Kate Slate – November 5, 2024
Posted: October 18th, 2024 | Author: Kate Michelle McCarthy | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate | Comments Off on Kate Slate – November 5, 2024Hello Voter!
This is the Kate Slate for the November 5, 2024, Consolidated Presidential Election in San Francisco. The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to vote. If you’d like to learn more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.
Please vote on or before Tuesday, November 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 November 5 (check collection times if you use a USPS mailbox). You can also return your ballot at your polling place on Election Day, November 5, 2024. 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, November 5.
- Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center is open as of October 7 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 5, 2024, 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 21, 2024, 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 very cool 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 now that I have this Kate Slate drafted.
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.)
Federal and Statewide Offices
- President and Vice President: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz
- US Senator: Adam Schiff
- US Representative District 11: Abstain
- State Senator, District 11: Scott Wiener
- State Assembly Member, District 17: Matt Haney
Local Offices
- SFUSD Board of Education (up to four): Virginia Cheung, Jaime Huling, Matt Alexander
- City College Board of Trustees (up to four): Alan Wong
- BART Board Director, District 7: Victor Flores
- BART Board Director, District 9: Edward Wright
- Mayor: #1 Aaron Peskin, #2 London Breed
- Supervisor, District 1: Connie Chan
- Supervisor, District 3: #1 Sharon Lai, #2 Moe Jamil
- Supervisor, District 5: Dean Preston
- Supervisor, District 7: Myrna Melgar
- Supervisor, District 9: #1 Jackie Fielder, #2 Stephen Torres, #3 Julian Bermudez
- Supervisor, District 11: #1 Ernest “EJ” Jones, #2 Chyanne Chen
- City Attorney: Abstain
- District Attorney: Ryan Khojasteh
- Sheriff: Michael Juan
- Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
State Propositions
- Prop 2: Bonds for public school and community college facilities: Yes
- Prop 3 – Constitutional right to marriage: Yes
- Prop 4 – Bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention: Yes
- Prop 5 – Allows local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure with 55% voter approval: Yes
- Prop 6 – Eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude: YES!
- Prop 32 – Raises minimum wage: YES!
- Prop 33 – Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control: YES!
- Prop 34 – Restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers: No
- Prop 35 – Provides permanent funding for Medi-Cal: Yes
- Prop 36 – Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes: NO!
Local Propositions
- Prop A – Bonds to improve earthquake safety and accessibility at San Francisco schools: Yes
- Prop B – Healthy, safe, and vibrant San Francisco bond: Yes
- Prop C – Amend the City Charter to create the new position of Inspector General: Yes
- Prop D – Amend the City Charter to limit commissions: NO!
- Prop E – Amend the City Charter to create a commission Task Force: Yes
- Prop F – Amend the City Charter to allow deferred retirement for police: NO!
- Prop G – Amend the City Charter to require affordable housing funding for seniors and low-income families: Yes
- Prop H – Amend the City Charter to change pension formula for SF Fire Department: No
- Prop I – Amend the City Charter to allow member nurses of SF Employees’ Retirement System to purchase credit: no
- Prop J – Amend the City Charter to ensure effective City funding for children, youth, and families: Yes
- Prop K – Use the Upper Great Highway as public open recreation space permanently closed to cars: YES
- Prop L – Tax TNCs and autonomous vehicles to fund Muni and discount fares: Yes!
- Prop M – Permanently change the taxes it collects from businesses: Abstain
- Prop N – Create a fund for eligible City Employees to have education and training programs reimbursed : No
- Prop O – Establish city policy and law to support, protect, and expand reproductive right and services: Yes
The whole enchilada:
First, a few observations about this November 2024 ballot:
The San Francisco props reveal the character of the candidates running for mayor. Look how hard Aaron Peskin is hustling to make meaningful positive change in San Francisco on the issues voters care about (Props C and E and his legislation in hopes of San Francisco renters immediately benefitting if Prop 33 passes). Look at Farrell’s attempted mayoral power grab (Prop D). Look at how the supervisors are using ballot box budgeting to prevent pilfering from ear-marked funds (Props G & J).
Everyone is still reeling from the pandemic. With shifts in employment, we’re seeing issues with petty crime and drug abuse, and our government budgets are feeling the strain with a lot of spending needs and not nearly enough revenue to do it. Folks are trying to secure funding and carve-outs for the issues and people that they care about most.
