Kate Slate – March 5, 2024

Posted: February 14th, 2024 | Author: Kate Michelle McCarthy | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate | Comments Off

Hello Voter!

This is the Kate Slate for the March 5, 2024, Consolidated Presidential Primary Election in San Francisco. The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to vote.

I share my personal cheat sheet with you to help others navigate their own ballot. I write the Kate Slate myself, race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and share why I am voting the way I am. I tell you how I voted, and what impacted my decisions.

Sometimes I end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if there is a fatal flaw. (Definitely true this election!) You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay! If you’d like to learn more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.

Just please vote on or before Tuesday, March 5, 2024. In fact, bonus points if you vote early. San Francisco polls are open and I already received my ballot!

Here is how you can vote this year:

Vote by mail. All registered voters were to be mailed a ballot for this election. You must return your ballot on time to be counted. If you return your ballot by mail, make sure it’s postmarked by March 5 (check collection times if you use a USPS mailbox). You can also return your ballot at your polling place on Election Day, March 5. You may also authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.
Vote using a Voter Drop Box. San Francisco provides 37 drop boxes across San Francisco where you can return your ballot. These boxes are available 24/7 through 8 p.m. on Election Day, March 5.
Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center is open as of February 5 to provide ballots and services to all city residents who wish to pick up or drop off vote-by-mail ballots, register to vote (before or after the registration deadline), obtain personal assistance, use accessible voting equipment, obtain replacement ballots, and cast their ballots in person. This is a great resource if you make an error on your ballot and need to get a new one (as is your polling place on election day), or if you are not registered for a party but want to vote in a party’s primary election and you still need to swap your ballot.
Vote in person at your polling place. Your polling place is open March 5, 7am to 8pm. They will also assist you if you make an error on your ballot and need a new one.

Even if you miss the February 20 deadline to register to vote in this election, you can still vote provisionally at all polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted.

Go vote. Make sure you, and the voters you know, have a plan to vote. Once you vote, you can track your ballot using the voter portal, no matter how you plan to vote. But make a plan to vote. My plan is to drop my ballot off in a Voter Drop Box in my neighborhood.

Feel free to forward the Kate Slate to friends (and friends, if someone other than me–Kate–sent this to you feel free to drop me a line if you end up reading it, I like to hear who this made its way to, and I can add you to the email list for the next Kate Slate).

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

President of the United States – abstain
Member, County Central Committee (District 17) – Peter Gallota, John Avalos, Vick Chung, Gloria Berry, Adolfo Velasquez, Michael Nguyen, Sydney Simpson, Jane Kim, Anita Martinez
Member, County Central Committee (District 19) – Natalie Gee, Frances Hsieh, Leah LaCroix, Queena Chen, Sandra Lee Fewer, Mano Raju, Gordon Mar
United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2031) – Barbara Lee
United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2025) – Barbara Lee
United States Representative, District 11 – abstain
State Senator, District 11 – Scott Wiener
State Assembly Member, District 17 – Matt Haney
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 – Michael Isaku Begert
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #13 – Patrick Thompson
Proposition 1: Authorizes $6.38B in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities – YES
Proposition A: San Francisco affordable housing bonds – YES
Proposition B: Amend City Charter with minimum police officer staffing levels – NOOOOOO
Proposition C: Exempt the Real Estate Transfer Tax after property converts from commercial to residential – NO
Proposition D: Enhance city ethics laws – YES
Proposition E: Allow police department to make several changes to policing policies without further approval – NOOOOOO
Proposition F: Require those receiving city public assistance participate in drug screening and treatment to receive benefits – NOOOOOO
Proposition G: Encourage SFUSD to offer Algebra 1 to 8th Grade students – abstain

Now onto the full enchilada…

President of the United States – abstain

This is the primary and California voters are very likely to nominate the incumbent, Joe Biden, for president. And, I won’t waste my ink on a world leader who won’t stand up to end senseless genocide, and worse, is personally responsible for enabling it.

