This is the Kate Slate for the March 5, 2024, Consolidated Presidential Primary Election in San Francisco. The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to vote.
I share my personal cheat sheet with you to help others navigate their own ballot. I write the Kate Slate myself, race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and share why I am voting the way I am. I tell you how I voted, and what impacted my decisions.
Sometimes I end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if there is a fatal flaw. (Definitely true this election!) You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay! If you’d like to learn more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.
Just please vote on or before Tuesday, March 5, 2024. In fact, bonus points if you vote early. San Francisco polls are open and I already received my ballot!
Here is how you can vote this year:
Vote by mail. All registered voters were to be mailed a ballot for this election. You must return your ballot on time to be counted. If you return your ballot by mail, make sure it’s postmarked by March 5 (check collection times if you use a USPS mailbox). You can also return your ballot at your polling place on Election Day, March 5. You may also authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.
Vote using a Voter Drop Box. San Francisco provides 37 drop boxes across San Francisco where you can return your ballot. These boxes are available 24/7 through 8 p.m. on Election Day, March 5.
Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center is open as of February 5 to provide ballots and services to all city residents who wish to pick up or drop off vote-by-mail ballots, register to vote (before or after the registration deadline), obtain personal assistance, use accessible voting equipment, obtain replacement ballots, and cast their ballots in person. This is a great resource if you make an error on your ballot and need to get a new one (as is your polling place on election day), or if you are not registered for a party but want to vote in a party’s primary election and you still need to swap your ballot.
Vote in person at your polling place. Your polling place is open March 5, 7am to 8pm. They will also assist you if you make an error on your ballot and need a new one.
Even if you miss the February 20 deadline to register to vote in this election, you can still vote provisionally at all polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted.
Go vote. Make sure you, and the voters you know, have a plan to vote. Once you vote, you can track your ballot using the voter portal, no matter how you plan to vote. But make a plan to vote. My plan is to drop my ballot off in a Voter Drop Box in my neighborhood.
Feel free to forward the Kate Slate to friends (and friends, if someone other than me–Kate–sent this to you feel free to drop me a line if you end up reading it, I like to hear who this made its way to, and I can add you to the email list for the next Kate Slate).
Grab and go! (The short version you can take with you to the polls. See below for the details.)
President of the United States – abstain
Member, County Central Committee (District 17) – Peter Gallota, John Avalos, Vick Chung, Gloria Berry, Adolfo Velasquez, Michael Nguyen, Sydney Simpson, Jane Kim, Anita Martinez
Member, County Central Committee (District 19) – Natalie Gee, Frances Hsieh, Leah LaCroix, Queena Chen, Sandra Lee Fewer, Mano Raju, Gordon Mar
United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2031) – Barbara Lee
United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2025) – Barbara Lee
United States Representative, District 11 – abstain
State Senator, District 11 – Scott Wiener
State Assembly Member, District 17 – Matt Haney
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 – Michael Isaku Begert
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #13 – Patrick Thompson
Proposition 1: Authorizes $6.38B in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities – YES
Proposition A: San Francisco affordable housing bonds – YES
Proposition B: Amend City Charter with minimum police officer staffing levels – NOOOOOO
Proposition C: Exempt the Real Estate Transfer Tax after property converts from commercial to residential – NO
Proposition D: Enhance city ethics laws – YES
Proposition E: Allow police department to make several changes to policing policies without further approval – NOOOOOO
Proposition F: Require those receiving city public assistance participate in drug screening and treatment to receive benefits – NOOOOOO
Proposition G: Encourage SFUSD to offer Algebra 1 to 8th Grade students – abstain
Now onto the full enchilada…
President of the United States – abstain
This is the primary and California voters are very likely to nominate the incumbent, Joe Biden, for president. And, I won’t waste my ink on a world leader who won’t stand up to end senseless genocide, and worse, is personally responsible for enabling it.
Member, County Central Committees Districts 17 and 19
You have to be registered to vote as a member of the Democratic Party to vote in this race; if you aren’t you won’t have this on your ballot. And, there are two slates depending on what part of SF you live in. You can elect up to 14, and these VIPs have the privilege of nominating the official Democratic Party Slate. This means mayor, Board of Supervisors, etc. If one set of names aren’t on your ballot, check the other district. And, if neither are on your ballot but you want to vote in this race, head over to the Voting Center at City Hall where you can exchange your ballot for one with this race and vote in person. And now, the candidates…
District 17 – Peter Gallota, John Avalos, Vick Chung, Gloria Berry, Adolfo Velasquez, Michael Nguyen, Sydney Simpson, Jane Kim, Anita Martinez
Peter Gallota is a clean energy and queer rights advocate who is the current chair of the DCCC; John Avalos fought for working families when he was Supervisor; Vick Chung and Anita Martinez fought to stop cuts to classes at City College and are elected members of its Trustees; Gloria Berry is on the SF Reparations Committee where she is fighting for…reparations; Adolfo Velasquez is an SF State educator who fights for low-income students; Michael Nguyen is Juicy Liu, a drag performer and API activist attorney; Sydney Simpson is a union nurse who fights for evidence-based health initiatives and strong worker protections; and Jane Kim is my favorite progressive San Francisco politician who stands up for working class families and queer rights.
District 19 – Natalie Gee, Frances Hsieh, Leah LaCroix, Queena Chen, Sandra Lee Fewer, Mano Raju, Gordon Mar
Here’s who I recommend and why for D19: Natalie Gee is a legislative aide and Chinatown community organizer working on language access; Frances Hsieh is a labor leader who has supported AAPI, women, and immigrants in city government; Leah LaCroix helped in the fight for free Muni for Youth when she was chair of the SF Youth Commission; Queena Chen is a Chinatown transportation organizer and cofounder of the Rose Pak Democratic Club who serves on the SFMTA’s Citizen Advisory Committee; Sandra Lee Fewer is a former progressive Supervisor who is a strong coalition builder; Mano Raju is a badass elected Public Defender whose efforts are reforming our justice system; and, Gordon Mar is a former progressive Supervisor who fought for low income and immigrant families.
United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2031) – Barbara Lee
United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2025) – Barbara Lee
This is the primary for two races for the same seat in the US senate, but for different terms. The first is finishing the remaining term vacated by Dianne Feinstein when she passed. The second is the following six-year senate term. You’ll vote on these two same seats come November with the two top vote getters in this primary.
And, I emphatically endorse Barbara Lee for both now and in November. Barbara Lee has a phenomenal voting record as an assemblymember where she is famous for being the only legislator to vote against the retaliatory Gulf War after September 11. Beyond that she constantly defends rights for the working class, immigrants, women, and queers. And, as we know how much representation matters, I am proud to be voting for a Black woman for senate. Vote for Barbara Lee.
United States Representative, District 11 – abstain
The truth is that Nancy Pelosi will easily be reelected as one of the Democratic Party’s biggest fundraisers. I wish she had ended her service in the House at the end of her term, passing the torch onto the next generation of Democrats. Instead she has been embarrassing herself with ridiculous gaslit accusations about those begging our federal leadership for an end to the genocide in Gaza. Gross, Nancy. Save your ink.
State Senator, District 11 – Scott Wiener
Scott Wiener is so often on the wrong side of issues for me, except transportation funding and transgender rights. But, those who are running against him don’t meet the muster either, so I am endorsing Wiener here.
State Assembly Member, District 17 – Matt Haney
Matt Haney is another candidate who has not impressed in the state assembly but is running against candidates who would be even less likely to do so. He talks a good game for affordable housing but hasn’t delivered any solid outcomes yet. C’mon Matt. San Francisco needs you to deliver!
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 – Michael Isaku Begert
Begert is known as “one of the good guys” working in SF courts diverting those charged with minor crimes into drug and mental health treatment and job counseling instead of jail.
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #13 – Patrick Thompson
Thompson has also had success on the bench working in the pretrial system where he stands up for what’s right and fair, and is outside the victim blaming doom-cycle that has others in the justice system pointing fingers instead of addressing the fentanyl crisis that is fueling SF crime.
Proposition 1: Authorizes $6.38B in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities – YES
If you care about addressing the drug epidemic that is impacting just about every quality of life issue in the state, then you will vote yes on State Proposition 1.
It both modifies an existing state tax and also includes a $6.38B bond supported by the governor and majorities both in the state assembly and senate to be used for substance abuse, housing, and supportive services.
The new money would go to county health departments and grants to organizations that treat behavioral health, including permanent supporting housing and creating more inpatient and residential treatment beds.
Prop 1 is the right direction to address this issue, unlike SF’s prop F (see below) that does the complete opposite. Vote YES. Let’s get 11,000 more treatment beds and services for more than 27,000 people who so desperately need it to finally turn the tide on this crisis.
Proposition A: San Francisco affordable housing bonds – YES
Speaking of needing to vote yes on an initiative to turn the tide on a crisis…a yes vote on Prop A would fund 1,500 affordable housing units in San Francisco that are currently stalled in the housing pipeline due to lack of funding! Also, this requires a two-thirds majority to pass, and city leaders are afraid if it doesn’t pass that it will sound a death knell for future progressive measures. We’ve seen it before in San Francisco. I can’t vote YES on this one fast enough.
Proposition B: Amend City Charter with minimum police officer staffing levels – NOOOOOO
If we need more officers, the mayor or the Board of Supervisors can do so right now without this garbage legislation.
