Kate Slate – June 2, 2026

Here we go again!  I have been writing the Kate Slate for almost as long as I have been able to vote. When I voted the very first time, I found myself in the voting booth surprised that I didn’t understand the all issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. The next year I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate. These days the slate is preceded by a Slate Party I cohost with my pal Sacha Ielmorini. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate.

I write the Kate Slate race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and sometimes end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if it has some fatal (to me) flaw. I let you know if I think it does and why.

My 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 friends who sometime shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered, I get the tacky expensive mailers you get, and cool people like yourself send me other peoples’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party.

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).

You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay!

Even if you don’t know your polling place, or where you were last registered to vote, you can always go to City Hall on Election Day (June 5!) 7am-8pm to cast a provisional ballot. Though, if you can, it is always best to cast your own ballot at your own polling place.

If you have an absentee ballot, you can surrender your absentee ballot for a live ballot at your polling place. The poll workers will destroy your absentee ballot and give you a live ballot. This assures you that your ballot is read and counted as you intended it. (ie. When you vote absentee, if a machine rejects your ballot, the machine depends on a human to interpret your absentee ballot. I am not trying to be all conspiracy-theorist here, but feeding your own ballot into the machine and hearing it beep is the best way to ensure your ballot is interpreted as you intend it to be.)

As always, thanks for reading, bonus points for voting.

Grab and go! (The short version you can take with you to the polls. See below for the details.)

Governor – Delaine Eastin

Lieutenant Governor – Gayle McLaughlin

Secretary of State – Alex Padilla

Controller – Betty Yee

Treasurer – Vivek Viswanathan

Attorney General – Xavier Becerra

Insurance Commissioner – Nathalie Hrizi

Board of Equalization Member, District 2 – Abstain

United States Senate – Kevin de Leon

United States Representative – Shahid Buttar

State Assembly Member, District 17 – abstain

State Assembly Member, District 19 – abstain

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 4 – Phoenix Streets

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 7 – Maria Evangelista

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 9 – Kwixuan Maloof

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 11 – Niki Judith Solis

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony K. Thurmond

Mayor: 1-Jane Kim; 2-Mark Leno; 3 – Amy Farah Weiss

68 – Yes

69 – Yes

70 – no

71 – yes

72 – yes

Regional Measure 3 – YES

A – Yes

B – Yes

C – Yes

D – No

E – Yes

F – Yes

G – Yes

H – NO

I – abstain

Governor – Delaine Eastin

This is a primary race. The two top vote-getters on June 5 will run against each other in November. As such, I fear the two well-funded Democrats will drown out the one candidate I’d most like to see on the November ballot, Delaine Eastin. Her positions have substance and her priorities focus on the issues I care about, from addressing the housing crisis and prison reform to tackling the funding gap for infrastructure maintenance. And, she has experience as our former Superintendent of Public Instruction. Let’s get a candidate on the November ballot who we’d be excited to vote for: Delaine Eastin!

Lieutenant Governor – Gayle McLaughlin

And, speaking of candidates we’d be excited to vote for in November…How about Gayle McLaughlin, former Richmond Mayor, who fought big oil (and won!) while at the same time lowering homicide rates, empowering community policing programs, raising the minimum wage, and passing rent control. Yes yes and yes. Vote Gayle McLaughlin.

Secretary of State – Alex Padilla

I endorsed Alex Padilla in 2014 and he did well by us! So I am going to endorse him again so that he can continue taking very seriously his role overseeing our elections. I have been impressed how much he is doing to protect elections from meddling while also expanding voter access. He is doing good work that I’d like to see him continue doing.

Controller – Betty Yee

Another candidate that I have endorsed before who continues to do good work that I’d like to see continue doing that work. Also, the people who are running against her aren’t qualified for the role, so go Betty Yee.

Treasurer – Vivek Viswanathan

I am very impressed with Vivek Viswanathan’s resume. This guy has tons of high-level policy experience working with the Office of Governor Brown as special advisor and on the Hillary Clinton campaign. And, he’s running his campaign without corporate or PAC money, a campaign that includes sound and simple ideas for strengthening California’s economy while investing in its people. We need leaders like Vivek Viswanathan.

Attorney General – Xavier Becerra

Xavier Becerra was appointed to Kamala Harris’s seat after she got elected to congress. And, he’s made us proud by defending our state’s rights against the evil Trump administration, so proud. I want Becerra to keep fighting the good fight.