Member, County Central Committees Districts 17 and 19

You have to be registered to vote as a member of the Democratic Party to vote in this race; if you aren’t you won’t have this on your ballot. And, there are two slates depending on what part of SF you live in. You can elect up to 14, and these VIPs have the privilege of nominating the official Democratic Party Slate. This means mayor, Board of Supervisors, etc. If one set of names aren’t on your ballot, check the other district. And, if neither are on your ballot but you want to vote in this race, head over to the Voting Center at City Hall where you can exchange your ballot for one with this race and vote in person. And now, the candidates…

District 17 – Peter Gallota, John Avalos, Vick Chung, Gloria Berry, Adolfo Velasquez, Michael Nguyen, Sydney Simpson, Jane Kim, Anita Martinez

Peter Gallota is a clean energy and queer rights advocate who is the current chair of the DCCC; John Avalos fought for working families when he was Supervisor; Vick Chung and Anita Martinez fought to stop cuts to classes at City College and are elected members of its Trustees; Gloria Berry is on the SF Reparations Committee where she is fighting for…reparations; Adolfo Velasquez is an SF State educator who fights for low-income students; Michael Nguyen is Juicy Liu, a drag performer and API activist attorney; Sydney Simpson is a union nurse who fights for evidence-based health initiatives and strong worker protections; and Jane Kim is my favorite progressive San Francisco politician who stands up for working class families and queer rights.

District 19 – Natalie Gee, Frances Hsieh, Leah LaCroix, Queena Chen, Sandra Lee Fewer, Mano Raju, Gordon Mar

Here’s who I recommend and why for D19: Natalie Gee is a legislative aide and Chinatown community organizer working on language access; Frances Hsieh is a labor leader who has supported AAPI, women, and immigrants in city government; Leah LaCroix helped in the fight for free Muni for Youth when she was chair of the SF Youth Commission; Queena Chen is a Chinatown transportation organizer and cofounder of the Rose Pak Democratic Club who serves on the SFMTA’s Citizen Advisory Committee; Sandra Lee Fewer is a former progressive Supervisor who is a strong coalition builder; Mano Raju is a badass elected Public Defender whose efforts are reforming our justice system; and, Gordon Mar is a former progressive Supervisor who fought for low income and immigrant families.

United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2031) – Barbara Lee

United States Senator (term ending January 3, 2025) – Barbara Lee

This is the primary for two races for the same seat in the US senate, but for different terms. The first is finishing the remaining term vacated by Dianne Feinstein when she passed. The second is the following six-year senate term. You’ll vote on these two same seats come November with the two top vote getters in this primary.

And, I emphatically endorse Barbara Lee for both now and in November. Barbara Lee has a phenomenal voting record as an assemblymember where she is famous for being the only legislator to vote against the retaliatory Gulf War after September 11. Beyond that she constantly defends rights for the working class, immigrants, women, and queers. And, as we know how much representation matters, I am proud to be voting for a Black woman for senate. Vote for Barbara Lee.

United States Representative, District 11 – abstain

The truth is that Nancy Pelosi will easily be reelected as one of the Democratic Party’s biggest fundraisers. I wish she had ended her service in the House at the end of her term, passing the torch onto the next generation of Democrats. Instead she has been embarrassing herself with ridiculous gaslit accusations about those begging our federal leadership for an end to the genocide in Gaza. Gross, Nancy. Save your ink.

State Senator, District 11 – Scott Wiener

Scott Wiener is so often on the wrong side of issues for me, except transportation funding and transgender rights. But, those who are running against him don’t meet the muster either, so I am endorsing Wiener here.

State Assembly Member, District 17 – Matt Haney

Matt Haney is another candidate who has not impressed in the state assembly but is running against candidates who would be even less likely to do so. He talks a good game for affordable housing but hasn’t delivered any solid outcomes yet. C’mon Matt. San Francisco needs you to deliver!

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 – Michael Isaku Begert

Begert is known as “one of the good guys” working in SF courts diverting those charged with minor crimes into drug and mental health treatment and job counseling instead of jail.

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #13 – Patrick Thompson

Thompson has also had success on the bench working in the pretrial system where he stands up for what’s right and fair, and is outside the victim blaming doom-cycle that has others in the justice system pointing fingers instead of addressing the fentanyl crisis that is fueling SF crime.

Proposition 1: Authorizes $6.38B in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities – YES

If you care about addressing the drug epidemic that is impacting just about every quality of life issue in the state, then you will vote yes on State Proposition 1.

