The Kate Slate – June 5, 2018
Posted: May 31st, 2018 | Author: Kate Michelle McCarthy | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate | Comments Off on The Kate Slate – June 5, 2018Here 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!