It’s got people hoping for quick solutions looking at tried-and-failed strategies like being “tough on crime” and dumping money on the police department rather than what we know works–adequate pay for honest work (YES! on 32), affordable housing (YES! on 33) and funding for low income housing (YES on Prop 5 and Prop G), mental health care and drug treatment (YES on 35, NO on Props 36 and F).
The next chapter is going to be hard. We are looking for solutions. We are hopeful, but trust is low. We’re taking things to the ballot rather than the tough work of labor negotiations, consensus building, and community organizing.
Let’s use a steady approach with best practices and we will get through this! The work is hard but the outcomes are better if you are willing to roll up your sleeves and do it. Thank you for voting your heart this election to secure us our best possible future.
Federal and Statewide Offices
President and Vice President: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz
There’s simply no question that Kamala Harris is the best candidate on the presidential ballot. Because representation matters, I am ecstatic to vote for a woman and a person of color, Kamala Harris for President of the United States. That said, this is not the presidential election when I get to vote for the candidate of my dreams. But Kamala Harris will do. (Ask me sometime about my small-world connection to her.)
US Senator: Adam Schiff
Going for “lesser of two evils” in this race by voting for the Democrat over the Republican. There are two races on the ballot 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.
For the next three races, here’s what I said in the Kate Slate for the March 5, 2024, primary election. It still stands!
US 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 last 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!
Local Offices
SFUSD Board of Education (up to four): Virginia Cheung, Jaime Huling, Matt Alexander
For this race, you can vote for up to four candidates. Only the top four candidates with the most votes will be elected, so I am voting strategically with only three votes here.
The one candidate I hope will be elected to the SFUSD Board of Education is Matt Alexander. He is the current school board president and negotiated teacher wage increases. He was a teacher for ten years and a principal for ten years. Go Matt.
Matt Alexander also was not embroiled in the school board recall scandal nor the pointless algebra policy statement on the last ballot. Which brings me to the second part of my strategic voting in this race: I think we should do everything we can to keep off candidates personally responsible for those shenanigans, Ann Hsu, Laurance Lee, and Supriya Ray. To this end, I am giving my votes to the only other candidates I feel more confident about: Virginia Cheung and Jaime Huling.
Virginia Cheung is an SFUSD parent with early childhood education experience who has been working on engaging families in the “Resource Alignment Initiative” (ie. SFUSD’s effort to close schools and reassign students to address the budget shortfall).
Jaime Huling is a deputy city attorney and SFUSD parent with endorsements from across the SF political landscape, so I am hopeful that will keep her focused on providing SF students with an excellent education instead of political games. Unfortunately I can’t say the same for the other candidates.
City College Board of Trustees (up to four): Alan Wong
Here is round two of strategically voting for fewer candidates that I am able to. In this race, the only candidate I hope will be elected to the City College Board of Trustees is Alan Wong. I want to be sure Alan Wong is sitting in one of those seats when they count the votes, so I am going to opt not to give any of my other votes to the other candidates.
Alan Wong’s the current Board President. He has worked to repair the school’s budget and rehire laid off faculty. His resume prior to serving on the board includes writing the legislation for Free City College, and his entire family are alumni. To me Alan Wong looks like a candidate who knows how vital a resource City College is to San Francisco.
An aside before we get into the next two races: I am sure you have heard about the public transit funding crisis that is crippling public transit agencies nationwide; here in the Bay Area it threatens to bankrupt BART and gut Muni. So we need the best and brightest leaders to find a solution. California is the world’s fifth largest economy. Our economies rely on people getting to work, and workers take public transit. That is why we need to elect strong candidates to the BART Board. Here is who I think has the chops.
BART Board Director, District 7: Victor Flores
Victor Flores has the endorsement of termed-out director Lateefah Simon and the BART transit unions. His resume includes advocacy for transit, climate action, working-class neighborhoods, and immigrant communities–perfectly suited for navigating the difficult road ahead for BART.
BART Board Director, District 9: Edward Wright
Full disclosure, Edward Wright and I work together at the SFMTA on communications for Muni, so I am completely biased. But listen: If anyone understands the funding crisis facing public transit, it is Edward. Day-in and day-out I see him working to gain political support needed for public transit to not only survive but thrive, from coalition building to rallying for climate action initiatives and addressing public safety on transit. The icing? He has years of experience working in San Francisco City Hall, is a union member, a renter, and LGBTQ advocate.
Ranked Choice Voting Strategy
San Francisco’s Ranked Choice Voting system allows you to vote for multiple candidates in the order of your preference. The way it works is that all the ballots are distributed to each of the candidates who are ranked as first. Then, the candidate with the lowest total ballots is removed from the race. Each of the “loser’s” ballots are then given to the next-ranked candidate. This process repeats until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes. Rank the candidates you want, or can tolerate, in order of your favor and vote in that order.