It both modifies an existing state tax and also includes a $6.38B bond supported by the governor and majorities both in the state assembly and senate to be used for substance abuse, housing, and supportive services.

The new money would go to county health departments and grants to organizations that treat behavioral health, including permanent supporting housing and creating more inpatient and residential treatment beds.

Prop 1 is the right direction to address this issue, unlike SF’s prop F (see below) that does the complete opposite. Vote YES. Let’s get 11,000 more treatment beds and services for more than 27,000 people who so desperately need it to finally turn the tide on this crisis.

Proposition A: San Francisco affordable housing bonds – YES

Speaking of needing to vote yes on an initiative to turn the tide on a crisis…a yes vote on Prop A would fund 1,500 affordable housing units in San Francisco that are currently stalled in the housing pipeline due to lack of funding! Also, this requires a two-thirds majority to pass, and city leaders are afraid if it doesn’t pass that it will sound a death knell for future progressive measures. We’ve seen it before in San Francisco. I can’t vote YES on this one fast enough.

Proposition B: Amend City Charter with minimum police officer staffing levels – NOOOOOO

If we need more officers, the mayor or the Board of Supervisors can do so right now without this garbage legislation.

The San Francisco Controller’s Statement on this proposition is that if this were to pass, it would have a “significant impact on the cost of government.” This sets up a situation where the city’s general fund could be depleted to meet this policy when the city has more vital needs. And, as the city is faced with a budget crisis, belts are going to get tighter and tough funding decisions are going to be made. We can’t have our budget tied up by unnecessary policy.

It is ballot box budgeting at its absolute worst and does not reflect San Francisco values. This is just a bad government move spurred by the doom cycle media frenzy. Vote NO!

Proposition C: Exempt the Real Estate Transfer Tax after property converts from commercial to residential – NO

This prop would provide an unnecessary benefit to wealthy real estate developers in an effort to encourage them to convert offices into housing. Not to be a downer but a realist, this proposition builds on the unlikely and idealistic premise that the housing crisis could be addressed by repurposing underused commercial real estate for housing.

The San Francisco Controller’s statement on this proposition is that it would significantly decrease the City’s transfer taxes revenues. Unfortunately, this hopeful but not realistic initiative would cost the city more money during our continuing financial crisis spurred by the pandemic.

Worse, the proposition also has a poison pill that allows the Board of Supervisors to overturn the real estate transfer taxes on properties worth $5+ million that fund affordable housing and City College that voters approved. Vote NO.

Proposition D: Enhance city ethics laws – yes

Here’s my disclosure that I am a city official so this would impact me directly. In the shadow of rampant corruption in San Francisco, I support the Ethics Commission’s effort to provide firmer policy for employees on gift-giving and professional relationships while providing city officials a clearer definition for bribery.

I know from personal experience that these ethics rules can feel cumbersome. And, they are difficult to get right. But, I also know that corruption in city government is slowing down and even undermining the good efforts of some of our smartest and hardest working city staffers. Let’s make it clearer that conflicts of interest are not tolerated in good government. Vote yes.

Proposition E: Allow police department to make several changes to policing policies without further approval – NOOOOOO

Here is just another piece of garbage legislation. It is just too far reaching! There are so many details to this proposition that cannot be justified as a whole with so many questionable parts.

For example: It overrides sensible policies like the current ban on high-speed chases…that saves lives. It also limits the time officers are allowed to spend reporting use-of-force incidents. (Why???) And, it allows for unchecked use of surveillance when SFPD already has considerable tools available. Vote NO.

Proposition F: Require those receiving city public assistance participate in drug screening and treatment to receive benefits – NOOOOOO

This proposition would require poor housed adults who receive $712/month and unhoused adults who receive $821/month for expenses (that include housing/shelter, food, utilities, and employment assistance) to be screened for illegal drug use. And, if the screener suspects the person receiving these funds to be a drug user, they would be required to participate in a treatment program in order to continue to receive these meager benefits.

While many concerned with the state of the fentanyl epidemic may be inclined to vote yes, I am voting no. This plan would limit poor adults’ ability to access other opportunities, such as employment, housing, or educational opportunities to receive the meager support they currently receive. People who have limited means to make ends meet sometimes turn to illegal activities for day-to-day survival. Rather than get back on their feet, these mandatory programs continue the cycle of drug abuse.