The San Francisco Controller’s Statement on this proposition is that if this were to pass, it would have a “significant impact on the cost of government.” This sets up a situation where the city’s general fund could be depleted to meet this policy when the city has more vital needs. And, as the city is faced with a budget crisis, belts are going to get tighter and tough funding decisions are going to be made. We can’t have our budget tied up by unnecessary policy.
It is ballot box budgeting at its absolute worst and does not reflect San Francisco values. This is just a bad government move spurred by the doom cycle media frenzy. Vote NO!
Proposition C: Exempt the Real Estate Transfer Tax after property converts from commercial to residential – NO
This prop would provide an unnecessary benefit to wealthy real estate developers in an effort to encourage them to convert offices into housing. Not to be a downer but a realist, this proposition builds on the unlikely and idealistic premise that the housing crisis could be addressed by repurposing underused commercial real estate for housing.
The San Francisco Controller’s statement on this proposition is that it would significantly decrease the City’s transfer taxes revenues. Unfortunately, this hopeful but not realistic initiative would cost the city more money during our continuing financial crisis spurred by the pandemic.
Worse, the proposition also has a poison pill that allows the Board of Supervisors to overturn the real estate transfer taxes on properties worth $5+ million that fund affordable housing and City College that voters approved. Vote NO.
Proposition D: Enhance city ethics laws – yes
Here’s my disclosure that I am a city official so this would impact me directly. In the shadow of rampant corruption in San Francisco, I support the Ethics Commission’s effort to provide firmer policy for employees on gift-giving and professional relationships while providing city officials a clearer definition for bribery.
I know from personal experience that these ethics rules can feel cumbersome. And, they are difficult to get right. But, I also know that corruption in city government is slowing down and even undermining the good efforts of some of our smartest and hardest working city staffers. Let’s make it clearer that conflicts of interest are not tolerated in good government. Vote yes.
Proposition E: Allow police department to make several changes to policing policies without further approval – NOOOOOO
Here is just another piece of garbage legislation. It is just too far reaching! There are so many details to this proposition that cannot be justified as a whole with so many questionable parts.
For example: It overrides sensible policies like the current ban on high-speed chases…that saves lives. It also limits the time officers are allowed to spend reporting use-of-force incidents. (Why???) And, it allows for unchecked use of surveillance when SFPD already has considerable tools available. Vote NO.
Proposition F: Require those receiving city public assistance participate in drug screening and treatment to receive benefits – NOOOOOO
This proposition would require poor housed adults who receive $712/month and unhoused adults who receive $821/month for expenses (that include housing/shelter, food, utilities, and employment assistance) to be screened for illegal drug use. And, if the screener suspects the person receiving these funds to be a drug user, they would be required to participate in a treatment program in order to continue to receive these meager benefits.
While many concerned with the state of the fentanyl epidemic may be inclined to vote yes, I am voting no. This plan would limit poor adults’ ability to access other opportunities, such as employment, housing, or educational opportunities to receive the meager support they currently receive. People who have limited means to make ends meet sometimes turn to illegal activities for day-to-day survival. Rather than get back on their feet, these mandatory programs continue the cycle of drug abuse.
So, this plan would exacerbate the issue it aims to resolve. And, I can say this with confidence because this is a tried-and-failed plan here in San Francisco I know about from firsthand experience: When I first moved back to the Bay Area after college, I got a temp job doing intake at a drug treatment program in San Francisco for people who were arrested for using drugs in public more than once.
If these folks received public assistance when they were arrested, they were required to attend the program to receive their monthly funds. But, because the treatment program was in the middle of weekdays, the patients often were not able to address other issues like applying for housing or applying for food stamps. And, most of the customers I did intake for were not there for the first time. The program ended after it was deemed a failure.
I saw firsthand that policies such as this do not work. They are cruel and they keep people down who are already marginalized by poverty and health issues. And, many are veterans, too. Let’s find a better way to care for our poor who are struggling. Let’s not punch them while they are down. We need solutions that end the cycle of poverty and drug abuse. Vote NO.
Proposition G: Encourage SFUSD to offer Algebra 1 to 8th Grade students – abstain
This is a nonbinding policy statement that has no business being on the ballot. As I write this, Feb. 13, SFUSD is having a school board meeting where a new math sequencing plan is being considered that proposes to bring Algebra back to 8th Grade.
For the back story here, in 2014, in an effort to address racial disparities in math education, the district reordered how students take math. It turns out the reordered sequencing didn’t have the results that were intended so the school district is addressing it. And, this policy statement passes, it would tell SFUSD that voters agree! Algebra should be taught in 8th Grade! But only after SFUSD’s binding decision would be made. Sigh.
This is just a ballot initiative to undermine SFUSD leadership, another ballot hit job on San Francisco’s schools. Save your ink and don’t validate the haters with a vote. It won’t be binding anyhow.
Okay! Now go out and vote!!
About the Kate Slate
I started writing the Kate Slate after the first time I voted. Standing in the voting booth, pen-in-hand, poised to vote, I was shocked that I didn’t understand all the issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. I was politically active in my community, and a bit of a politics and news junky. I felt like I showed up to take a test unprepared.
The next election, I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate, a tradition that continues for every election I’ve had the opportunity to vote in since. For the past decade plus, the Kate Slate is preceded by a Slate Party my pal Sacha Ortega co-hosts with me. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as are voter guides,social media, and coffee break chatter.
And, in case you were wondering, the opinions in the Kate Slate are my own, and in no way should be thought to represent any views of anyone other than myself. I have thoughtful, engaging conversations with well-informed people who shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered; I get the tacky expensive mailers you get; and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party. Happy voting!!
This is the Kate Slate for the November 8, 2022, Consolidated Election in San Francisco.
KATE SLATE!!!
The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to vote.
I share my personal cheat sheet with you to help others navigate their own ballot. I write the Kate Slate myself, race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and share why I am voting the way I am. I tell you how I voted, and what impacted my decisions.
Sometimes I end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if there is a fatal flaw. (Definitely true this election!) You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay! If you’d like to learn more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.
Just please vote on or before Tuesday, November 8, 2022. In fact, bonus points if you vote early. San Francisco polls are open and I already received my ballot!
Here is how you can vote this year:
Vote by mail. All registered voters were to be mailed a ballot for this election. You must return your ballot on time to be counted. If you return your ballot by mail, make sure it’s postmarked by November 8 (check collection times if you use a USPS mailbox). You can also return your ballot at your polling place on Election Day, November 8. You may also authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.
Vote using a Voter Drop Box. Though this no longer feels new since this is our fourth election this year, it is still the first year that San Francisco is providing 34 drop boxes across San Francisco where you can return your ballot. These boxes are available 24/7 through 8 p.m. on Election Day, November 8.
Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center is open as of October 22 to provide ballots and services to all city residents who wish to pick up or drop off vote-by-mail ballots, register to vote (before or after the registration deadline), obtain personal assistance, use accessible voting equipment, obtain replacement ballots, and cast their ballots in person. This is a great resource if you make an error on your ballot and need to get a new one (as is your polling place on election day).
Vote in person at your polling place. Your polling place is open November 8, 7am to 8pm. They will also assist you if you make an error on your ballot and need a new one.
Even if you miss the October 24 deadline to register to vote in this election, you can still vote provisionally at all polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted.
Where to Buy Superclone Watches
In the quest for high-end superclone watches, precision and discretion are key. These masterpieces provide an unparalleled blend of luxury and craftsmanship at a fraction of the cost. This guide serves as your compass to finding the perfect superclone watch that matches your style and budget.
Discovering the Perfect Source for Superclone Watches
The journey to owning a superclone watch begins with identifying reliable vendors. These merchants specialize in offering watches that mirror the originals in design, functionality, and detail. Opt for sellers with robust verification processes to ensure authenticity and quality.
Why Choose Superclone Watches?
Superclone watches offer an affordable entry into the world of luxury timepieces. They replicate the finest details of high-end watches, making them nearly indistinguishable from their original counterparts. This makes them an excellent choice for watch enthusiasts on a budget.
Ensuring Authenticity and Quality
To guarantee the purchase of a high-quality superclone watch, focus on vendors known for their rigorous testing and quality control. Authenticity certificates and comprehensive warranties can further validate the credibility of your chosen timepiece.
Online Platforms: A Hub for Superclone Watches
E-commerce sites have emerged as popular destinations for superclone watch shopping. They provide extensive selections, customer reviews, and secure payment options. However, exercise caution and conduct thorough research to avoid counterfeit products.
Physical Retailers: Touch and Feel Before You Buy
For those who prefer a tactile shopping experience, visiting a physical store can be advantageous. This allows you to inspect the watch firsthand, ensuring its quality and fit. Seek out reputable retailers with expertise in superclone watches to make informed decisions.
Maintaining Your Superclone Watch
Owning a superclone watch comes with the responsibility of proper maintenance. Regular servicing, careful handling, and storage in a dry, cool place will keep your watch in pristine condition for years to come.
Conclusion:
Superclone watches represent more than just timekeeping devices; they are a testament to the wearer’s appreciation for luxury and smart investment. By following this guide, you’re well on your way to acquiring a stunning superclone watch that offers the perfect blend of elegance, precision, and value.