San Francisco has certainly had some surprises since SF initiated Ranked Choice Voting, so do know that your last ranked vote is still a vote for a candidate. If there is a candidate you do not tolerate, do not vote for them, not even as your last choice. Even a last-choice vote could be a vote in their favor that pushes a candidate over the edge to win the election. This strategy allows you to vote for your favorites and reduces risk of the scariest candidates being elected.
As you consider various outcomes you may opt to vote strategically, say picking your top two picks in places one and two, and then an unlikely but tolerable candidate in spot three, as a way to block an even less attractive candidate who may be polling well.
Mayor: #1 Aaron Peskin, #2 London Breed
Aaron Peskin is the best candidate on the ballot for mayor. It is really no contest, even if he isn’t the perfect candidate in every way.
- In this city of renters, he is the only candidate who supports rent control. On October 8 Aaron Peskin passed legislation that would expand rent control in San Francisco to the 40% of renters here who live in buildings built after 1979 should California voters pass Prop 33 (see below) on November 5.
- He has a plan for affordable housing in San Francisco and supports shelters not sweeps.
- He has implemented effective community policing in Chinatown that the neighborhood trusts.
Aaron Peskin cares deeply about maintaining the unique character of San Francisco neighborhoods and has been a leader in historic preservation.
When construction of the Van Ness Improvement Project depressed commerce, Peskin was the only supervisor of the four districts where the project was active that worked to provide financial support for local businesses.
And, he’s supported transportation safety improvements in his district, particularly for people walking.
Does Aaron Peskin have some faults? Yup. But all the other candidates have worse faults.
Let’s start with incumbent Mayor London Breed. She has just been so underwhelming as a mayor. It took too long to activate recovery efforts after the pandemic started. Reforms we knew we needed by summer of 2020 are just now barely starting to move. Meanwhile, during her administration she had a cameo in The Matrix Resurrections! Why??? And, the corruption that has been allowed to persist under her purview is unacceptable, costing the city money and degrading trust when we need both so much. But you know the saying, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” has me inclined to rank her on my ballot. She’s learned lots of lessons the hard way but I think that she’ll do the least harm of the remaining candidates. That’s how bad the other options are! Seriously.
Farrell is just straight up corrupt. Three former San Francisco Mayor’s asked the Ethics Commission to investigate him this week for violating election law by funneling money through Prop D, a power-grabbing ballot initiative that he wrote that would gut public oversight and grant the power to the mayor (see more below). Other bad ideas he has campaigned on include improving public safety by increasing SFPD funding for tried-and-failed “zero-tolerance” policing. He also wrongly thinks that allowing private cars to travel on Market Street again will solve the pandemic’s economic impact on downtown. But restricting private car access has decreased severe crashes on Market Street by 40% and improved transit travel times by 14%. Do not rank Mark Farrell on your ballot. He is bad, bad news.
Asha Safai is a weak-sauce Farrell copycat. Since he’s been supervisor for District 11, he did absolutely nothing and he almost didn’t get reelected for a second term. He fought for individual parking spots at the expense of thousands of public transit riders in his district, and worked to get a bus line rerouted off the street where one of his supporters lived because the supporter thought the bus was “too noisy.” He panders to those who benefit him and doesn’t work for the community he serves. I also recommend you don’t rank him on your ballot.
Daniel Lurie is maybe intriguing…the heir to the Levi Strauss fortune has been running the antipoverty nonprofit Tipping Point that funnels his money to what they think are the most effective organizations in the Bay Area fighting poverty. He also cofounded the Civic Joy fund that has done all sorts of cool activations across San Francisco, particularly during pandemic recovery. But, he doesn’t understand how the San Francisco government works, and money alone doesn’t solve things (and even when it does, I question his priorities) . A look at his personal funding of his mayoral campaign today shows he spent more than $14M on this race. If he cares about San Francisco so much, there are a lot of other things he could have spent that $14M on that would be more transformative (like Muni’s funding crisis). I’m not going to rank him on my ballot, either!
See why I say vote for Aaron Peskin?
Since we can rank up to ten candidates, I read carefully the platforms of all the down ballot candidates, and I had intended to rank Aaron Peskin as my #1, then fill in spots two to nine with down ballot candidates that I wouldn’t regret. But, after doing some reading, there are none whose flaws aren’t similar to those above, and they all lack government experience in the way that Daniel Lurie does.