So, this plan would exacerbate the issue it aims to resolve. And, I can say this with confidence because this is a tried-and-failed plan here in San Francisco I know about from firsthand experience: When I first moved back to the Bay Area after college, I got a temp job doing intake at a drug treatment program in San Francisco for people who were arrested for using drugs in public more than once.

If these folks received public assistance when they were arrested, they were required to attend the program to receive their monthly funds. But, because the treatment program was in the middle of weekdays, the patients often were not able to address other issues like applying for housing or applying for food stamps. And, most of the customers I did intake for were not there for the first time. The program ended after it was deemed a failure.

I saw firsthand that policies such as this do not work. They are cruel and they keep people down who are already marginalized by poverty and health issues. And, many are veterans, too. Let’s find a better way to care for our poor who are struggling. Let’s not punch them while they are down. We need solutions that end the cycle of poverty and drug abuse. Vote NO.

Proposition G: Encourage SFUSD to offer Algebra 1 to 8th Grade students – abstain

This is a nonbinding policy statement that has no business being on the ballot. As I write this, Feb. 13, SFUSD is having a school board meeting where a new math sequencing plan is being considered that proposes to bring Algebra back to 8th Grade.

For the back story here, in 2014, in an effort to address racial disparities in math education, the district reordered how students take math. It turns out the reordered sequencing didn’t have the results that were intended so the school district is addressing it. And, this policy statement passes, it would tell SFUSD that voters agree! Algebra should be taught in 8th Grade! But only after SFUSD’s binding decision would be made. Sigh.

This is just a ballot initiative to undermine SFUSD leadership, another ballot hit job on San Francisco’s schools. Save your ink and don’t validate the haters with a vote. It won’t be binding anyhow.

Okay! Now go out and vote!!

About the Kate Slate

I started writing the Kate Slate after the first time I voted. Standing in the voting booth, pen-in-hand, poised to vote, I was shocked that I didn’t understand all the issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. I was politically active in my community, and a bit of a politics and news junky. I felt like I showed up to take a test unprepared.

The next election, I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate, a tradition that continues for every election I’ve had the opportunity to vote in since. For the past decade plus, the Kate Slate is preceded by a Slate Party my pal Sacha Ortega co-hosts with me. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as are voter guides, social media, and coffee break chatter.

And, in case you were wondering, the opinions in the Kate Slate are my own, and in no way should be thought to represent any views of anyone other than myself. I have thoughtful, engaging conversations with well-informed people who shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered; I get the tacky expensive mailers you get; and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party. Happy voting!!

Kate Slate – March 3, 2020

Posted: February 29th, 2020 | Author: Kate Michelle McCarthy | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate | Comments Off

Here is the Kate Slate for the March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary in 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 Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

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 (March 3!) 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 tell you 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 (no I am not going to vote for you Mr. Super Billionaire); and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party.

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

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.)

President of the United States – Elizabeth Warren
United States Representative, District 12 – Shahid Buttar
United States Representative, District 14 – Jackie Spier
State Senator, District 11 – Jackie Fielder
State Assembly Member, District 17 – Abstain
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 – Maria Evangelista
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #18 – Michelle Tong
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #21 – Carolyn Gold
State Proposition 13 – Bonds for Facility Construction at Schools – Yes
School Proposition A – City College Job Training and Earthquake Safety Measure – Yes
City and County Proposition B – San Francisco Earthquake Bond – Yes
City and County Proposition C – Make retiree health care coverage available to former San Francisco Housing Authority employees? – Yes
City and County Proposition D – Tax owners or tenants who keep ground floor retail or other commercial space vacant to assist small businesses? – Yes
City and County Proposition E – Tie annual allotment for Large Office Projects to Affordable Housing Goals and change the approval criteria for office projects? Yes
Democratic Party County Central Committee (DCCC) Assembly District 17 John Avalos, Peter Gallotta, Matt Haney, Frances Hsieh, Jane Kim, Honey Mahogany
Democratic Party County Central Committee (DCCC) Assembly District 19 Queena Chen, Leah LaCroix, Janice Li, Faauuga Moliga, Mano Raju

Now for the long form version of the Kate Slate:

President of the United States – Elizabeth Warren

I am excited to vote for Elizabeth Warren. She is the candidate I’d most like to vote for in the primary and in the November presidential election. And, like most voters, I hope that it is possible that the candidate who runs against the president in November is someone whose politics align with mine. In this primary, there are only two candidates who I feel do: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. While I think it is tempting to vote for my second-best since he may better align with “the rest of America,” if we all do that, we will nominate our second-favorite candidate rather than our favorite.