Insurance Commissioner – Nathalie Hrizi

So, Nathalie Hrizi wants to abolish insurance companies. She is running against Steve Poizner (perennial Republican candidate), Ricardo Lara (the smiling Democratic state senator who I am guessing will win one of the two places on the November ballot), and then Asif Mahmood (the SoCal doctor who fundraised a bunch for Hillary Clinton). Frankly I am not impressed by the ticket here, and voting for Hrizi sounds fun in the very least and very optimistically a vote for her could maybe even shift the race slightly left for the November election.

Board of Equalization Member, District 2 – Abstain

Well, since the State Board of Equalization had most of its power stripped from it after an audit revealed much corruption internally, and because none of the candidates are people for whom I would vote, I am going to abstain.

United States Senate – Kevin de Leon

I was shocked and outraged that Dianne Feinstein wasn’t representing Californians against the Trump administration right from the beginning of his term. And, I was super proud of Kevin de Leon for standing up for California and defending our sanctuary state policy. I am sure Feinstein’s name will be on the ballot in November and I hope de Leon’s name is on there, too.

United States Representative – Shahid Buttar

Here’s another ticket that we can anticipate to see the incumbent holding onto for the November election. So here’s your chance to have a candidate we’d be proud to vote for on the ballot in November: Shahid Buttar. He’s from San Francisco, an advocacy director from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with a penchant for defending civil liberties. I’m excited to vote for Shahid Buttar.

State Assembly Member, District 17 – abstain

State Assembly Member, District 19 – abstain

You either have incumbent David Chiu or Phil Ting on your ballot if you live in SF, and they are likely to win their races. But, we deserve better. There are so many city issues being tangled by state policy, from the housing crisis to innovative street design, and we need strong leaders representing San Francisco. Both incumbents should do better.

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 4 – Phoenix Streets

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 7 – Maria Evangelista

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 9 – Kwixuan Maloof

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 11 – Niki Judith Solis

Judges are typically appointed by governors and then reelected by unknowing voters. Who can really blame us? Info about judges is hard to find even for us most dedicated researchers. So, consider us voters lucky when four San Francisco public defenders (yes, the four I have endorsed: Phoenix Streets, Maria Evangelista, Kwixuan Maloof, and Niki Judith Solis) decided to run to unseat incumbents appointed by Republican governors. They certainly have raised some eyebrows and ruffled some feathers. I can’t help but think there is more to this than what’s on the surface, and yet, I am over the status quo in our courts: All four candidates are people of color representing diverse backgrounds that would provide welcome insight into our courtrooms.

I am happy to vote against Curtis Karnow’s anti-tenant record by voting for Maria Evangelista. And while Cynthia Ming-mei Lee may have an impressive resume, Kwixuan Maloof seems like a better candidate based on his years as managing attorney in the SF Public Defender’s office. I also think Phoenix Streets is a better candidate than Andrew Y.S. Cheng. And I think Niki Judith Solis is badass for challenging a judge she felt was biased when she tried a case before him. And that is why I am voting the slate of Streets, Evangelista, Maloof, and Solis.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony K. Thurmond

This one is so easy: Tony Thurmond has a long history of serving  on the school board for Contra Costa County and the Richmond Youth Commission. Meanwhile, his competitor is a CEO who runs a corporate charter school company–no thanks! Vote Tony Thurmond.

Mayor: 1-Jane Kim; 2-Mark Leno; 3 – Amy Farah Weiss

Here’s how I picked who I wanted to be Mayor: I chose the gustiest candidate that best represents me while getting a lot done for those whom it will make the biggest difference–affordable housing, free city college, and homeless services come to mind. I don’t always agree with her, but I feel confident that she represents me best of the candidates. I vote Jane Kim.

Jane Kim slightly edges out Mark Leno for me because unsurprisingly she has been working more hands-on with local policy; he’s more big picture and she is more pragmatic. He’s got a pretty stellar legislative record, but that’s not the job here. Jane Kim negotiated impressing affordable housing deals in major San Francisco developments and hosted a listening booth for her constituents to share what matters to them. She’s the person I want to be my mayor.

And then Amy. Well, it is instant runoff voting. So, you either pick a third choice or you let all the other voters pick for you. I thought about all the other candidates and I decided Amy Farah Weiss best represents me of the remaining candidates. She is articulate and level-headed and cares about many of the issues that I also care about. She is not too crazypants and I trust her more than the rest of them. But let’s focus on Jane Kim for #1 and Mark Leno for #2.