All to say, vote Aaron Peskin #1, and London Breed #2, and leave the rest of the spots blank. Don’t give a vote to candidates who should not be in that office.
Supervisor, District 1: Connie Chan
Incumbent Connie Chan is a consistently progressive voice on the Board of Supervisors. Some shady gerrymandering was done when San Francisco recently redistricted, dividing the progressive vote in District 1. I don’t always love her work style, but I love the other candidates even less. It is important to retain her progressive voice on the board in spite of the underhanded efforts to weaken the voices of those she represents who elected her to her first term.
Supervisor, District 3: #1 Sharon Lai, #2 Moe Jamil
I have flip-flopped on this one quite a bit. I am familiar with Sharon Lai from when she served on the SFMTA Board of Directors for the SFMTA, where I work. I appreciate her focus on personal safety on transit, but when she had many opportunities to change outcomes, she mostly just stuck with the majority. Many saw her short-lived service on the Board as a stepping stone for her political career, and whaddaya know? Now she is running for Supervisor. (In some ways candidate Danny Sauter has been building his political resume to do the same, but he doesn’t have the practical experience or support that Sharon Lai has. I’d skip him on this ballot.)
I like Moe Jamil a lot who I know from his work on the MIddle Polk neighborhood association when I worked on the Van Ness Improvement Project. He participated on the project’s Community Advisory Committee to address issues project neighbors faced and he has served on the boards of several other community groups.
Sharon Lai has a lot of local political support. It is also important for Chinatown to have a leader it trusts that will be helpful for her to be successful as supervisor. So I think she inches out Moe Jamil as my first choice. If you are a District 3 voter, I’d rank them both on your ballot.
Supervisor, District 5: Dean Preston
Incumbent Dean Preston, with his record fighting for low-income housing and renters’ rights is the best option on the ballot. He’s also good on transportation issues, like he wrote the legislation that was passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors calling for the city to daylight all of our “flag stop” Muni stops (those are the ones that are denoted simply by a yellow band on a pole and a stencil in the street)–formerly parking was allowed at these stops, reducing safety and access for riders. I wouldn’t give votes to any other candidates in this race.
Supervisor, District 7: Myrna Melgar
Incumbent Myrna Melgar is probably the best on transportation issues of the current supervisors. She is constantly working to improve conditions for her district, from housing to public transit. I wouldn’t give votes to any other candidates in this race.
Supervisor, District 9: #1 Jackie Fielder, #2 Stephen Torres, #3 Julian Bermudez
My home district, Jackie Fielder is the most well-versed on the issues. She could be a bit more polished as a public speaker and debater, but her politics support the community on housing, transportation, public safety and mental healthcare and I trust that under her leadership we’d see the best outcomes for the Mission.
Stephen Torres is another good bet for supervisor with his experience on the Entertainment Commission and serving on the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District. Torres seems more focused on small businesses and economic recovery whereas Fielder seems more focused on community safety. I favor Jackie as a woman and also since her politics ever-so-slightly align closer to mine.
While I respect Roberto Hernandez for his work to establish the Mission Community Food Hub and for decades on Carnaval, there’s a lot of bullying in Mission politics and he has been one of the loudest bullies. I will not be giving Roberto Hernandez a vote.
Trevor Chandler is a shill for GrowSF and Together SF, both groups I typically am opposed to on just about every issue. I just got a text message from his campaign making fun of Jackie Fielder for calling for more foot patrols. More foot patrols is a tested-and-proven solution! I will not be giving Travis Chandler a vote.
Supervisor, District 11: #1 Ernest “EJ” Jones, #2 Chyanne Chen
It sounds like District 11 voters have a “win-win” situation if either Ernest Jones or Chyanne Chen wins the seat. I know EJ because he has been engaged on transportation projects I worked on where he has been vocal about project impacts on seniors in the community, and on the Muni Service Equity Workgroup that my team facilitates that is making sure Muni best serves our most transit-dependent communities. He is the real deal! I don’t know Chyanne Chen personally, but I understand she is also the real deal! She’s an immigrant who went to Galileo High and has worked as a labor organizer to level the playing field for service workers to earn a living wage and have dignified working conditions. They’d both bring unique, much needed perspectives to the Board of Supervisors.
City Attorney: Abstain
I want David Chiu to represent me so much! It pains me that he consistently is making moves against better judgment, like: Suing the federal EPA regarding limits put in place by the Clean Water Act on the amount of sewage we can pump into the bay (!) and arguing that the city should be able to sweep encampments of unhoused people without offering them shelter. Both seem so out of line with San Francisco values. It’s strange to see policy coming out of San Francisco’s City Attorney’s office supporting the extreme rightwing Supreme Court’s decisions. At any rate, he is unlikely to lose the seat and I’m going to withhold my vote in this race in protest of the poor decision making.
