San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research”), an organization I highly respect, also is on the official ballot argument in favor.  The opposition is unimpressive, including Dr. Terence Faulkner, the Bay Area’s equivalent to Senator Richardson.  So on the ballot arguments alone, not to mention the useful purpose of the proposition, I think this is an easy “yes.”

SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSITIONS

For a change there are “only” nine City-wide propositions.  Thank goodness.

PROP A – VOTE YES

A bond issue to build/improve the City’s clean power facilities, with a two-thirds approval of the Board of Supervisors and prohibit the Public Utilities Commission from financing construction of power plants that use fossil fuels or nuclear power (like they would even dare).

Prop A is supported by the Mayor and virtually the entire Board of Supervisors, a rare show of unanimity.  All three leading mayoral candidates also endorse the measure.  The opposition is unimpressive (the Libertarian Party of San Francisco).

PROP B – VOTE NO

This proposition would prohibit appointed City Commissioners from running for office unless they resign.  The rationale here is that we don’t want people leveraging the prestige of their appointed positions to help them in an election.  I can’t see a particularly good reason for making otherwise qualified people choose between carrying out a (typically) unpaid service on a City board and running for office.  I note with interest that the “Moderate” group on the Board of Supervisors voted against putting this proposition on the ballot.  On the other hand, the usual bunch of malcontents are behind the opposition arguments.  So maybe a closer call than I think but I’m going to vote my gut here.

PROP C – VOTE NO

This proposition would impose a gross receipts tax of 1% on revenue received from leasing warehouse space in San Francisco and a 3.5% tax on revenue received from some commercial landlords.  The money would be used to fund early care and education for young children (85%) and for other purposes (15%).  Prop C and Prop D are dueling propositions; assuming that both win at the ballot box, the one that gets the highest vote is enacted.

An interesting mix of “Progressive” and non “Progressive” Supervisors support Prop C.  The Libertarian Party opposes it.

There is an aspect of “soaking the rich” to this proposition as well as Prop D.  I do have a concern that the additional taxes are going to be passed on to people like me, who rent commercial office space. 

Since I have to choose, I’m going to vote for Prop D over Prop C.  The reason is that if I have to prioritize revenue measures, dealing directly with homelessness is my top priority.  Read on.

PROP D – VOTE YES

Prop D would create the same tax revenue as Prop C but would use it as follows:

• 45% to help homeless adults, families or youth move into temporary shelter or permanent hous­ing;
• 35% to acquire and rehabilitate rent-controlled apartment buildings to protect vulnerable residents from displacement, and to create permanently affordable homes for middle-income households;
• 10% to acquire, rehabilitate or operate single room occupancy (SRO) buildings and to help house peo­ple with extremely low and very low incomes, especially seniors, veterans, persons with disabili­ties, or immigrants; and
• 10% to provide permanent rent subsidies to extremely low-income senior households that are in income-restricted developments. 

Prop D is supported by Mayor Farrell and the “Moderate” wing of the Board of Supervisors.  The crazy politics of this City are such that “moderate” here would mean “flaming liberal” pretty much anywhere else. 

Interestingly, only someone I’ve never heard of submitted the official argument against.  The paid opposition argument comes from Angela Alioto.  Not exactly a game changer for me.

PROP E – VOTE YES

This proposition would prohibit the sale in San Francisco of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and candy-flavored tobacco products (typically used in “vaping”).

Vaping, in particular, is scary as it hooks children into nicotine dependency.  I am singularly unimpressed by the opposition claiming that this hurts small business.  The same is true of a ballot proposition prohibiting the sale of hand guns (would that I could vote for such a proposition) or rat poison in unmarked containers.  It doesn’t help that Big Tobacco is pouring money into the vote “no” campaign.  I don’t think much more needs to be said.

PROP F – VOTE NO (but it isn’t going to matter)

This proposition would publicly fund legal representation for residential tenants in eviction lawsuits.  It is the latest example of a tendency to target landlords as the sole reason behind the housing crisis and to make the ownership of residential property in San Francisco even more ridiculously complicated than it already is.  In all likelihood this will pass, but not with my vote.  This is simply the latest band-aid on a problem requiring much more than just imposing an imperfect system of rent control on older housing stock (and I have very serious questions regarding the effectiveness of rent control in general, not to mention San Francisco’s quirky implementation of it.)  But I’m likely spitting into the wind here.