Go vote. With so much at stake this election, please please please make sure you, and the voters you know, have a plan to vote. Once you vote, you can track your ballot using the voter portal, no matter how you plan to vote. But make a plan to vote. My plan is to drop my ballot off in a shiny new Voter Drop Box. Worked great in April and June!
Feel free to forward the Kate Slate to friends (and friends, if someone other than me–Kate–sent this to you feel free to drop me a line if you end up reading it, I like to hear who this made its way to, and I can add you to the email list for the next Kate Slate).
Grab and go! (The short version you can take with you to the polls. See below for the details.)
Governor – Gavin Newsom
Lieutenant Governor – Eleni Kounalakis
Secretary of State – Shirley Weber
Controller – Malia Cohen
Treasurer – Fiona Ma
Attorney General – Rob Bonta
Insurance Commissioner – Ricardo Lara
Board of Equalization, District 2 – Sally Lieber
US Senator – Alex Padilla x2
US Representative, District 11 – Nancy Pelosi
State Assembly, District 17 – Matt Haney
State Assembly, District 19 – Phil Ting
Chief Justice of California Patricia Guerrero – Yes
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Goodwin Liu – Yes
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Martin Jenkins – Yes
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joshua Groban – Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, Therese Stewart – Yes
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Alison Tucher – Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Victor Rodriguez – Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Ioana Petrou – Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Carin Fujisaki – Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, Tracie Brown – Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, Jeremy Goldman – Yes
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, Teri Jackson – Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, Gordon Burns – Yes
Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony Thurmond
Prop 28 – Provides funding for arts and music education in public schools. yes
Prop 29 – Requires licensed medical professional at kidney dialysis clinics. no
Prop 30 – Provides funding for air pollution reduction programs by increasing personal income tax for those making over $2 million. no
Prop 31 – Maintains 2020 law that prohibits the retail sale of some flavored tobacco products. Yes
Prop A – Fixes cost of living adjustment for city employees who retired before November 6, 1996. Yes
Prop B – Eliminates the Department of Sanitation and Streets, retains commission. yes
Prop C – Establishes the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing’s Homelessness Oversight Commission and requires audits. Yes
Prop D – Streamlines approval of affordable housing and no longer requires Board of Supervisor approvals. NO
Prop E – Streamlines approval of affordable housing and continues to require Board of Supervisor approvals. YES
Prop F – Renews the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years. YES
Prop G – Provides additional funding for grants to the San Francisco Unified School District. No
Prop H – Adjusts candidate elections to November of presidential elections years, holds local ballot measures in even-numbered years, changes number of signatures required for items placed on the ballot. HELL YES
Prop I – Allows private motor vehicles on JFK Drive and Great Highway. HELL NO
Prop J – Affirms the Board of Supervisors’ ordinance closing portions of JFK drive to private motor vehicles. HELL YES
Prop K – removed from ballot!
Prop L – Continues a half-cent sales tax to 2053 to pay for transportation projects. HELL YES
Prop M – Taxes owners of vacant residential buildings with 3+ units if they are kept vacant. Yes
Prop N – Allows use of public funds for city to acquire and operate public parking garage in Golden Gate Park. Yes
Prop O – Establishes a parcel tax for City College student and workforce development programs. YES
The full enchilada
Governor – Gavin Newsom
This election follows the June primary election for the state. How it currently works in California is that the two top vote-getters in the primary run off in November for the seat. As such, in the primaries, I vote in an attempt to influence the November ballot, if not the outcome of that election itself, the campaign issues, and how the candidates talk about and make commitments to them.
As I predicted in June, incumbent Gavin Newsom got the votes to be one of those two candidates on the ballot for November 8. And, while he leaves things to be desired, the Republican agenda of his opponent is not one of them! Vote to reelect Gavin Newsom.
Lieutenant Governor – Eleni Kounalakis
Now that you know my strategy for the primary races (see Governor), you know that I am going to endorse the Democrat when they are running against a Republican unless there is some crazier-than-the-Republican agenda reason to switch up said strategy. Simple as that. I am voting for Eleni Kounalakis.
Secretary of State – Shirley Weber
Here’s what I said about Shirley Weber for Secretary of State in June: We count our many blessings when a inspiration like Shirley Weber gets appointed to an office like Secretary of State, the office responsible for protecting our voting rights. You have her to thank for expanding voter access with permanent vote-by-mail ballots sent to all voters statewide, and those ballot drop boxes where you can conveniently cast your vote-by-mail ballot vote 24/7. She also sent letters to 60k California parolees letting them know of their voter rights, and educating those who had served their time after being convicted of felonies in California on how to reclaim their right to vote. I look forward to seeing more from her.
Controller – Malia Cohen
Incumbent Betty Yee is termed out, and she endorsed two candidates in the primary, of which Malia Cohen (former San Francisco City Supervisor) was one. Since my first choice was eliminated, I am going with Malia for the seat. The alternative is a former policy advisor for Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio. Yikes.
Treasurer – Fiona Ma
While incumbent Fiona Ma seems to have some scandals involving sexual harassment and political gifts in her office easily made it to the ballot, the alternative is an antiabortion vocal Trump supporter who doesn’t seem any better!
Attorney General – Rob Bonta
As I said in June: Rob Bonta is the incumbent and has done okay in office—he wrote legislation that abolished cash bail and required investigations into police-involved shootings. But, he has a history of behested payments benefitting his wife’s nonprofits, so that definitely raises my eyebrows on the “avoid corruption” aspect of being a respectable public figure. The options in this race are otherwise pretty slim, unfortunately.
Insurance Commissioner – Ricardo Lara
Speaking of slim options in races with a side-helping of corruption…many during the primary were looking to oust problematic incumbent Ricardo Lara after he got involved in some pay-to-play scandals and pandering to the fossil-fuel industry after receiving hefty campaign donations from them. But he got the votes to be on the ballot November 8, and here we are choosing between Lara and a self-described “Reagan Republican” with no political experience.
Board of Equalization, District 2 – Sally Lieber
Again, here’s what I said in June: Sally Lieber is running corporate-free and has an impressive resume standing up for everyday people. She authored state legislation as assemblymember that increased minimum wage, restricted tobacco advertisements near schools, and worked to ensure rights of youth in foster care. Vote for Sally Lieber!
US Senator – Alex Padilla x2
Another rerun from June! Alex Padilla is another recently appointed candidate who is running, first, to finish the “special term” vacated by Vice President Kamala Harris, and then to hold the seat for the next six-year term. So far of his time in the office, I like what I see. He’s done a listening tour about infrastructure, and he used his Spanish language skills to speak out after the decision aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade came to light. So, I’ll be voting for him in both races this election so that we can see what Alex Padilla does next.
US Representative, District 11 – Nancy Pelosi
Okay folks. The mighty Pelosi will easily retake her seat. In June, I was inclined to sit this one out. But, with all the shenanigans happening at the federal level, I think my support for the democratic agenda, as opposed to the republican one, needs to be clear this election. So here I go voting for Nancy Pelosi. If Democratic Party leaders know what’s best for them, they’re grooming their next Nancy now.
State Assembly, District 17 – Matt Haney
I haven’t gotten tired of voting for Matt Haney this year. I like the guy, but this is now the fourth ballot when his name will appear. As I said in June, now that the damage has been done by Haney vacating his District 6 Supervisor seat, all we can do is feel sad about that outcome, and cast yet another vote for Haney.
State Assembly, District 19 – Phil Ting
Another rerun from June: I have been unmoved by Phil Ting for several elections, even though he has sponsored legislation that brought about transportation improvements for people walking, bicycling, and taking transit. I wish Phil Ting were better because he knows how to be better. While his track record is underwhelming, his inexperienced challenger’s track record is…well, nonexistent.
Chief Justice of California Patricia Guerrero – Yes
This election there are lots of justices to confirm! Typically I look for any sort of landmark cases they presided over, who appointed them, see if they did any pro bono work or were involved in any clubs or associations. Most justices don’t have much to go on in the news (that is a good thing), so I have provided here what I found.
Patricia Guerrero was nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom and is the first Latina to serve on the California Supreme Court. She is the daughter of immigrants and did extensive pro bono work, including for the Immigration Justice Project. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Goodwin Liu – Yes
Goodwin Liu was nominated by Governor Jerry Brown. He formerly was a Professor of Law and Associate Dean at Cal Berkeley School of Law. He is the son of Taiwanese immigrants and he helped launch the national AmeriCorps public service program before serving as a clerk at the US Supreme Court to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Martin Jenkins – Yes
Martin Jenkins was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Prior, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as a federal district judge for the Northern District of California. The Black justice has received numerous awards for his work including the 2009 Children’s Advocacy Award presented by Legal Services for Children, San Francisco, for outstanding leadership in public policy that protects youth from abuse and exploitation. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joshua Groban – Yes
Justice Groban advised Governor Jerry Brown on the appointment of over 600 judges in the state—or one of every three. Not surprisingly, he has received numerous awards. He also served on school boards and participated in mentorship programs for college and law students. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, Therese Stewart – Yes
Therese Stewart was appointed by Governor Edmund Brown. Previously she served as the Chief Deputy City Attorney in the City Attorney’s office where she oversaw 300 employees including 200 attorneys. She also served as Board and President of the Bar Association of California, and she aids the Governor’s appointments secretary in identifying and vetting LGBT candidates for judicial office. I am voting yes.