District Attorney: Ryan Khojasteh
This District Attorney race continues the debate about how San Francisco addresses crime. If you fall on the side of bail reform, alternatives to prosecution and sentencing, ending mass incarceration, and addressing racial and class disparities in the justice system (ie. you voted for Chesa Boudin and against his recall) then you would vote for Ryan Khojasteh for District Attorney. If you, on the other hand, lean towards being “tough on crime,” harsher penalties for repeat offenders, and fewer referrals to treatment programs (ie. you support incumbent Brooke Jenkins and voted to recall Chesa Boudin), you’d more likely vote to reelect Brooke Jenkins.
Of course, Brooke Jenkins was recently exposed for hiring her friend as Chief of Staff while her friend maintained outside employment, and the California Court of Appeals found Jenkins committed misconduct, so if you are “tough on crime” maybe you shouldn’t vote for Brooke Jenkins, either!
Sheriff: Michael Juan
In this race I am going to go with someone less familiar to address what’s currently a bad situation. Bad is incumbent Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, who is currently being sued by inmates in San Francisco for unsafe and overcrowded conditions, including being let out of their cells fewer than four hours per week. Michael Juan’s platform is pretty vague, but with commitments like “reducing recidivism,” “community engagement,” and “transparency and accountability,” These are words that get us closer towards addressing the situation in our jails, so I am going to vote Michael Juan for Sheriff.
Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
I support unopposed Jose Cisneros for Treasurer specifically because he submitted a business plan for a public bank to the Board of Supervisors and my vote is a vote of support for him to make a public bank happen for San Francisco. Let’s do this!
State Propositions
Prop 2: Bonds for public school and community college facilities: Yes
This is a bond that would match local funds to improve school facilities: $8.5B for K-12 schools and $1.5 for community colleges. Some people don’t like bonds because they are an “expensive” funding mode. Others don’t like the requirement for local matching funds because lower-income and rural schools will likely have a harder time coming up with local funds. I don’t think we should let “perfect legislation” get in the way of this perfectly good legislation to fund rebuilding schools over 75 years old, seismic upgrades, and lead remediation. Vote Yes!
Prop 3 – Constitutional right to marriage: Yes
Prop 3 passing amends language in the California Constitution put in place by 2008’s Prop 8 that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman to instead guarantee the fundamental right to marry as part of the rights to “enjoy life, liberty, safety, happiness, privacy, and the right to equal protection and due process under the law. Vote Yes.
Prop 4 – Bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention: Yes
Prop 4 passing provides $10B to deal with the climate crisis we find ourselves in. What it funds are all the antidotes to your worst climate disaster nightmares: drinking water security, drought and flood tolerance, wildfire resilience, coastal resilience, heat mitigation, biodiversity protection, clean air programs, sustainable lands programs, park programs and outdoor access programs. We either fund these infrastructure programs on the front end by voting Yes on Prop 4, or get sunk with the costs of climate disasters on the back end. And even if it passes there’ll still be costs of climate disasters, but we are less prepared without this necessary funding. Vote Yes.
Prop 5 – Allows local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure with 55% voter approval: Yes
Voters would only need 55% approval to pass housing and infrastructure bonds if Prop 5 passes. Currently more than two-thirds or 66% approval is required. This is a big deal because it makes it easier to pass important infrastructure bonds, including Prop 4 above and Prop B below will pass if they get 55% approval from this ballot and this passes. It was put on the ballot by affordable housing advocates to reduce friction for future campaign victory, though the prop casts its net wider, also benefiting other future infrastructure initiatives. Future you will thank you for your Yes vote in this election.
Prop 6 – Eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude: YES!
Currently our California State Constitution allows slavery in the state. Seriously. Or rather it prohibits involuntary servitude, “except to punish crime.” Ummm, what?! So, if you are against slavery, and I sure hope you are, vote YES! Passing Prop 6 would amend the California Constitution accordingly. It seems basic, but it is also one of the reparations priorities for the CA Legislative Black Caucus that I support. Vote YES!
Prop 32 – Raises minimum wage: YES!
Passing Prop 32 means that minimum wage in California increases to $18/hour. This amounts to $36,000/year before taxes. If you care about addressing crime or quality of life or social equity, you care about addressing minimum wage! There is a false argument that this is bad for small businesses, but fair wages means less turnover and training, which is costly for small businesses. And, when people are adequately paid, we save money on public services. Vote YES!