PROP G -- VOTE NO

This proposition would impose an annual tax of $298 per parcel for investment in education.  Some exemptions are built-in, for example senior citizens who own property as their personal residence.  The goals are laudable, basically to pay teachers more, increase staffing, invest in technology -- good things like that.  But why are property owners singled out to raise this revenue?  I also don't have a lot of confidence in the way the Board of Education and the SFUSD bureaucracy handle money.  (In fairness the proposition also provides for an outside oversight committee to watch the money but that does not satisfy me -- bureaucracy and bureaucrats are clever people).  So I'm likely spitting in the wind here but I'm going to vote no.


 PROP H – VOTE NO

This proposition sets a policy for when police officers can use tasers and authorizes the Police Department to buy them.

The use of tasers has already been approved by the Police Commission as a result of a very lengthy and collaborative process involving all stakeholders.  This ballot proposition basically seeks to gut that process and its principal proponent is the SF Police Officers Association, which is not happy with the compromise policy that made its way through the Police Commission.  Significantly, both the Mayor and the Police Chief oppose Prop H.  As you probably realize, this is a very freighted issue politically and on balance the Police Commission’s approach, and process, strike me as the right way to go here.

PROP I – VOTE NO (AND VOTE NO EMPHATICALLY)

This would not be a San Francisco election ballot without a non-binding and annoying measure seeking to adopt something as a “city policy” without actually enacting anything.  In this case the City is urged to “adopt a policy not to encourage professional sports teams from other cities to move to San Francisco and to oppose any sports team ownership group attempting to avoid payment of an outstanding public debt.” 

This is clearly a sour grapes swipe at the relocation of the Warriors from Oakland to San Francisco.  I also oppose such non-binding measures on principle – this is a huge waste of resources.

And now for your Cheat Sheet:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RWHITESF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE JUNE 5, 2018, BALLOT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Office No. 11:  Judge Jeffrey Ross

San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Office No. 7:  Judge Curtis Karnow

San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Office No. 9:  Cynthia Ming-Mei Lee

San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Office No. 4:  Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng

Governor:  Antonio Villaraigosa

Lt. Governor:  Jeff Bleich (close second Eleni Kounalakis)

Secretary of State:  Alex Padilla

Controller:  Betty Yee

Treasurer:  Fiona Ma

Attorney General:  Xavier Becerra (close second Dave Jones)

Insurance Commissioner:  Malia Cohen

U.S. Senator:  Dianne Feinstein

U.S. House of Representatives, District 12:  Nancy Pelosi

State Assembly, District 19:  Phil Ting

Superintendent of Public Instruction:  Marshall Tuck

Mayor of San Francisco (ranked choice voting):  Leno/Kim/Breed OR Kim/Leno/Breed

State Proposition 68:  Yes

State Proposition 69:  Yes

State Proposition 70:  Yes

State Proposition 71:  Yes

State Proposition 72:  Yes

Regional Measure 3:  Yes

San Francisco Prop A:  Yes

San Francisco Prop B:  No

San Francisco Prop C:  No

San Francisco Prop D:  Yes

San Francisco Prop E:  Yes

San Francisco Prop F:  No

San Francisco Prop G:  No
San Francisco Prop H:  No

San Francisco Prop I:   No

IMPORTANT REMINDER:  If you are voting by mail, make sure you get your ballot in the mail no later than Election Day (Tuesday, June 5), and preferably earlier.  The ballot has to be postmarked June 5 in order to be accepted (and has to be received within three days of Election Day).  So don’t wait until the last minute – if you do, make sure that the maibox you use is scheduled for mail collection after the time you deposit your vote-by-mail envelope.

You should also know that you can vote at City Hall between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., including this weekend (you don’t have to vote at your assigned polling station) and you can do this even if you requested an absentee ballot.  You need to use the Grove Street entrance to get downstairs to the Department of Elections.  Also, you can drop off your absentee ballot at any precinct on Election Day (great way not to have to stand in line).  Or you can do so at the Department of Elections in City Hall (which also has Vote-by-Mail ballot drop-off stations).  Hours on Election Day (whether voting in person or otherwise) are between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

For a complete FAQ, follow this link to the Department of Elections website.