68 – Authorizes bonds funding parks, natural resources protection, climate adaptation, water quality and supply, and flood protection – Yes

Generally I’m not a fan of bonds because they aren’t super cost-effective. But, I waffle for necessary funding. And, $700 million of this goes to funding parks in low income communities so I say yes.

69 – Requires that certain new transportation revenues be used for transportation purposes. Legislative constitutional amendment. – Yes

And, generally I am not a fan of ballot box budgeting, either: Earmarking funding for specific uses, rendering our budgets less dynamic. But, in this case I think it is necessary. It make sense for transportation revenues to be used for transportation purposes. This is particularly true in the case of transportation projects since they had been largely funded by federal gas taxes in the past and that funding is no longer available. Since establishing reliable funding sources for transportation projects is necessary, I vote yes.

70 – Requires legislative supermajority vote approving use of cap-and-trade reserve fund. Legislative constitutional amendment – NO

Vote no on this undemocratic poop. Rather than creating a spending plan for the cap and trade fund with by the ordinary majority vote that is currently required, it would require two-thirds approve how cap-and-trade reserve funds would be spent. Vote NO.

71 – Sets effective date for ballot measures – yes

This little piece of legislative housekeeping will set an “effective date” to five days after the Secretary of State certifies election results. Right now there isn’t a date which could be a problem were an issue to be tight and mail-in ballots not fully counted, so vote yes with me to tidy this up.

72 – Permits legislature to exclude newly constructed rain-capture systems from property-tax reassessment requirement. Legislative constitutional amendment – yes

The intention here is to encourage construction of rain-capture systems. It is a low cost way for the state to support drought mitigation. Vote yes.

Regional Measure 3 – Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan – YES

Up above under prop 69 I explain that it is necessary to establish reliable funding sources for transportation projects to address a gap formerly provided through federal gas taxes. This is another measure to help address that gap, a bridge fee to fund transportation projects. It is crucial funding that we need to keep us moving in the Bay Area, and it needs your vote: This requires a majority approval vote in all nine Bay Area counties to pass. Vote yes. Your commute will thank you.

A – Authorize SFPUC to issue revenue bonds for clean power with two-thirds Board of Supervisors approval and prohibit power plants from generating electricity from fossil fuels or nuclear power – Yes

This commonsense legislation extends the Board of Supervisors the same authority they have over water bonds to clean energy bonds. And, this funding is needed to build clean power transmission facilities. Vote yes.

B – Require appointed members of boards and commissions established by the Charter to forfeit their appointed seat if running for office – Yes

I have heard of many conflicts of interest related to this item. It seems that people aren’t their own best judge about whether they may have a conflict of interest. Let’s help everyone out and clear up any potential ethical dilemmas by requiring candidates running for office to forfeit their appointments to boards and/or commissions before doing so.

C – Shall the city impose a new gross receipts tax to fund quality early child care – YES

D – Shall the city impose a new gross receipts tax to fund homeless services, housing for low- to middle-income households – NO

In typical San Francisco ballot fashion, we again have dueling initiatives. Unfortunately D includes a poison pill that if both pass and D gets more votes, only D will take effect. It doesn’t seem fair to have to choose between funding quality early child care and housing. But luckily there is a clear choice: The tax rate for C was thoughtfully developed to raise $140 million annually to tackle child care affordability through three practical tactics. Meanwhile, prop D would only raise $64 million annually and tries to do wayyyyyy to much with too little money. So do the greatest good by voting yes on C and no on D.

E – Shall the City ordinance prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products in San Francisco take effect – Yes

The Board of Supervisors voted to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and this upholds it. This is a health issue for me so I am voting yes and your blunt wrap-loving friends will have to cross the bridge to support their habits.

F – Shall the City establish, fund, and run a program to provide legal representation for all residential tenants in San Francisco facing eviction – YES

Yes yes yes and YES! This would provide legal representation if renters are facing eviction. A city full of renters facing this housing affordability crisis best vote YES!

G – Shall the City collect an annual $298 parcel tax for investment in education – Yes

This is a very affordable tax to give San Francisco teachers an overdue raise. Vote yes.