Prop 33 – Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control: YES!
Proposition 33 passing would allow governments to expand rent control. Rent control reduces increases for renters. Currently, local governments are restricted from expanding rent control due to the landlord-friendly Costa-Hawkins Rental Act of 1995. Prop 33 does not enact rent control where it does not exist and it does not change local laws.
You are seeing and hearing all the trash ads saying to vote no on Prop 33 because Prop 33 passing means less money for those fat cats that benefit by being able to hike rents on tenants. There are some false arguments that expanded rent control could raise rents because new construction would be disincentivized. But there’s no merit in that argument considering the range of incentives for new housing construction.
If you care about affordable housing in California vote YES! on Prop 33!
And, as of October 8, Supervisor Aaron Peskin has unanimously passed legislation in San Francisco that if Prop 33 does pass at the state level, rent control would be extended to buildings in San Francisco built up to the year 1994! Yes!! Thank you Supervisor Peskin! Currently rent control in San Francisco only covers buildings built before 1979. This means passing Prop 33 also makes housing more affordable for more than 40,000 people living in San Francisco.
If you care about affordable housing in San Francisco, vote Aaron Peskin for mayor and YES! on Prop 33!
Prop 34 – Restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers: No
Some are calling Prop 34 a “grudge initiative” because the “certain health care providers” referred to in the title is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (the language of the legislation excludes all others), and the proposition passing would restrict its political activities. The story goes that the CA Apartment Association, who is against Prop 33 (see above) put this on the ballot to punish the AIDS Healthcare foundation for its political spending. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has been spending its “prescription drug revenues” on trying to get Prop 33 passed! So much drama! I’m staying out of it. Vote No on Prop 34.
Prop 35 – Provides permanent funding for Medi-Cal: Yes
Prop 35 passing would secure funding for Medi-Cal that is already intended for Medi-Cal. Currently Medi-Cal funding comes from a tax on HMOs that is matched by the federal government. But, California has been using these funds instead to offset the state general fund spending on Medi-Cal to fill state budget gaps. Gah!
If passed, it requires 99% of the Medi-Cal funds go to patient care and caps 1% for administrative expenses. On one hand I hate the ballot box budgeting, and on the other, I hate ear-marked monies not going to what we think they are going to, and this is especially problematic with health care. More than a third of Californians count on Medi-Cal for healthcare! Vote yes on Prop 35.
Prop 36 – Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes: NO!
Prop 36 passing would undo Prop 47 that California voters passed in 2014. Prop 47 reduced charges for drug and petty crimes. This helped California reduce our prison populations and reduced penalties for crimes of poverty and mental health.
Now, some folks who are fed up with issues fueled by the opioid and fentanyl epidemics are ready to throw away the progress we have made with Prop 36. Prop 36 does not address the causes of the problem, it just increases the penalties for repeat offenders, turning crimes of poverty and mental health into longer sentences and increased recidivism.
If you want to end petty crime and drug offenses, this is not the solution. Instead, increase legitimate income by voting yes on Prop 32 (see above) and help make housing more affordable by voting yes on 33 (see above). And vote NO! on Prop 36.
Local Propositions
Prop A – Bonds to improve earthquake safety and accessibility at San Francisco schools: Yes
Since it replaces an expiring bond, passing Prop A won’t raise taxes. SFUSD uses these funds to improve school earthquake safety and accessibility. Vote yes!
Prop B – Healthy, safe, and vibrant San Francisco bond: Yes
Passing Prop B funds a $390M bond for public health facilities, safety improvements for people walking, and downtown public spaces. These include General Hospital and Trauma Center, Chinatown Public Health Center, SoMa’s City Clinic, and shelters for San Francisco’s unhoused, all necessary spending. Though, there’s also a $41M set-aside for “beautifying” downtown. Even though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I am voting Yes.
Prop C – Amend the City Charter to create the new position of Inspector General: Yes
Passing Prop C would initiate a new, unfortunately very necessary position in San Francisco government: an Inspector General. For those following national politics, the recent indictment of the New York City mayor for bribery and corruption is credited to the work of their Inspector General. Annnnd, if you haven’t noticed, San Francisco sorta has a corruption problem!
This is a modest investment that (very unfortunately) will likely pay out dividends in saved taxpayer dollars that are otherwise being absorbed by these corrupt public officials and their costly investigations. Just based on recent events, we may already have work for them! Vote Yes.