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Alison Tucher – Yes
Alison Tucher has served as a law clerk for both the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. She formerly maintained an active pro bono practice, twice winning freedom for people wrongfully convicted of murder. This prompted her being named one of the Top 250 Women in Litigation nationally by Benchmark Litigation and an “American Hero” by CBS News. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Victor Rodriguez – Yes
Victor Rodriguez was nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom. Prior he served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court where he presided over a dedicated civil domestic violence restraining order department where he handled elder abuse and gun violence restraining order matters. He also serves as the chair of the Language Access Subcommittee to the Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee on Providing Access and Fairness. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Ioana Petrou – Yes
Ioana Petrou was appointed by Governor Edmund Brown. Prior she served on the Alameda County Superior Court and did extensive pro bono work, including for the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. She also teaches trial practice at Berkeley Law. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, Carin Fujisaki – Yes
Carin Fujisaki was appointed by Governor Edmund Brown. Prior she spent 28 years at the California Supreme Court. She also was nominated by Governor Brown as the first Asian American member of the UC Hastings Law Board of Directors. She has been active in fostering mentorship of law students and attorneys throughout her career. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, Tracie Brown – Yes
Tracie Brown was appointed by Governor Edmund Brown. Prior she served on the San Francisco Superior Court where she presided over the Domestic Violence Court, and the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. She did extensive pro bono work on a case representing San Francisco’s Japanese American Community and was recognized for a successful trial involving a massive online “pill mill.” She also teaches trial advocacy at Berkeley Law. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, Jeremy Goldman – Yes
Jeremy Goldman was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Prior he served the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office where he defeated city ordinances and programs against constitutional and legal challenges. He also served on a legal team that successfully represented lesbian and gay couples in their challenge to Proposition 8 that prohibited them from marrying. I am voting yes.
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, Teri Jackson – Yes
Teri Jackson was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom. She became the first African-American female to serve on the San Francisco Superior Court when she was appointed by Governor Gray Davis. She helped develop and chaired a program created to demystify the process of applying for appointment to the Court of Appeal. She also served as an adjunct law professor at both Hastings College of Law and the University of San Francisco School of Law. I am voting yes.
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, Gordon Burns – Yes
Gordon Burns was appointed by Governor Edmund Brown. Prior, he served as a California Department of Justice attorney. He also served as California’s first Deputy Solicitor General for Civil Law, supervising the state’s civil cases in both the US and California supreme courts, and as Undersecretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, with 6,000 staff and a $4.7 billion budget. I am voting yes.
Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony Thurmond
Unfortunately though I voted in the June Primary against Tony Thurmond’s corrupt and well-known toxic leadership, he was one of the top two vote-getters. We get to pick between his problems and a super conservative school privatizer who is anti-vaccination, and his school prayer stance is more conservative than the US Supreme Court. As such, I am sadly voting for Tony Thurmond.
I am voting for Alida Fisher, Gabriela López, and Lainie Motamedi, as we get to pick three. I would not wish the SF school board member role on anyone, since the body became more of a powder keg for the troubled district than the resume builder for budding politicians that it once was. So, I am sticking with people that I trust whose track record speaks for itself.
Here is what I said about Alida Fisher when I endorsed her in 2020: Alida Fisher is a fixture in the SFUSD community who is a special education advocate that wants support services prioritized. She chaired the SFUSD community advisory committee for special education and is a member of the African American Parent Advisory Committee. She leverages these roles to address institutionalized discrimination in our school system.
Here’s what I said about Gabriela López in 2018 when I endorsed her: Gabriela López is a bilingual elementary teacher in SFUSD (the only candidate who is a teacher) and would be the first Latina on the school board in 20 years.
Lainie Motamedi is new to the board, appointed by Mayor London Breed after the recall election earlier this year removed three board members. I know her best from her past work as a board member for the SF Bicycle Coalition while I was staff. But more recently, and more relevantly, she is known for her great work stepping in when the district was at its most dysfunctional during the pandemic, and getting the district to refocus on the students. Since her appointment, she has taken the bull by the horns focusing on student success, fiscal responsibility, and rebuilding the shattered trust with the community. She is a complete badass who tackles tough issues with grace and tenacity, and so I am voting to reelect Lainie Motamedi along with Gabriela López and Alida Fisher.
Member, Community College Board – Vick Chung, Thea Selby, Anita Martinez
Poor City College has had a rough time of it, the latest flavor of its dilemmas is it being forced to cut classes due to declining enrollment, which (of course) leads to further decline in said enrollment. So, my three picks from a pretty well-stacked ballot are Vick Chung, Thea Selby, and Anita Martinez.
Vick Chung has been a student trustee who has called out the budgets that led to classes being cut that students need to graduate. She’s is active as a leader in the CCSF Collective and isn’t afraid to stand up for students. Vick is a needed voice on the Community College Board.
I have been impressed with Thea Selby’s work over the years as a member of the community college board as she has helped the school weather many storms. I think her experience through these storms is a boon to the Community College Board as it navigates through its current challenges.
Anita Martinez’s experience in so many roles at City College will also be a boon to the Community College Board. She has been a teacher, dean, vice chancellor, and president of the faculty union. She is a strong leader that City College needs right now.
Member, Community College Board – Adolfo Velasquez
Adolfo Velasquez is a student, educator, and counselor at City College who is poised to restore ESL classes at the Mission and Chinatown campuses. As chair of the Educational Opportunities & Programs he has worked to support low-income students, so I am voting for Adolfo Velasquez.
Assessor-Recorder – Joaquín Torres
Here’s what I said back in February: Joaquín Torres is running unopposed so he is going to win the seat whether you vote for him or not! He was appointed to this seat after Carmen Chu moved over to the seat of the City Administrator that was vacated due to the corruption scandal that caused several city leaders to be removed and a subsequent city leadership shuffle. Abstain if you prefer, as he will have the seat no matter how you spill your ink on the ballot.
District Attorney – John Hamasaki
After voters screwed in the last election up by either not voting in the election or recalling District Attorney Chesa Boudin, London Breed replaced him with Brooke Jenkins. Ever since, Jenkins has been bringing back tired and failed methods to address drug dealing and other crime. And she failed to report $250k she received from Republicans.
So John Hamasaki, with his pro-transparency, anti-corruption, smart public safety platform is a breath of fresh air. He’s committed to using the office to address the organized crime rings responsible for burglary and car break-ins, and address drug sales. This is a rank choice vote, but after I mark John Hamasaki as #1, I am going to leave my #2 and #3 votes blank because I don’t want any of the other candidates to get any extra votes. They don’t deserve them!
Public Defender – Mano Raju
Here’s what I said about Mano Raju back in 2019: After Jeff Adachi passed in office Mano Raju was appointed to fill the vacancy, he has honored Adachi’s legacy by defending immigrant rights and fighting racial bias in the courtroom. Everyone familiar with Raju’s work as a trial attorney remarks on his seemingly perfect record defending his clients. Now, here in 2022, he has launched a program to increase pay for low-income jurors to allow for more diverse juries; a program that challenges wrongful convictions and excessively harsh sentences; and, a clean slate program that helps people clear their criminal histories. So, I am voting for Mano Raju again.
Board of Supervisors District 2: No endorsement
Catherine Stefani is the incumbent and likely to reclaim her seat. She often supports tried and failed strategies to address crime and drug abuse, and she constantly supports the corrupt Police Officers’ Association whose values leave much to be desired. Alas.
Board of Supervisors District 4: Gordon Mar
In general, I like Gordon Mar. I wish he was less wishy-washy, but the incumbent has been strong on affordable housing projects, and he sponsored legislation that would fund Free City College for the next ten years. He’s been okay on transportation stuff supporting car-free Great Highway and JFK Drive. But, I didn’t love when he called for all the Slow Streets in his district that provide neighborhood streets that are more attractive and safer for people walking and biking to be removed. His lead opponent has a lot of unattractive stances, like merit-based admission for Lowell High School, supporting the recall of Chesa Boudin, and prioritizing parking over parklets. So, I’d recommend just voting Gordon Mar and leaving the other choices blank.
Board of Supervisors District 6: Honey Mahogany #1, Cherelle Jackson #2
For readers of the Kate Slate who have been following the departure of Matt Haney to the state legislature and the disappointing appointment of SFPD spokesperson to replace him, you probably already know that I support Honey Mahogany as #1 for D6. She served as Matt Haney’s aide when he was supervisor, and is a social worker with decades of experience working with unhoused people with mental illness including drug addiction. She also helped found the first Transgender District and has fought to help keep San Francisco’s LGBTQ venues when they have been threatened. She is a gem and I hope you will vote for her for #1.
For a #2 vote, Cherelle Jackson seems like a good choice. She has been fighting for non-corrupt redistricting (quite the lift in San Francisco, apparently) and is the co-chair of SEIU 1021’s Workers with Disabilities committee. And, I’d leave #3 blank.
Board of Supervisors District 8: No endorsement
Incumbent Rafael Mandelman is likely to reclaim this seat, and the other candidates are neither more compelling nor more troubling, so save your ink on this long ballot.
Board of Supervisors District 10: Shamann Walton
Shamann Walton really goes to bat for his district, which seems to always be on the forefront of every serious city battle, from environmental protection to climate change to public safety. He is bold and brave, standing up to the mayor and creating bold initiatives like shutting down the jail at 850 Bryant and Juvenile Hall, and establishing the African American Reparations Committee. He is a representative I would be proud to have representing me if I were in D10. I’d vote Shamann Walton for #1 and leave the rest blank.