H – Shall the City set a policy for when police officers can use tasers and authorize Police Department to purchase tasers for all officers – NO

There is already a procedure by which SFPD would be able to arm its police with tasers that allows for a policy to be set by the Police Commission, Chief of Police, and the community, by following Department of Justice guidelines. This initiative would override that procedure and limit the ability to amend the policy in the future. This was put on the ballot by the problematic Police Officers Association and I strongly urge you to vote NO.

I – Shall the City adopt a policy not to encourage professional sports team from other cities to move to San Francisco – abstain.

Another election regular, the old “policy statement.” Sure, they are fun to talk about over a drink, but policy statements are non-binding and this one is particularly sigh-worthy in light of recent sport team announcements in San Francisco. Save your ink.

Oh hey! You made it to the end. Nice work. Now go out there and vote!

So…

Nancy Pelosi… I mean look at your options.

Well, SF elections never cease to get weird, do they? This year is filled with scandal and MC Hammer and Brian Wilson ads, not to mention politicians vying for the spotlight at the Occupy SF protests, never a dull moment.

As I do every year, I present my Kate Slate. This is all me. This slate is independent of any employer past or current, friends or family and should not be mistaken for or misrepresented as anything but the humble opinions of me and only me. I write it as I study the ballot and I share my slate with friends.

As always, I hope you find it useful. Let me know if you found it helpful, it always motivates me for the next election when the slate could go on for miles, like last year. Don’t forget that if you don’t know your polling place you can always vote at City Hall, as long as you are registered, even if you moved!

Happy voting!
Kate

Mayor – #1 David Chiu #2 John Avalos #3 Dennis Herrera
District Attorney – #1 David Onek, #2 Sharmin Bock
Sheriff – Ross Mirkarimi
Prop A – yes
Prop B – YES YES YES
Prop C – Yes
Prop D – [Blank]
Prop E – NO WAY DUDE
Prop F – NO
Prop G – yes
Prop H – no

Mayor
#1 David Chiu
#2 John Avalos
#3 Dennis Herrera

Full disclosure: I have flip-flopped on this race since the beginning. Damned you, ranked-choice voting!  Since there are so many candidates to split the votes, it is hard to know if your ballot would be exhausted before any candidates got more than 50% of the vote.

And, if we hadn’t voted to move towards Ranked-Choice Voting, then we would probably have run-off elections into the foreseeable future with a pool of candidates so large. At the same time, if we had had run-off elections, you know I would vote in each of them. Hence the dilemma of wanting to make all my votes count, while also wanting the best candidate to win.

I found this voting simulation very helpful: http://www.baycitizen.org/data/rankedchoice/bay-citizen-usf-mayoral-poll/. Basically, you have two chances to vote for your gut, and then you have your third vote to select a front runner–say, the lesser of two evils–if your first two choices aren’t already the front runners. Let’s face it folks: with so many candidates and a new scandal every day the polls can hardly keep up, so it is any one’s guess who the true front runners are. My third choice comes down more to who I wouldn’t want to win rather than voting who I do want to win.

So the candidates. Chiu has been my favorite since I knew he was going to run, which was back before Gavin Newsom vacated the mayoral seat allowing for the Supervisors to appoint an interim. Until that moment, Chiu was awesome for us progressives, especially those big on sustainable transportation. He won our heart as Board President, and when we’d see him pedaling on Market Street. He was an easy choice for me. He made a lot of strong moves as Board President and I felt very confident.

Then the mayoral appointment happened, when Gavin won the Lieutenant Governor’s seat. It seemed clear that Chiu had made some backroom deal to support Ed Lee for Mayor (remember this is when Chris Daly famously shouted that it was “on like Donkey Kong”).

Now I speculate that Chiu flipped his vote and went against the progressives for Ed Lee because he had made a deal with certain political power brokers that he would support Ed Lee for interim Mayor in exchange for their support for Chiu as Mayor in November 2011, the current election. And I further speculate that Chiu was duped! Those same power brokers seemed to have perfectly planned for Ed Lee to run as incumbent for Mayor, allowing his first six months in office to serve as a platform for his candidacy, while said power brokers launched a “Run Ed Run” campaign. At this point, Lee almost completely squashes Chiu’s chances of winning.

So. I was really mad about Chiu flipping his vote during the appointment process. And so is basically every hard core progressive. They won’t even run a ranked choice agreement for their Mayoral campaigns (too bad for both) because they are so mad at Chiu. I could see this happening like watching a slow motion train wreck.  Alas.