Prop D – Amend the City Charter to limit commissions: NO!
Prop E – Amend the City Charter to create a commission Task Force: Yes
Props D and E are two options for commission reform. Commission reform isn’t really San Francisco’s “most pressing” government issue, but it is a mayoral election year, and we have two mayoral candidates with two options for your consideration. Or are these props just cynical fundraising vehicles (as three former San Francisco mayors allege mayoral candidate Mark Farrell of doing)?
If both Prop D and E pass, the one with the most “Yes” votes wins. Vote NO! on D and yes on E.
If Prop D (put on the ballot by mayoral candidate Mark Farrell) passes, it would injudiciously cut civilian oversight in monster power grab: Hell No!
Prop D passing would gut civilian commission oversight by dissolving the decision-making power of commissions and transferring it to the mayor. If that’s not enough of an increase to mayoral power, the mayor also gains power to appoint city department heads including the police chief. And, the police chief gains authority to adopt officer conduct rules. It also ends compensation and healthcare that make serving as a civilian commissioner more accessible. Brutal!
City charter amendments like these require another vote by the people to change. But Prop D takes it even further! If Prop D passes, the legislation requires that any further ordinance that makes changes to commissions would sunset every 10 years!
Prop D requires the creation of a ticking-time-bomb taskforce that has nine months to arbitrarily reduce SF commissions to fewer than 65 or BOOM! dissolve all of our existing commissions (except those required by state or federal law). Apparently funds for this campaign are being shared with Mark Farrell’s mayoral campaign, hence past mayors calling for the Ethics Commission to investigate…hmmmm. Maybe that’s why Farrell is so interested in dissolving commissions?
If Prop E passes (put on the ballot by mayoral candidate Aaron Peskin), it would streamline civilian oversight by establishing a commission taskforce to make commission reform recommendations that require: A rationale (!), an analysis of essential functions and budgets of city departments, a responsibility to reassign the duties of any eliminated commissions, and a draft Charter Amendment to codify those recommendations written by a real life City Attorney.
Prop F – Amend the City Charter to allow deferred retirement for police: NO!
If Prop F passes, retired police officers will be able to double-dip by “deferring their retirement.” This means that they could collect their pension while earning an income as a police officer. Considering the financial catastrophe the city finds itself in, this is a weak return on tax-payers’ investment. Vote NO!
Prop G – Amend the City Charter to require affordable housing funding for seniors and low-income families: Yes
If Prop G passes, it would require $4 million in the San Francisco city budget to fund housing for seniors, low-income families, and people with disabilities who do not currently make enough to qualify for low-income housing. (This kind of blow my mind that it is even possible that people do not make enough for low-income housing by the way!) This was put on the ballot after the Board of Supervisors set up a subsidy program for this purpose but the fund were pilfered by Mayor London Breed. I hate ballot box budgeting, but $4M is tiny in the giant city budget and it is for a purpose that aligns with SF values. Vote Yes.
Prop H – Amend the City Charter to change pension formula for SF Fire Department: No
If Prop H passes, the retirement age for firefighters would decrease from 58 to 55 and the city would pony up more for their pensions. Everyone loves a firefighter, but there are lots of worthy at-risk workers that this excludes, and I just don’t think a city with an $800M budget shortfall can afford to dish out extra money to one specific type of city worker. Also, this could be addressed during contract negotiations rather than at the ballot.. If there’s ever a time for this, it’s not now! Vote No.
Prop I – Amend the City Charter to allow member nurses of SF Employees’ Retirement System to purchase credit: no
If Prop I passes, it will allow per diem nurses (fancy for “temporary part time nurses”) and 911 operators to buy retirement credit at a rate of three years for one credit. I can’t get over how this is a substandard workaround for essential employees. While I want to give access to the retirement system to these essential workers, it seems like such a half-baked, inadequate solution. Maybe if you feel like it’s better than nothing, you vote yes? I can’t help but want to send this initiative’s advocates back to the drawing board to come up with something better. I’m voting no.
Prop J – Amend the City Charter to ensure effective City funding for children, youth, and families: Yes
Prop J passing would establish the “Our Children, Our Families Initiative.” It requires any money going to services for children, youth, and families to be linked to a citywide plan, complete with outcomes and metrics, and, erhm, accountability. This will allow the mayor and supervisors to track how those funds are used, and if targets aren’t met when budget season comes around, they are able to put it on hold. Seems like a good move to have more accountability for funds aimed to serve some of our most vulnerable and least represented community members. Vote Yes.