Bernie is good but Elizabeth Warren is better. She has detailed plans on how she hopes to achieve ambitious goals that address the tough issues our country faces, from economic disparities to climate change, from the affordability crisis to health care. And, these plans take into account the problematic political climate that will hinder progress if we don’t address it. Warren simply has a better track record than Sanders at doing the hard work to make substantial impactful change. I have been impressed how even during the campaign she is achieving results that are advancing positive outcomes.

The parts of her campaign I am most excited about are her “ultra-millionaire tax” to fund education, healthcare, and childcare, and her commitment to revitalize the agricultural industry while addressing climate change.

The ultra-millionaire tax is brilliant: it would tax households worth more than $5 million or more a 2% tax of every dollar of net worth above $50 million, and a 6% tax above $1 billion. That small tax would fund universal child care, high quality public education, free public college, allow student loan debt to be forgiven, and help finance Medicare for All. Wow! It would raise $3.75 trillion!!

Her plan for Medicare for All takes into account the hostile federal political climate and includes a transition period from our existing system. Elizabeth Warren acknowledges that any Medicare for All legislation is primed for veto by the Republican leadership, so she has a first-term approach to make anti-corruption reforms that are unfortunately necessary to make meaningful changes to health care, reduce drug prices and provide a Medicare for All option that would be free for some in her first term, and eventually free for everyone.

As someone who grew up in an agricultural Sonoma County, I love Elizabeth Warren’s smart plan for revitalizing these communities through restorative farming practices that would offset the country’s transportation carbon emissions.

Her to-do list is strategic in all the best ways: leveraging America’s greatest strengths to address our most pressing issues. There is just not a candidate as good as her. Vote Elizabeth Warren.

United States Representative, District 12 – Shahid Buttar

This is a primary, and Nancy Pelosi is likely to clinch one of the two spots that are on the ballot come November, the prize of this primary election. This is a little bit of a rerun of when both Nancy Pelosi and Shahid Buttar ran in the 2018 primary. Then, the second spot on the November 2018 ballot went to Republican Lisa Remmer. In 2020, I am encouraged by the momentum for us to challenge perhaps the most powerful woman in the world with a candidate who better reflects our district’s values: Shahid Buttar.

Say what you want about Congresswoman Pelosi, but it is inarguable that she spends the majority of her time on (currently very messy) federal issues rather than representing our district to address the challenges that matter to our community most, like climate change, health care, and housing. I get that Pelosi is set to easily win both the primary and November’s election, but I am encouraged by Buttar challenging her to better serve her constituents, and having a candidate in November that better reflects our district’s values.

United States Representative, District 14 – Jackie Spier

I don’t vote in District 14, but I always get asked what I think about this race, so here it is: Jackie Spier is a badass representative. Unlike our District 12 Representative, Ms. Spier does a great job representing her constituents. She is a staunch defender of immigrant rights, standing up to the federal governments illegal tactics during this administration in particular. And, I love that she authored legislation to force lawmakers accused of sexual misconduct to pay settlements themselves instead of using public funds, as well as introducing legislation that would remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment so that it may finally pass after pushing it for nearly 40 years. Finally, Jackie Spier supports the New Green Deal. She is awesome! Vote Jackie Spier.

State Senator, District 11 – Jackie Fielder

Jackie Fielder is someone who cares about renters and affordable housing at the local level more than incumbent Scott Wiener. Scott Wiener lost my favor when he was on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. I do like that he supports transit with legislation that fund improvements, and I do agree that that state has to lead with housing policy for cities to be forced to do what is right, but I think Wiener’s tactics leave a lot to be desired in achieving a housing policy that works for cities and renters. I am excited about Fielder’s New Green Deal for California and she brings a unique and needed perspective to the state senate as a formerly unhoused person. Go Jackie!