But, next to Avalos, Chiu’s actions as a leader (Board President) really speak louder than Avalos’s words. Yes, Avalos does come out on paper as the most progressive, and he does hang out with the Occupy folks, but to me he hasn’t come off as bold a politician as Chiu as he has served as supervisor–he doesn’t put his neck out for bold legislation (and yes, he will vote on others’ legislation in a progressive manner, but that isn’t my point). So, I’ve decided to rank Chiu first, then Avalos. It is a tough call, and I have to vote tomorrow, so give me a break.

As for numero 3. I have been trying to find all the latest and greatest polls. I don’t really see anything new or provocative. But, doing this has me really looking at who I don’t want to win with an “anyone but that one for #3” mentality. Which leaves me with only one viable choice (unless I want to exhaust my ballot too say “fuck you!” to the world by picking Terry Baum or writing in Mat Honan, but I kinda don’t see the point of doing that. I mean, who am I even saying “fuck you” to, anyway?)

So anyway, the remainder is: Dennis Herrera. Could I live with him as Mayor? Probably. I don’t think he has strong political will (see why I chose Chiu over Avalos), which is required to be a good politician, but he also probably won’t make too terrible a mess of anything. Or so I hope. #1 David Chiu, #2 John Avalos, #3 Dennis Herrera.

District Attorney
#1 David Onek
#2 Sharmin Bock

Onek has a really unique approach to justice that seems pretty great–and when he was a police commissioner he advocated on programs focused on youth and limiting repeat offenders. Good.

A drawback is he doesn’t have courtroom experience, but neither does Gascón (who was just appointed by Newsom before gallivanting off to Sacramento as Liutenant Governor) has a major conflict of interest being former police chief (watch crime shows much?) So Gascón absolutely gets none of my ranked-choice votes, which brings us to Bock.

Bock has experience, and I imagine plenty, at the Alameda County DA’s office where she was on the team that took down the Oakland Riders.

Also, I won’t vote for Fazio because he is all over the place: used to support the death penalty (1999) though he now says it is a terrible mistake, and said that prosecuting the cops in Fajitagate was ridiculous (kind of a red flag for a DA).

Anyway, #1 Onek, #2 Bock, #3 [blank]

Sheriff – Ross Mirkarimi

I am a fan of Ross Mirkirimi, the orator. So, I was surprised to find out that he actually has decent credentials for the office of Sheriff, like going through the SF Police Academy while working as an investigator for the DA’s office. And, he both has a unique opportunity as a police force outsider and the endorsement of Sheriff Hennessey, and a set of cost-saving ideas, too.

Prop A – yes

Apparently many schools in the southeast sector of the city are in dire need of repair. And since there are no alternate funding sources to secure a similar amount of money, and the type of projects are fairly clearly defined, I say yes.

Prop B – YES YES YES

Is this a bond measure? Yes it is. Why am I supporting a bond measure (or should I say another one, see Prop A)? Because it would take years for SF to go through the bureaucracy it would take to establish a sustainable funding source for road maintenance and repair (which, by the way, it should still be doing, regardless if this passes), and we just simply cannot wait any longer for there to be money to fix our broken streets. Have you seen our streets?! They are terrible. They cause wrecks and injuries, so the use of an injury lawyer is essential for this and you can find the right one at sites like https://www.spauldinginjurylaw.com/areas-served/cumming/personal-injury-attorney/.

This Prop requires a super-majority–66%–to pass. So I am hoping everyone and anyone who votes sees the imperative nature of Prop B passing and votes yes.

Prop C – Yes and Prop D – Blank

Props C and D are competing measures and contain poison pills for the other. What this means is that if both C and D pass, the one with more votes actually wins. This means that you first need to figure out if you want pension reform or not. If you DO want pension reform so that the city doesn’t go bankrupt (that is a YES for me), then you want C and/or D to pass.

Then it comes down to C or D, and which is better; whether you would settle for either, or if you really prefer one over the other. Both come with a sort-of-silver lining in that they are both likely to face a legal battle in court that will in some way adjust, if not improve its version of pension reform. For me, C is the obviously better one.

Prop C came about from consensus-based approach and it more comprehensively addresses the pension issues. D was put together privately without the input of key stakeholders, but isn’t tremendously different–it actually saves more money but is less comprehensive.

Since I favor pension reform, and I prefer C pass, I am going to vote yes on C. And since, I prefer C over D, but I wouldn’t be unhappy if D passed, I am going to leave D blank rather than vote no on it.