Prop 1 – Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. HELL YES!!!
I cannot express the anger I feel when the human right to healthcare becomes a political debate. Human rights are not debatable. Period. This initiative would enshrine in the California constitution the basic human right to health procedures that fall into the controversial category of “abortion” in the state of California. I cannot believe I even have to say vote HELL YES on Prop 1.
For full disclosure before we go into props 26 and 27: a) I do not and have not ever gambled; b) Gambling harms individuals and communities, disproportionately low-income people of color; and c) I am a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of sovereign tribal land and therefore don’t believe I should have the opportunity to have a say on goings that are contained within those sovereign spaces.
If Prop 26 passes, it would expand the types of gambling on reservations in California to include in-person roulette, dice games, and sports wagering. While I am not a fan of gambling, I don’t understand why you would permit one type and not another, so that is a bit of a moot point for me. If folks there want to expand in-person gambling on their sovereign land, then so be it.
If both Prop 26 and 27 pass, it is likely that tribes will argue that they conflict in an effort to prevent Prop 27 from being implemented. So, if you are more supportive of Prop 26 than Prop 27, you should vote yes for 26 and either vote no or abstain on 27 to ensure 26 gets more total yes votes. Or vice versa.
Prop 27 – Allows online sports wagering. NO
While in Prop 26 I said I don’t feel I should have the opportunity to vote on what is allowed on someone else’s sovereign land, I am concerned with Prop 27 that would allow online and mobile sports betting that would therefore expand gambling beyond the domain of the tribes.
The relationships between these for-profit casinos and the tribes for whom they manage reservation casinos are often fraught and unequal, with the tribes being exploited by the casino operators. This initiative looks like casino operators exploiting this relationship further, and by ultimately expanding gambling beyond reservations where it is not currently allowed. I am a solid NO on prop 27. As mentioned in Prop 26, Prop 26 and 27 conflict, so if you are more supportive of Prop 26 than Prop 27, you should vote yes for 26 and either vote no or abstain on 27 to ensure 26 gets more total yes votes, and vice versa.
Prop 28 – Provides funding for arts and music education in public schools. yes
Normally I am against ballot box budgeting: It locks in earmarks into the budget that limits policymakers the flexibility they need to prioritize spending when budgets are tight. Unfortunately, when said policymakers have made tough decisions with budgets, they have failed to maintain necessary funding for arts and music education in the state budget. And, this earmark is small enough that it would secure $1 billion/year for California’s 6 million public school students without majorly hindering the budgeting process. I also like that the initiative allocates 70% of the funds to districts based on enrollment and 30% would be extra for economically disadvantaged schools. So, with a bit of hesitation, I am voting yes.
Prop 29 – Requires licensed medical professional at kidney dialysis clinics. no
Back in 2020 we voted on Prop 23 that was virtually the same initiative. I endorsed a no vote because it is spawned by a dispute between labor unions and for-profit medical industry corporations, and there are nuances that shouldn’t be resolved at the ballot box. And, this is the third attempt since 2018 that voters have been asked to weigh in on the corrupt for-profit dialysis industry. But, the ballot box is the wrong tool for the needed reforms.
Ultimately, this is about the labor union fighting to unionize kidney dialysis clinic-operating company workers in the name of better health outcomes and lower government costs. But, the worrying outcome here is that the specifics would increase costs, and there is a lack of resources to meet the requirements. The costs would then be pushed onto the patients, who are disproportionately low-income people of color. So, I am voting no again, with some reservations.
Prop 30 – Provides funding for air pollution reduction programs by increasing personal income tax for those making over $2 million. no
Initially I was a yes on this, but now I am a no. I think it is the right tactic but the wrong priority. The tactic is taxing those with a personal income of more that $2 million/year to fund programs and policies that address climate change. Good idea. The wrong climate change priority is funding electric vehicle infrastructure and rebates for consumers (including ridesharing companies backing this initiative in order to meet California clean vehicle mandates by the deadline). There are so many other more pressing priorities to address climate change than providing funds for private industry to meet state regulations, especially private corporations who have bad labor practices. Let’s tax the rich to fund initiatives that will give us the greatest return on investment. I am voting no.
Prop 31 – Maintains 2020 law that prohibits the retail sale of some flavored tobacco products. Yes.
This is a confusingly worded ballot initiative that has voters thinking a yes means no and a no means yes. This is an effort to overturn the city and state bans on most flavored tobacco products that are disproportionately marketed to low-income youth of color. Let me assure you: A yes vote here keeps the ban and a no vote overturns it. Stand by our voter-endorsed flavored tobacco ban and vote yes to maintain the ban on some flavored tobacco products.
Prop A – Fixes cost of living adjustment for city employees who retired before November 6, 1996. Yes
This fixes an adjustment for cost of living that voters approved in 1996 for all city of San Francisco retirees that were accidentally omitted 4,400 city employees. Since these folks are likely in their 80s and 90s, based on the retirement year and minimum years of service required to retire, the city employees are also all seniors. I am voting yes as it is the right thing to do.
Prop B – Eliminates the Department of Sanitation and Streets, retains commission. yes
Voters created a new Department of Sanitation and Streets in 2020 after the Public Works corruption scandal and the unsanitary conditions of our streets compelled voters to do something to address the foul status quo. But, running a city agency is an expensive endeavor for our budget-strapped city. And, the proposition voters passed in 2020 already created two oversight commissions for both the new Department of Sanitation and Streets and Public Works. So, this is an effort to be more budget conscious while maintaining the oversight. It may be that one day, San Francisco needs an entire separate department for Sanitation and Streets, but let’s see if we can get by with just separate commissions for now. I am voting yes.
Prop C – Establishes the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing’s Homelessness Oversight Commission and requires audits. Yes
With homelessness being one of San Francisco’s most pressing issues, the dismal performance of the Department of Homelsessness and Supportive Housing is a major concern. And, the facts that the department has a pretty large budget and reports directly to the mayor certainly suggests the department could benefit from oversight and accountability, and this is one step to that end. I am voting yes on Prop C.
Prop D – Streamlines approval of affordable housing and no longer require Board of Supervisor approval. NO
Prop D and Prop E are two versions of propositions supposedly aimed at streamlining approval for affordable housing based on a set of criteria, but using different tactics. If they both pass, the one with the more yes votes wins. Prop D drops the crucial Board of Supervisors oversight of approvals for affordable housing projects that meet certain criteria, including increasing the incomes that qualify for affordable housing. Prop D is a handout to developers at the expense of those San Francisco residents who are low income. Vote NO.
Prop E – Streamlines approval of affordable housing and continues to require Board of Supervisor approval. YES
With Prop D and E offering two versions of propositions aimed at streamlining affordable housing approvals for certain types of housing. Prop E is the one that we want to pass with the most yes votes. Prop E makes changes to the approval process to streamline affordable housing for educators, and it maintains the necessary Board of Supervisors oversight. I am voting YES on E and NO on D.
Prop F – Renews the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years. Yes
Full disclosure: I just was featured in a PSA promoting the SF Public Library. I am a big fan and proud user of the library.
Prop F renews the Library Preservation Fund for another 25 years. The fund pays for library services, construction, and maintenance. This would require the library to be open to the public for at least 1,211 hours every week and the city to temporarily freeze increases to the annual minimum funding when the city expects more than a $300 million budget deficit. This is all good news to library users who depend on their services to bridge the digital divide, to all Californians who can benefit from San Francisco Public Library’s cultural resources, and even for property owners who won’t see an increase in the tax rate if this passes. I am voting YES.
Prop G – Provides additional funding for grants to the San Francisco Unified School District. No
There is a lot of enthusiasm for Prop G and I appreciate it greatly. But, the devil is in the details, and I think it is close to good but has a fatal flaw and here is why: Currently there is a statewide property tax earmarked for education. But because San Francisco’s properties are so expensive, and schools are underfunded by the state, San Francisco actually puts more into the fund than gets allocated to our schools. The state refunds the excess, and the city of San Francisco puts these monies into our general fund.
The intention of this initiative is to take those excess funds and retain them for education as the state earmark intends. I do like the intention here, because, as I mentioned above in Prop 28, our policymakers notoriously underfund public schools. But, for the schools to access these funds, they would have to apply for grants. This means that schools with the resources to apply for grants would have access to these funds and under-resourced schools would still get the short end of the stick. Further, because it would redirect monies from the general fund, San Francisco would need to identify new sources of revenue once these funds were redirected to this grant program.
I’d be more inclined to support this ballot box budgeting if it allocated funds based on enrollment (with extra for economically disadvantaged schools), but it is too risky a proposal for an initiative that favors funding only those schools with the means to apply for grants. Sadly, I am voting no.
Prop H – Adjusts elections to November of presidential elections years, holds local ballot measures in even-numbered years, changes number of signatures required for items placed on the ballot. HELL YES
Dear Kate Slate reader, I, too, am exhausted by the four elections this year. This would save San Francisco tons of money and help improve voter turnout by adjusting the elections cycle in San Francisco so that candidate races are aligned with presidential elections, and local ballot measures would be held in even-numbered years or special elections only. Lastly, it increases the required number of signatures for voters to place initiatives on the ballot. That last reform will hopefully limit the insane topics that are brought to voters each election that waste taxpayer money and abuse the system to push through policy that doesn’t align with San Francisco values. I am voting HELL YES!