State Assembly Member, District 17 – Abstain

I stopped voting for Chiu in 2018. There are just 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. David Chiu is unfortunately running unopposed so there is no need for me to vote for him for another term.

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 – Maria Evangelista

I asked my pal Jesse Stout who is a criminal justice activist and attorney in San Francisco what he thought about the candidates for judges, and he gave me insights on the races for seats #1, #18, #21 that I will share with you here: Maria Evangelista brings charisma to her causes, and is dedicated to seeking justice for her clients. She’s a native San Franciscan born to undocumented parents. Her opponent has worked as a prosecutor.

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #18 – Michelle Tong

Michelle Tong is also running against a prosecutor. Tong has litigated on behalf of tenants, immigrants, and workers. And she is apparently also a really fun person, according to the aforementioned Jesse Stout.

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #21 – Carolyn Gold

I think I am most excited to vote for Carolyn Gold of the judge candidates. She is the litigation director at Eviction Defense Collaborative. For 15 years, she’s protected thousands of San Franciscans from eviction. Since we passed Prop F in 2018 she’s helped lead implementation of SF’s civil right to counsel for evictions. A candidate you can feel good voting for. And, surprise! She is also running against a prosecutor. I guess it is a theme.

State Proposition 13 – Bonds for Facility Construction at Schools – Yes

This would be the largest school construction bond in California state history if passed and it enables districts to place bond measures to raise the taxable limit of property for schools that would then be matched. I am sure many people are going to be confused that this Prop 13 funds school construction when California’s 1978 Proposition 13 gutted school funding, but that is a different conversation. Here we are in 2020 and for this Proposition 13, I am voting yes.

School Proposition A – City College Job Training and Earthquake Safety Measure – Yes

This is a much needed measure to fund facilities and training at one of San Francisco’s most important institutions. What’s great about this one is that it is smartly designed legislation. Pals at League of Pissed Off Voters explain, “None of the money can go to administrator salaries, the state has to keep their hands off the money since it’s coming through a local measure, and there’s an oversight committee to watch how the money gets spent.” Yes, vote yes!

City and County Proposition B – San Francisco Earthquake Bond – Yes

I am guilty of consistently voting yes on earthquake bonds in earthquake country to prepare us for earthquakes. This one is particularly compelling because it would fund maintenance and repairs to our cistern system dating back to the 1850s that, by the way, helped save the Mission (my neighborhood) from burning down after the 1906 earthquake. Yes!

City and County Proposition C – Make retiree health care coverage available to former San Francisco Housing Authority employees? – Yes

File under: administrative. Any changes to the City Charter must go to the voters, and just because this addresses health care administration for only 24 workers, it still has to go to the voters. It sounds like these workers got the short end of the healthcare stick when there was some bureaucratic shuffling of management of the San Francisco Housing Authority to address its mismanagement. At any rate, we can fix that now and do what is right by the workers by voting yes.

City and County Proposition D – Tax owners or tenants who keep ground floor retail or other commercial space vacant to assist small businesses? – Yes

This is one of two compelling propositions on the ballot that will help address the affordability crisis by taxing those who are maintaining vacant storefronts after six months to encourage their activation. Currently storefronts are often left vacant until someone will pay the predatory sky-high rents that make this city unaffordable for many of us. The money raised here would go to support small business (though it is a pittance, let’s be real). I mostly love this proposition as a property owner-motivator, and it is about time. Vote yes.

City and County Proposition E – Tie annual allotment for Large Office Projects to Affordable Housing Goals and change the approval criteria for office projects? Yes

Here is the second of the two compelling propositions on the ballot that will help address the affordability crisis, this one relates to housing. This ties the allowed capacity of office development to the city’s affordable housing goals, that we don’t typically meet. So, if we only reach 50% of our affordable housing goals, the capacity for office development would be decreased by half. By pairing office project capacity with affordable housing goals, we incentivize real estate investors to meet the city’s affordable housing goals. It is an interesting strategy and I am all for it, since the workers at those offices have to live somewhere, and I rather they not live a two-hour commute away. Vote yes.