Prop E – NO WAY DUDE

This allows for Supervisors to appeal or amend initiatives approved by voters, which right now can only be done by a vote of the people. For me this is “we like democracy, kind of” legislation. I get the idea of initiative reform, but this one I think is problematic.  Say a super-awesome Board member puts something on a ballot and it is great, and then a super-evil villain Board member later amends it? Not so great.

Prop F – NO

The problem with this one is that while it changes some reporting for political consultants, it also makes it so that the Ethics Commission can make further changes without voter approval. And since the Ethics Commissioners are appointed and therefore don’t serve the voters, my thinking is that they would be more loyal to the politicians that appoint them, and to the political consultants that get those politicians elected. So, I wouldn’t want to give them power to make further changes on political consultant policy without voter approval. Vote no.

Prop G – yes

This raises the sales tax back up .5% after the California State Sales Tax just dropped to 8.5% and allocates it to SF specifically. It was just at 9.5% before the state dropped it to 8.5%, so it will still be less than it was just a few months ago. Some people are worried that in 2016 when the state can restore the 9.5% sales tax, SF will be paying too much at 10%. At the same time, I support sales tax as a taxing method that is pretty egalitarian, and I support tax-funded city services.

Prop H – no

I really hate policy statements because they give special interest groups a foot in the door on legislation: pass a policy statement this year, use that policy statement next year as a way to indicate voter support for real binding legislation that sucks for everyone but your special interest group.

So it is not surprising that this one was brought about by some disgruntled parents right after the SFUSD implemented a brand new school placement methodology in 2011. The new methodology takes into account many variables and was researched for years before implementation. Besides it not really having a chance to succeed or fail (yet), this policy statement doesn’t really DO anything it is just a statement of policy that the school district “should” assign students based on specific criteria–not that it has to. Vote no.

Here’s your Kate Slate for the November 2019 election for San Francisco. 

The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to vote by sharing my cheat sheet. You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay! Just please vote on or before November 5, 2019.

If you can, it is always best to cast a live ballot at your polling place. You can always go to City Hall on Election Day (November 5!) 7am-8pm to register and cast a provisional ballot If you don’t know your polling place, or where you were last registered to vote, or even if you don’t know if you are registered. But go vote.

If you have an absentee ballot, you can surrender your absentee ballot for a live ballot at your polling place. This is what I usually do. The poll workers will destroy your surrendered absentee ballot and its envelope, and will give you a live ballot. This assures you that your ballot is read and counted as you intended it. (When you vote absentee, if a machine rejects your ballot, the machine depends on a human to interpret your absentee ballot. I am not trying to be all conspiracy-theorist here, but feeding your own ballot into the machine and hearing it beep is the best way to ensure your ballot is interpreted as you intend it to be, particularly if you abstain on votes as I will this election.)

I write the Kate Slate race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and sometimes end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if it has some fatal (to me) flaw. I let you know if I think it does and why.

My 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 friends 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.

When I voted for the very first time, I found myself in the voting booth surprised that I didn’t understand the all issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. The next election, I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate. These days the slate is preceded by a Slate Party I cohost with my pal Sacha Ielmorini. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as is the League of Pissed Off Voters (thank you for your impeccably-researched guide), SPUR (often disagree, yet informative), social media and coffee break chatter.

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.

Grab and go! (The short version you can take with you to the polls. See below for the details.)
Mayor – Abstain
District 5 Supervisor – Dean Preston
City Attorney – Dennis Herrera
District Attorney – 1) Chesa Boudin 2) Suzy Loftus
Public Defender – Manohar “Mano” Raju
Sheriff – Abstain
Treasurer – Abstain
School Board – Abstain
Community College Board – Ivy Lee
Proposition A – San Francisco Affordable Housing Bonds – Yes
Proposition B – Charter amendment for changes to the Department of Aging and Adult Services – yes
Proposition C – Overturn the law banning sales of electronic cigarettes – No
Proposition D – Impose taxes on fares charged by ride-share and driverless-vehicle companies – YES
Proposition E – Amend the Planning Code to allow 100% Affordable Housing and Education Housing Projects – YES
Proposition F – Establish new restrictions on local elected officials and candidate campaign contributions – YES

Now for the longform version of the Kate Slate:

Mayor – abstain

I’m in the camp of people wanting a more proactive mayor for San Francisco. Overall I’ve been underwhelmed by London Breed’s leadership. She hasn’t been as strong as we need her to be on top issues like affordable housing and the opioid epidemic. Also, this very election features some of her questionable judgment (see her recent unnecessary DA appointment three weeks before a seemingly fair election for that very seat, more information on that heated race below) as well as her appointment of her Education advisor to the School Board, an obvious conflict of interest (and, also see below for more on the School Board race).