Prop I – Allows private motor vehicles on JFK Drive and Great Highway. HELL NO
Prop I and Prop J are opposing initiatives. If they both are approved the one with the more votes would be implemented. Prop I has sweeping negative impacts for San Francisco whereas Prop J simply affirms what the Board of Supervisors already implemented through a popular ordinance.
Prop I would permanently end the car-free recreational spaces on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park. JFK Drive is currently closed to cars seven days a week, and the Great Highway, when it isn’t closed by Mother Nature consuming it with sand dunes, is closed to cars on one segment on weekends. These car-free spaces are wildly popular and you should vote HELL NO on Prop I to preserve the miniscule amount of dedicated car-free space we have in San Francisco to enjoy recreational purposes.
Prop J – Affirms the Board of Supervisors’ ordinance closing portions of JFK drive to private motor vehicles. HELL YES
While it would be a major loss for San Francisco if Prop I passes, if both Prop I and Prop J do not pass, very little changes. Prop J simply affirms the Board of Supervisors’ ordinance closing portions of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park to cars.
If Prop J doesn’t pass, it does not undo the ordinance. But for goodness sakes: The newly minted JFK Promenade is one of San Francisco’s most attractive public spaces for recreation with amazing art installations and murals, cultural activations from lindy hop to an adaptive cycling program that provides adaptive bikes for people with disabilities. It is one of the best policy decisions to come from the Board of Supervisors recently, and I cannot wait to vote HELL YES on Prop J.
Prop K – removed from ballot!
The San Francisco Superior Court saved you the trouble and removed prop K from the ballot.
Prop L – Continues a half-cent sales tax to 2053 to pay for transportation projects. HELL YES
For full disclosure, I am employed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Prop L funds SFMTA projects.
Prop L would extend for thirty years an existing sales tax of transportation projects without raising taxes. And, though it requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, a no vote won’t end the current sales tax. Prop L would fund Muni, BART, ferries, paratransit, traffic calming, separated bike lane projects, and pedestrian safety projects. The current sales tax funded planning for Muni Forward improvement projects, Van Ness BRT, the Transbay Center, and many, many other projects and programs. It also funds our paratransit program.
If this proposition fails to pass, it will have dire consequences for San Francisco and its climate and transportation goals. For one, we would lose funding for paratransit, which is a federally mandated service. If that were to happen, we will have to tap our general fund to operate paratransit. This means that we would have to cut funding we now plan to use for Muni service. I have heard that the impact would be the equivalent of two full lines of Muni service being cut. Of course, the cuts wouldn’t be made to two full lines—it would be administered systemwide, degrading Muni service citywide. If you think Muni service or paratransit need to improve, vote YES. No public service was ever improved by cutting its funding.
Vote YES on Prop L. It is so crucial. If you don’t want to deal with the hassle of voting and vote for nothing else on this ballot, please please please vote Yes on Prop L and Yes on Prop 1.
Prop M – Taxes owners of vacant residential buildings with 3+ units if units are kept vacant. Yes
Prop M aims to address San Francisco’s housing shortage by taxing residential building owners who own units in buildings with 3+ units, if the units are vacant for more than half of a year. And, the proceeds would fund affordable housing and rent subsidies. This seems like a good policy all around. I am voting Yes on Prop M.
Prop N – Allows use of public funds for city to acquire and operate public parking garage in Golden Gate Park. Yes
This allows San Francisco to buy and operate the parking garage in Golden Gate Park below the Music Concourse. If we were able to take a time machine to 1996 and prevent the parking garage from being built in the first place, my position would be different. But, there is no good reason why a private corporation should be operating a parking garage aimed at serving the public good in a city park. When that is the case, the garage should be managed by the city so that the policies and rates are in line with city values. So, I am voting Yes on Prop N.
Prop O – Establishes a parcel tax for City College student and workforce development programs. YES
If Prop O doesn’t pass, even more cutbacks are coming to City College, San Francisco’s vital resource for those who want to advance in their careers and education. Prop O establishes a parcel tax to fund ESL classes and nursing and workforce development programs. I am voting YES.
About the Kate Slate
I write the Kate Slate for every election because, when I voted for the very first time, I found myself in the voting booth surprised that I didn’t understand all the issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. Though I was politically active in my community, I felt like I showed up to take a test unprepared. The next election, I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate.
For the past decade plus, the Kate Slate is preceded by a Slate Party my pal Sacha Ortega co-hosts with me. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as are voter guides,social media, and coffee break chatter.
And, in case you were wondering, the opinions in the Kate Slate are my own, and in no way should be thought to represent any views of anyone other than myself. I have thoughtful, engaging conversations with well-informed people who shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered; I get the tacky expensive mailers you get; and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party. Happy voting!!
This is the Kate Slate for the June 7, 2022, Consolidated Election in San Francisco.
The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to vote. I share my personal cheat sheet with you to help others navigate their own ballot. I write the Kate Slate myself, race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and share why I am voting the way I am. I tell you how I voted, and what impacted my decisions. Sometimes I end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if there is a fatal flaw. You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay! If you’d like to learn more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.
Just please vote on or before Tuesday, June 7, 2022. In fact, bonus points if you vote early. San Francisco polls are open!
Here is how you can vote this year:
Vote by mail. All registered voters were to be mailed a ballot for this election. You must return your ballot on time to be counted. If you return your ballot by mail, make sure it’s postmarked by June 7 (check collection times if you use a USPS mailbox). You can also return your ballot at your polling place on Election Day, June 7. You may also authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.
Vote using a Voter Drop Box. This is the first year that San Francisco is providing 34 drop boxes across San Francisco where you can return your ballot. These boxes are available 24/7 through 8 p.m. on Election Day, June 7.
Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center is open to provide ballots and services to all city residents who wish to pick up or drop off vote-by-mail ballots, register to vote (before or after the registration deadline), obtain personal assistance, use accessible voting equipment, obtain replacement ballots, and cast their ballots in person. This is a great resource if you make an error on your ballot and need to get a new one (as is your polling place on election day).
Vote in person at your polling place. They are open June 7, 7am to 8pm. They can also assist you if you make an error on your ballot and need a new one.
Even if you missed the deadline to register to vote in this election (May 23, 2022), you can still vote provisionally at all polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted.
Go vote. Voter polls are indicating that this election may have historic low turnout. With so much at stake, please make sure you, and the voters you know, have a plan to vote. Once you vote, you can track your ballot using the voter portal, no matter how you plan to vote. But make a plan to vote. My plan is to drop my ballot off in a shiny new Voter Drop Box. Worked great in April!
Feel free to forward the Kate Slate to friends (and friends, if someone other than me–Kate–sent this to you feel free to drop me a line if you end up reading it, I like to hear who this made its way to, and I can add you to the email list for the next Kate Slate).
Grab and go! (The short version you can take with you to the polls. See below for the details.)
Governor – Luis Rodriguez
Lieutenant Governor – Mohammad Arif
Secretary of State – Shirley Weber
Controller – Ron Galperin
Treasurer – Meghann Adams
Attorney General – Rob Bonta
Insurance Commissioner – Marc Levine
Board of Equalization, District 2 – Sally Lieber
US Senator – Alex Padilla
US Representative, District 11 – Shahid Buttar
State Assembly, District 17 – Matt Haney
State Assembly, District 19 – Abstain
Superintendent of Public Instruction – Marco Amaral
City Attorney – Abstain
Prop A – Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond – HELL YES!!!!
Prop B – Change the appointment process for Building Inspection Commission – yes
Prop C – Recall reform – YES!!!
Prop D – Create an Office of Victim and Witness Rights – no
Prop E – Amend the city’s behested payment laws – YES
Prop F – Change the membership of the Refuse Rate Board – yes
Prop G – Require employers to provide paid public health emergency leave – Yes
Prop H – Recall Chesa Boudin from the Office of District Attorney – HELL NO
Governor – Luis Rodriguez
This election is the primary election for the state, and how it currently works in California is that the two top vote-getters in the primary run-off in November for the seat. As such, I vote (for what it is worth—and it is worth something) to influence the November election: If not the outcome of that election itself, perhaps the campaign issues and how the candidates talk about and make commitments about them.
Since incumbent Gavin Newsom is likely to get enough votes this election to be one of those two candidates, I’d suggest the other candidate on the General Election ballot in November be Luis Rodriguez. He supports universal health care, ending mass incarceration, and a Green New Deal for California. Addressing climate change while advancing economic equality—the crux of the Green New Deal, equitable health care, and criminal justice reform are some of my top issues California, so I hope you’ll join me in voting for Luis Rodriguez to center these conversations in the November race.
I also want to give a shout out to candidate Mariana Dawson who placed in the state’s official voter information guide the paid candidate statement, “F all politicians,” a sentiment shared widely.
Lieutenant Governor – Mohammad Arif
Now that you know my strategy for the primary races (see Governor), you know that I am going to look for the best candidate to challenge incumbent Eleni Kounalakis come November, and I found it in the delightful Mohammad Arif, who is running on a platform of free education and healthcare plus immigrant rights and environmental restoration. Yes!