Prop K – Use the Upper Great Highway as public open recreation space permanently closed to cars: YES
Prop K passing would permanently close the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat to cars. Currently the Upper Great Highway is closed to cars on weekends and whenever Mama Earth decides to blanket it in sand–which happens on average 32 times a year!
A yes vote is the fiscally responsible, good government move. Mama Earth is not giving up, and it costs the city a ridiculously unnecessary amount of money to close, dig out, and reopen the roadway at her whim ($350k-$700k annually–never mind the $4.3M traffic signal upgrades that are needed if it stays open).
The opposing argument about how traffic resulting from the closure is going to clog our neighborhood streets has no merit since this issue does not happen every weekend, nor the 32 times a year when we have to shut down the road due to Mama Earth burying it in sand.
And, the opposing argument that we shouldn’t do it because we don’t have a plan in place on how to use the space is also so silly. We can make a plan.
Some say this shouldn’t be on the ballot because it is the sort of thing the Board of Supervisors could have legislated. That may be true, but we were still waiting for that to happen when five of our Board of Supervisors put this on this ballot. WhileI don’t love that they chose the ballot route, I love even less these massive citywide battles for marginalized space for walking and bicycling in recreational/park areas (see Golden Gate Park, Twin Peaks and, here, Ocean Beach) when our city supposedly prioritizes active transportation. Those who walk and bike are constantly having to fight for the most meager facilities where we can move about the city safely. It is ridiculous. And so is fighting Mama Earth. Vote YES.
Prop L – Tax TNCs and autonomous vehicles to fund Muni and discount fares: Yes!
Prop M – Permanently change the taxes it collects from businesses: Abstain
If both Props L and M pass, the proposition with the most votes goes into effect. This is because Prop M legislation includes a poison pill that nullifies Prop L.
Both props were brought about by changes to San Francisco’s budget after the pandemic shifted so many to remote work. The San Francisco budget depends on the daily population influx that the pre-pandemic downtown brought that no longer exists since behaviors shifted. Now folks are scrambling to fill the budget gaps, as seen here with Props L and M. Prop L is stronger and more necessary, so vote YES on L and leave M blank.
If Prop L passes, it would add a 1% to 4.5% gross receipt tax on trips using ride-hail companies like Uber and Lyft and autonomous taxis. The tax would go towards operating Muni, San Francisco’s public transit, and reduced fare programs.
This funding is more critical than ever. San Francisco is facing a $230M funding gap just to maintain existing Muni service. Passing Prop L will help be part of the solution to fill this funding gap. Not finding the funding means cutting existing Muni service.
Our most vulnerable community members depend on Muni to access jobs, school, worship, culture, and community. (And, there are still routes that our most transit-dependent rely on that have not been restored since the pandemic!) We cannot afford to make cuts to public transit. There is no economic vitality without adequate public transit because public transit is how workers get to work.
And, if you are of the mind that we shouldn’t give public transit more funding until it is higher quality, I guarantee you that its quality will not improve with less money than it currently has and needs to operate currently. Vote Yes on Prop L!
If Prop M passes, the city will make changes to business taxes. It would exempt most small businesses from the business tax while applying a homelessness gross receipts tax on bigger businesses. Leave Prop M blank.
Prop N – Create a fund for eligible City Employees to have education and training programs reimbursed : No
If Prop N passes, it creates a completely unfunded “fund” aimed (in name only) for eligible City Employees to have education and training reimbursed. It was put on the ballot by mayoral candidate Supervisor Safai. But without any funding for the fund, it is all smoke and mirrors. Vote No.
Prop O – Establish city policy and law to support, protect, and expand reproductive right and services: Yes
If Prop O passes it will establish a city policy stating that it will support, protect, and expand reproductive rights and services. It is a policy statement, which I typically deplore as a waste of tax-payer money and voters’ time and energy. But, since this is a national issue, and I can’t turn back time to convince those who put it on to leave this off the ballot, I will vote yes. I know how the evil anti-choice lobby is–if this doesn’t pass they’d point to it as true support from “liberal San Franciscans” for their misogynist position. I can just hear it now. So I am voting yes.
About the Kate Slate
Standing in the voting booth on my first eligible Election Day, well-versed in local politics, 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. It was as if I showed up to take a test unprepared.
Before I voted in my second election, I started writing the Kate Slate. I studied the ballot studiously and shared my notes with friends. The Kate Slate is a tradition I’ve continued every election since.
With the Kate Slate, I share my personal cheat sheet to help others navigate their 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!
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.
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 (record numbers this year!); and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party.
Happy voting!!