Too bad there are no viable candidates running against her. I had considered completely abstaining but a pal reminded me that it is less likely to send a message to the Mayor unless I choose to vote for another candidate. So if you want to send a message to the mayor that she’s not doing an adequate job, Wilma Pang is a mayoral candidate who wants to increase cultural tourism. That’s lovely. She will unlikely win, nor will any of the other candidates running against London Breed.

District 5 Supervisor – Dean Preston

Dean Preston is a democratic socialist who cares deeply about affordable housing and labor rights. He is running against Vallie Brown Who was appointed after London Breed was elected mayor. Vallie Brown was London Breed’s aide while London Breed was supervisor. Inside City Hall, Vallie Brown was known for criticizing City politics as usual, so I was interested to see how she performed as supervisor. But, there honestly hasn’t been much to see. 

And recently, it was revealed that Vallie Brown profited off an eviction as a landlord and mischaracterized the eviction in a way that benefited her financially. It seems like the wrong sort of mentality that we need in City Hall to address the mounting affordable housing crisis. I don’t live in the district so I can’t vote in this race but that’s my two-cents. 

City Attorney – Dennis Herrera

In this depressing election of unchallenged incumbents, I am proud to mark my ballot for Dennis Herrera, who has been impressively standing up to the Trump administration defending San Francisco values including our sanctuary city policy, basic healthcare and LGBTQ rights. He has been tirelessly proactive and brave and I am proud to vote for Dennis Herrera for City Attorney. 

District Attorney – 1) Chesa Boudin 2) Suzy Loftus

Speaking of this depressing election, the one bright spot seemed like it would be the first DA race without an incumbent in 100 years! But, the powers that be screwed that up for us. Gascon, who was San Francisco’s DA since 2011, announced a surprise resignation a few weeks ago to throw his proverbial hat in the ring as a candidate in Los Angeles’s DA race. That left his seat open for appointment by the mayor. Instead of leaving the vacant seat open for a few weeks prior to that very seat’s election, mayor Breed made a questionable move to appoint candidate Suzy Loftus. 

Suzy Loftus, who was legal aide to Sheriff Vicki Hennessy prior to running for DA, was looking like a progressive front-runner in the race alongside another progressive front-runner Chesa Boudin. Initially, the main distinction I made between the two was that Boudin had more firsthand experience with the legal system both as a child of incarcerated parents and a public defender. At the same time, Loftus’s resume is nothing to scoff at: she has over a decade of law enforcement experience herself as a prosecutor and police commissioner.

But, the real difference is that Boudin has a long difference at being a changemaker working in San Francisco to reform the bail system and establishing a pretrial release program that enables people to maintain their responsibilities while they navigate the legal system. Loftus seems to have been doing some good work in San Francisco, yet Boudin has been at the center of the types of reforms our legal system so desperately needs.

I’ll also note that whenever the corrupt Police Officers’ Association endorses anything, I am suspicious of them. When Loftus got appointed by Breed to the office a few weeks ago, the POA expressed gratitude that the mayor for the Loftus appointment publicly. I’m not excited about anything they are excited about.

All the other candidates don’t seem to have a chance with all the publicity around this race. All signs point to Chesa as the best choice this election.

Public Defender – Manohar “Mano” Raju

After Jeff Adachi passed in office Mano Raju was appointed to fill the vacancy, and 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. While I wish there was a real race here, I am happy to vote for uncontested Mano Raju.

Sheriff – Abstain

I regret that I don’t feel confident in the ability of Paul Miyamoto, the sole candidate to replace Sheriff Vicki Hennessy when she retires. Miyamoto is currently the Deputy Sheriff who mismanages the jail. He’s been there through all the jail scandals from the guard-organized prisoner fight club to the officer-involved shooting that injured a man and killed a dog after the man missed a court date. He doesn’t discuss where he stands on issues relating to his role, so I am not feeling confident about putting a vote behind him, for whatever that is worth.

Treasurer – Abstain

Another race where it is too bad there isn’t a challenger. José Cisneros has been mostly talk and no action, particularly on the issue of establishing a municipal bank. Meanwhile he continues to invest San Francisco’s money in Wall Street banks responsible for fraud and corruption when he could be better representing San Francisco values when investing for our future. I am over it, and I am not voting for Cisneros this election. 