Secretary of State – Shirley Weber
We count our many blessings when an inspiration like Shirley Weber gets appointed to an office like Secretary of State, the office responsible for protecting our voting rights. You have her to thank for expanding voter access with permanent vote by mail ballots sent to all voters statewide, and those ballot drop boxes where you can conveniently cast your vote-by-mail ballot vote 24/7. She also sent letters to 60k California parolees letting them know of their voter rights, and educating those who had served their time after being convicted of felonies in California on how to reclaim their right to vote. Because she was appointed, I am choosing to cast my vote for her in this primary as an endorsement of her incredible work in office to date, and I look forward to seeing more from her.
Controller – Ron Galperin
In this race, incumbent Betty Yee is termed out, and she has endorsed two candidates. Ron Galperin, who has experience as Los Angeles City Controller, and former San Francisco City Supervisor Malia Cohen, who has no experience as controller. As such, I’m voting for Ron, who also happens to be LGBTQIA+. I anticipate Cohen and Galperin will both be on the ticket in November.
Treasurer – Meghann Adams
I anticipate that incumbent Fiona Ma (who seems to have some scandals involving sexual harassment and political gifts) will easily make it to the ballot in November. When it comes to candidates running against her, Meghann Adams stands out as the president of her school bus drivers’ union and stands for economic justice instead of corporate welfare. I’m voting for Meghann Adams.
Attorney General – Rob Bonta
Rob Bonta is the incumbent and has done okay in office—he wrote legislation that abolished cash bail and required investigations into police-involved shootings. But, he has a history of behested payments (see Prop E) benefitting his wife’s nonprofits, so that definitely raises my eyebrows on the “avoid corruption” aspect of being a respectable public figure. The options in this race are otherwise pretty slim, unfortunately.
Insurance Commissioner – Marc Levine
Speaking of slim options in races with a side-helping of corruption…many are looking to oust problematic incumbent Ricardo Lara after he got involved in some pay-to-play scandals and pandering to the fossil-fuel industry after receiving some hefty campaign donations from them. Marc Levine stands out as the one contender running against him who has some solid ideas about fire insurance reform based on work he has already done in Marin and Sonoma counties. He supports universal healthcare, and has a record of standing up to fossil fuel companies. I feel confident in a vote for Marc Levine for Insurance Commissioner.
Board of Equalization, District 2 – Sally Lieber
Sally Lieber is running corporate-free and has an impressive resume standing up for everyday people: she authored state legislation as state assemblymember that increased minimum wage, restricted tobacco advertisements near schools, and worked to ensure rights of youth in foster care. Also on the ballot is one of San Francisco’s more notably conservative former supervisors, Michela Alioto-Pier. Don’t make the mistake of voting for her. Vote for Sally Lieber!
US Senator – Alex Padilla
Alex Padilla is another recently appointed candidate who is running, first, to finish the “special term” vacated by Vice President Kamala Harris, and then to hold the seat for the next six-year term. So far of his time in the office, I like what I see. He’s done a listening tour about infrastructure, and he used his Spanish language skills to speak out after the decision aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade came to light. So, I’ll be voting for him in both races this election so that we can see what Alex Padilla does next.
US Representative, District 11 – Shahid Buttar
Okay folks. Here’s the scoop: Before the March 2020 primary I was encouraged by the momentum for Shahid Buttar to challenge one of America’s most powerful politicians with a candidate who better reflects our district’s values. So I endorsed Shahid Buttar against Nancy Pelosi.
But, by the time the November 2020 election rolled around, voters were led to believe he had run an apparently toxic campaign that caused numerous campaign staffers to flee and several endorsements to be revoked, including mine. Later, my pal Samir let me know that I may have been misguided, and that the allegations were likely a racism-fueled smear campaign. Yikes!
After reading the articles Samir sent, I see that it was a mistake un-endorsing Buttar in 2020. (Hindsight being what it is.) I’m re-endorsing Buttar here in the primary, so maybe he can get a place on the ballot to have a productive conversation about what we want from our House leadership. But, I will likely abstain in this race come November, since the mighty Pelosi will easily retake her seat.
State Assembly, District 17 – Matt Haney
No offense, but I am so tired of voting for Matt Haney this year. I like the guy, but this is the third ballot when his name will appear for this same seat. I voted for Campos (twice), not Haney, to fill the remainder of the State Assembly term left by David Chiu. And now that the damage has been done by Haney vacating his District 6 Supervisor seat, all we can do is feel sad about that outcome, and hope for the best with this one.
State Assembly, District 19 – Abstain
I have been unmoved by Phil Ting for several elections, even though he has sponsored legislation that brought about transportation improvements for people walking, bicycling and taking transit. But, we deserve more and San Francisco needs a representative that is going to bring badly-needed state legislation to help the city address some of its boldest challenges. Oh well!
Superintendent of Public Instruction – Marco AmaralI
This is a vote against a problematic incumbent (corruption, well-known toxic leadership) Tony Thurmond, in support of Marco Amarall, who comes to voters with fresh ideas about ending standardized testing and paying teachers $70k/year! While I may be dreaming with the god-knows-why deep support for the incumbent, this former teacher is amped to vote for Marco Amarall.
City Attorney – Abstain
David Chiu was appointed by the mayor to this seat after it was vacated by David Herrera. Chiu is doing his usual pandering to the powerful and I’m tired of all these mayoral appointees who are all so disappointing. San Francisco deserves better.
Prop A – Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond – HELL YES!!!!
For full disclosure, I work at the SFMTA and on projects that would be funded by this proposition. These opinions are solely mine. And, I’ll still have a job if this doesn’t pass, but we won’t have the funding needed for transportation improvements San Franciscans are really counting on, and that is the rub.
Proposition A would fund much needed and talked-about projects that needed to be done yesterday. Without this bond passing, there is simply not funding identified to do these projects. So, when I tell you now all that it will fund, if you are thinking “I want that,” about any of it, know that passing this bond with the required two-thirds majority is how to get it:
This includes the overhaul of Potrero Yard that would enable the facilities to set up charging stations for electric buses that we need to maintain our bus fleet. Never mind the adequate space to replace tires on our Muni buses (wish I was kidding), or dignified work facilities for our maintenance team. We currently don’t have the necessary charging facilities to maintain the fleet numbers we need to operate.
Also funded by the proposition are improvements for transit and safety projects like transit lanes, protected bike lanes, wider sidewalks, speed enforcement, and my favorite: the overhaul of our antiquated train control system that would significantly improve reliability and reduce delays on Muni Metro. People like to talk about how the train control system currently (yes, in 2022) uses floppy disks to operate. But, I like to think about all the times I have been stuck on Muni Metro in an unmoving train unnecessarily, and how this would help resolve many of the issues causing those delays.
And it won’t raise taxes! It is a no-brainer to vote “yes” in this city where 30% do not own cars, even if you don’t currently use Muni. And, in this primary election with expected historically low voter turnout, I urge you to make sure you have a plan to vote, and those voters around you, too. It is so imperative that this pass, so for the love of transportation, vote YES!!!
Prop B – Change the appointment process for Building Inspection Commission – yes
I am voting yes because this aligns the process whereby commissioners are appointed to the Building Inspection Commission with other San Francisco commissions, which includes appointment by the mayor and approval by the Board of Supervisors. But, I gotta say, based on the recent slew of mayoral appointments (and possibly more coming), I am less than excited to give the mayor more power.
Prop C – Recall reform – YES!!!
Are you tired of our city wasting millions on overturning the will of voters when a few rich grumps want to change the outcomes? If Prop C passes, recalls would not be allowed within the first year of a term or within a year of election, and would bar replacement appointees for running as incumbents. All around solid reform (that would have prevented a couple recalls this year). I can think of many better things for San Francisco to spend the money on than ill-conceived recalls. Vote YES!!!
Prop D – Create an Office of Victim and Witness Rights – no
This is one of those propositions with a title, and you think “okay, sure” but then you think about it and you start to wonder why we would need to create an (unfunded) office that is to provide redundant services to those provided by existing city services. And so you scratch your head, and vote no.
Prop E – Amend the city’s behested payment laws – YES
Yay for more reform! This is city work at its finest: The SF Ethics Commission authored this legislation to close a loophole that currently allows for behested payments. That is a fancy way of saying “abusing one’s power.” Currently members of the Board of Supervisors can ask companies doing business with the city to make a donation to a favored foundation or nonprofit, which can and has turned into a fund that later benefits the supervisor who made the request. They can’t take money directly from businesses working with the city, behesting payments is a sleazy work around that will be closed if this passes. Vote YES.
Prop F – Change the membership of the Refuse Rate Board – yes
This one seems trivial to me. Essentially it moves the rate-setting for garbage collection from Public Works to the Controller’s Office. This is supposedly to limit the corruption imposed by the former Public Works director who was arrested by the FBI for it, but I remain cynical that the move will actually solve for corruption. Really we just need to limit the ability for there to be a monopoly by a private corporation on garbage collection, or any public service, really.
Prop G – Require employers to provide paid public health emergency leave – Yes
Seemingly in response to the pandemic (Or climate change? Or the feeling of impending doom as the news gets progressively more dire?), if passed, this requires San Francisco employers of 100 or more to provide two weeks of paid public health emergency leave. So many of us have witnessed the hardship unpaid leave can put on people who are already dealing with the worst of today’s blows. Help ease this by voting Yes.
Prop H – Recall Chesa Boudin from the Office of District Attorney – HELL NO
This is the most heartbreaking proposition of the ballot and I hope you will join me in voting HELL NO in this wrongful effort to recall Chesa Boudin.
Chesa Boudin has been implementing the kinds of reforms that are exactly what he campaigned on, and the positive outcomes speak for themselves: He campaigned that he would review wrongful convictions, then he was elected and he founded the District Attorney’s Innocence Commission, experts that review wrongful conviction cases and make recommendations for possible exonerations. In April they had their first exoneration! Of someone who spent 18 years behind bars!
Meanwhile, Chesa Boudin filed groundbreaking litigation against manufacturers of untraceable “ghost guns” and cracked down on serial plaintiffs of ADA violations. These are the things we want our District Attorney to do!
And the issues that are being raised as reasons to demand this recall are actually not things his office is responsible for doing, like preventing property crime—that is the responsibility of SFPD (who has been doing an impressive job of trying to prevent the DAs office from being successful, by the way. Get some popcorn for this story).
Don’t let them fool you! People really don’t seem to understand how successful Chesa Boudin has been and the great benefits he is bringing to San Francisco. That’s why this is a heartbreaker. Vote HELL NO to H.
About the Kate Slate
I write the Kate Slate for every election because when I voted for the very first time, I found myself in the voting booth surprised that I didn’t understand all the issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. Though I was politically active in my community, I felt like I showed up to take a test unprepared. The next election, I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate.
For the past decade plus, the Kate Slate is preceded by a Slate Party my pal Sacha Ortega co-hosts with me. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as are voter guides,social media, and (virtual) coffee break chatter.
And, in case you were wondering, the opinions in the Kate Slate are my own, and in no way should be thought to represent any views of anyone other than myself. I have thoughtful engaging conversations with well-informed people who sometimes shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered; I get the tacky expensive mailers you get; and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party. Happy voting!!
Here is the Kate Slate for the February 15, 2022, Consolidated Election in San Francisco.
The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to VOTE. I share my personal cheat sheet to help others navigate their own ballot. I write the Kate Slate race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and share why I am voting the way I am. Sometimes I end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if there is some fatal flaw. In the Kate Slate, I tell you how I voted and what impacted my decisions. You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay! If you’d like to hear more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.
Just please vote on or before Tuesday, February 15, 2022. In fact, bonus points if you vote early. San Francisco polls are open!
Here is how you can vote this year:
Vote by mail. All registered voters were to be mailed a ballot for this election. You must return your ballot on time to be counted. If you return your ballot by mail, make sure it’s postmarked by February 15 (check collection times if you use a USPS mailbox). You can also return your ballot at your polling place on Election Day, February 15. You may also authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.
Vote using a Voter Drop Box. This is the first election that San Francisco is providing 34 drop boxes across San Francisco where you can return your ballot. These boxes are available 24/7 through 8 p.m. on Election Day, February 15.
Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center is open to provide ballots and services to all City residents who wish to pick up or drop off vote-by-mail ballots, register to vote (before or after the registration deadline), obtain personal assistance, use accessible voting equipment, obtain replacement ballots, and cast their ballots in person. This is a great resource if you make an error on your ballot and need to get a new one.
Vote in person at your polling place. They will be open February 15, 7am to 8pm. They can also assist you if you make an error on your ballot and need a new one.
Even if you missed the deadline to register to vote in this election, you can still vote provisionally at all polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted.
Go vote. Once you vote, you can track your ballot using the voter portal, no matter how you plan to vote. But make a plan to vote. My plan is to drop my ballot off in a shiny new Voter Drop Box.
Feel free to forward the Kate Slate to friends (and friends, if someone other than me–Kate–sent this to you feel free to drop me a line if you end up reading it, I like to hear who this made its way to, and I can add you to the email list for the next Kate Slate).
As always, thanks for reading, now please go vote. Take others with you. And if you can’t take them with you, make sure they have a plan to vote.
Even if you missed the deadline to register to vote in this election, you can still vote provisionally at all polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted.
Grab and go! (The short version you can take with you to the polls. See below for the details.)
Member of the State Assembly, District 17 – David Campos School Proposition A – No School Proposition B – No School Proposition C – No Assessor-Recorder – Joaquín Torres
Now for the long form version of the Kate Slate:
Member of the State Assembly, District 17 – David Campos
This election is one of many cascade effects of the corruption scandal that has been rocking San Francisco city government since 2020. For this race, we are voting on a candidate who will fill the vacant State Assembly seat left when David Chiu was appointed to serve as San Francisco City Attorney.
Technically this is a primary election if none of the candidates get more than 50% of the votes; they would have the run-off in April of the two candidates with the most votes from this election. Whoever wins this race, now or in April, will serve the remainder of the term that ends January 2023. As such, we will be having another election for this seat again this June regardless, albeit for a full term. We will be best-served by someone with the political acumen for the short stint in the state assembly.
There are four candidates running: David Campos, Matt Haney, Bilal Mahmood, and Thea Selby. I immediately discounted Mahmood since he has almost no political experience, including not participating in several recent local elections as a voter. And, while I am a big fan of Selby’s grassroots work in San Francisco, the reality is that a win for her is unlikely considering Campos and Haney, the vice chair of the California Democratic Party and the head of the San Francisco Democratic party respectively, are dominating the discourse for the race. A best case scenario for Selby is an April runoff. Frankly, an April runoff is a waste of taxpayer money to fill a seat only through the end of the year.
And, the short stint of the seat is also why I squarely landed on voting for Campos over Haney. Haney is currently San Francisco’s District 6 Supervisor. If he vacates that seat, then Mayor London Breed will appoint a replacement. There is too much at stake to sacrifice right now for a short stint in the State Assembly for us to risk losing Haney’s progressive voice on the Board of Supervisors, both for his district and for citywide issues. Think about critical upcoming votes like whether to keep Golden Gate Park’s JFK Drive open for recreation as it has been throughout the pandemic. Or the fact that the Tenderloin, in District 6, was recently declared a State of Emergency. San Francisco is best served by Haney continuing in his current role as District 6 Supervisor.
I also have confidence in David Campos serving in the State Assembly: He drafted San Francisco’s CleanPowerSF legislation and established harassment-free buffer zones around clinics. He stands up for immigrant families and affordable housing. He is a gay immigrant of color and works to address intersectional issues that set back our community. He is someone who will hit the ground running. Vote David Campos.
School Proposition A, Recall Alison Collins – No
School Proposition B, Recall Gabriela López – No
School Proposition C, Recall Faauuga Molina – No
The three school propositions each represent a measure to recall a sitting member of the San Francisco School Board. For any who are recalled, the mayor will appoint a replacement. There are seven members of the School Board in total, and the other four are ineligible to be recalled presently as they have served less than a year. Parents and teachers are upset about decisions during the pandemic and much vitriol after several controversial decisions that addressed racism and colonialism, as well as racist tweets by then-vice president Alison Collins (School Proposition A).
I consider the complaints against Collins validation for the board’s no confidence vote, removal of her Vice President title and her committee positions, as well as for those who vote to recall her justified. I don’t have the same confidence that that is the case for López or Molina.
And, while I empathize completely with supporters, a costly recall just months before an election for these seats is wholly wasteful. The ship has sailed for this election. My guess is that they will be recalled as polls indicate people are so rightfully pissed. But, when/if the recalls pass, another expensive and wasteful recall of the other four board members is certainly coming. I am voting no on all three to stand against the abuse of the recall and cringing hard for not recalling a problematic racist when I had a chance.
Assessor-Recorder – Joaquín Torres
Joaquín Torres is running unopposed so he is going to win the seat whether you vote for him or not! He was appointed to this seat after Carmen Chu moved over to the seat of the City Administrator that was vacated due to the aforementioned corruption scandal.
About the Kate Slate
I write the Kate Slate for every election because when I voted for the very first time as an eighteen year old, I found myself in the voting booth surprised that I didn’t understand all the issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. I felt like I had showed up to take a test that I hadn’t studied for. The next election, I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate. Now the Kate Slate has been old enough to vote itself for a few years.
For the past decade plus, the slate is preceded by a Slate Party my pal Sacha Ielmorini co-hosts with me. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as are voter guides provided by the League of Pissed Off Voters (impeccably researched),social media, and (virtual) coffee break chatter.
And, in case you were wondering, the opinions in the Kate Slate are my own, and in no way should be thought to represent any views of anyone other than myself. I have thoughtful engaging conversations with well-informed people who sometimes shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered; I get the tacky expensive mailers you get; and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party. Happy voting!!
I hope this finds you well in these challenging times.
Here is the Kate Slate for the September 14, 2021, California Gubernatorial Recall Election: Vote NO on the recall question and submit your ballot to your polling place, City Hall Voting Center or a ballot drop-off station by tomorrow, Tuesday, September 14, 8 p.m.
Typically my pal Sacha and I host a slate party and discuss the ballot that informs the Kate Slate, but we skipped it for this election because there is nothing to discuss! The arguments for a recall are weak at best, ignorant and wasteful at worst. And, if you vote “no” on the first question, then you are also voting no on all the candidates in the second question. No need to waste energy or ink on the second question. So, I hope you will join me in voting “no” tomorrow and reject the recall. And I do hope you will take the time to vote if you were considering skipping this silly election. Your voice matters.
As always, thanks for reading, now please go vote. Take others with you. And if you can’t take them with you, make sure they have a plan to vote.