School Board – Abstain

Jenny Lam is highly qualified for the School Board. There’s just one problem: she’s the mayor’s Education Advisor. This conflict of interest is also not a new conflict of interest: she’s been serving on the School Board on Mayor Breed’s appointment of her after Matt Haney vacated his seat when he was elected Supervisor. This bothers me on so many levels: As mayor’s advisor she couldn’t think of any other qualified appointment to recommend the mayor appoint to the School Board? In all of San Francisco? Nor a viable mayor-endorsed candidate for this fair election? Lots of people are endorsing Lam and that is fine. The other candidates running for this seat are neither viable nor qualified. I am going to abstain. 

Community College Board – Ivy Lee

This race, though without contest, is the right person for the job. Local hero Ivy Lee has already helped bring us free City College and fair wage legislation, and now she’s stepping up to continue her great work on the School Board. Happily marking my ballot for Ivy Lee. 

Proposition A – San Francisco Affordable Housing Bonds – Yes

We have a major affordable housing crisis in California and especially in the country’s most expensive city, San Francisco. Every eligible voter should vote yes on this, as it requires a two-thirds supermajority to pass. This won’t solve our housing woes by any measure, but at least it will bring funding for an expected 2,800 affordable homes.

Proposition B – Charter amendment to change the name of the Department of Aging and Adult Services to the Department of Disability and Aging Service and change qualifications for 3 of 7 commission seats – yes

 This is a pretty simple charter amendment to change the name of the Department of Aging and Adult Services to include the word “disability,” to better reflect its services. And it will require the commission to include a person with disabilities, a senior above age 60, and a veteran. Currently there are no such qualifications for its commissioners. This is basic housekeeping legislation that makes sense. I’m voting yes. 

Proposition C – Shall the City overturn the Board of Supervisors’ law banning sales of electronic cigarettes – No

Almost nobody is saying to vote yes to this, and the tobacco vape company who was initially funding it has stopped after public health warnings of vaping-related issues. There are some cannabis advocates who think it’s too far reaching and has an unfair impact on that industry, but this seems very unlikely to pass in spite of their concerns, but still vaping is really popular and there are good products as a puff bar you can find online, which really help people which like to do this.

Proposition D – Shall the City impose a 1.5% business tax on shared rides and a 3.25% tax on private rides for fares charged by rideshare and driverless-vehicle companies – YES

Rideshare and driverless-vehicle companies have dramatically increased traffic congestion, and with the increased congestion, crashes and carbon emissions are also increasing. Yet these ride-share and driverless vehicle companies contribute nearly nothing financially to help resolve the issues they are responsible for escalating. 

I hope voters will make the ethical choice and vote YES. Because we have got to do something to address congestion and safety on our streets. This proposition, if passed, would require a tax on fares charged by rideshare and driverless-vehicle companies. It sounds like it was a deal with Uber and Lyft so that they wouldn’t oppose this much-needed funding for traffic mitigation that requires a supermajority (66%) to pass. Since policy would ultimately be passed through as an expense to the customer, I’m worried it won’t pass. But, it is smart legislation to ensure customers are contributing their share to help address the impacts of their mode of transportation. So vote YES and know that you are doing the right thing.

Proposition E – Shall the City amend the Planning Code to allow 100% Affordable Housing Projects and Education Housing Projects and expedite their approval – YES

This is a companion policy for Proposition A that would enable rezoning of city property for Affordable and Education Housing Projects that would then be funded by Proposition A. It is surprising that 75% of San Francisco is not zoned for apartments, a statistic that leaves me feeling hopeless about our housing crisis, so this proposition gives me some hope. It is also brilliant because it helps address the impact the housing crisis has had on teachers’ ability to live in or even remotely near the schools where they work in San Francisco. Vote YES. 

Proposition F – Shall the City establish new restrictions on campaign contributions to local elected officials and candidates, and new disclaimer requirements to campaign ads – YES

Proposition F has me feeling cynical about campaign financing. I am going to vote yes to close some loopholes and corporate abuse of existing campaign finance law, but though I’m voting YES, I’m less confident that much noticeable change will result. We need much stronger reform in this realm, but I suppose this is something. 

  
Oh hey! You made it to the end. Nice work. Now go out there and vote!