Democratic Party County Central Committee (DCCC)

Guess what?! I am not a member of the Democratic Party so I don’t get to vote on this slate. The DCCC votes on endorsements for candidates and ballot initiatives for the official San Francisco Democratic Party. They have a lot of power. So! I happen to still have opinions about favorite candidates. You get to vote for up to fourteen seats for District 17 and ten seats for District 19 so make sure you include these awesome people:

Assembly District 17

John Avalos, Peter Gallotta, Matt Haney, Frances Hsieh, Jane Kim, Honey Mahogany

Assembly District 19

Queena Chen, Leah LaCroix, Janice Li, Faauuga Moliga, Mano Raju

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

Kate Slate – November 2019

Posted: November 4th, 2019 | Author: Kate Michelle McCarthy | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate | Comments Off

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.

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.

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!

Kate Slate – November 2018

Posted: October 26th, 2018 | Author: Kate Michelle McCarthy | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Here’s your Kate Slate for the November 2018 election for San Francisco and California. 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 6, 2018.

Even if you don’t know your polling place, or where you were last registered to vote, or if you are registered, you can always go to City Hall on Election Day (November 6!) 7am-8pm to register and cast a provisional ballot. Though, if you can, it is always best to cast a live ballot at your polling place.

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 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.)

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 others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party.

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 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.)

Governor – Gavin Newsom
Lieutenant Governor – Eleni Kounalakis
Secretary of State – Alex Padilla
Controller – Betty Yee
Treasurer – Fiona Ma
Attorney General – Xavier Becerra
Insurance Commissioner – Ricardo Lara
Board of Equalization Member, District 2 – Malia Cohen
United States Senate – Kevin de Leon
United States Representative – Nancy Pelosi
State Assembly Member, District 17 – Alejandro Fernandez
State Assembly Member, District 19 – Phil Ting
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court – Carol Corrigan. NO
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court – Leondra Kruger. Yes
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1 – James Humes. Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1 – Sandra Margulies. no
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2 – James Richman. No
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2 – Marla Miller. No
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3 – Peter John Siggins. No
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 4 – Jon Streeter. Yes
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 4 – Alison Tucher. Yes
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5 – Barbara Jones. Yes Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony K. Thurmond
Member, Community College Board – John Rizzo, Thea Selby
BART Board, District 8 – Janice Li
Member, Board of Education – Alison Collins, Faauuga Moliga, Gabriela Lopez
Proposition 1 – YES
Proposition 2 – Yes
Proposition 3 – Yes
Proposition 4 – No
Proposition 5 – No no no
Proposition 6 – NOO NOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Proposition 7 – Yes
Proposition 8 – Yes
Proposition 9 – Not on ballot
Proposition 10 – YYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS
Proposition 11 – no
Proposition 12 – yes
Proposition A – YES
Proposition B – no
Proposition C – YES
Proposition D – no
Proposition E – YES
Assessor Recorder – Paul Bellar
Public Defender – Jeff Adachi
District 2 Supervisor – Nick Josefowitz
District 4 Supervisor – Gordon Mar
District 6 Supervisor – Matt Haney
District 8 Supervisor – Rafael Mandelman
District 10 Supervisor – Theo Ellington

Now, the whole enchilada on why I am voting the way I am:

Governor – Gavin Newsom

I am not a big fan of this politician who is more concerned with coif than substance. He is big on talk and not on action, so his role as lieutenant governor shooting spitballs at the federal government served him well. The agenda of his opponent is largely to repeal the gas tax (but I depend on roads and public transportation, so no thanks), so I gotta vote for Gavin Newsom. Ugh.

Lieutenant Governor – Eleni Kounalakis

I am happy that we have two Democrats to choose between in this race, but I don’t think highly of the lieutenant governor seat—not sure it does much more than break ties in the state legislature. And, both candidates seem pretty good. I broke my tie by reviewing their endorsements; I find I have more affinity with Kounalakis’s endorsers than Hernandez’s. It is a nice bonus that Kounalakis is a woman because I value diverse representation in government.

Secretary of State – Alex Padilla

I was hoping to sweep the June Primary and win them all so I wouldn’t have to rewrite all these endorsements. Alas, we only won a few. Here’s what I said for the June Primary: 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 June Primary write-up…and: Another candidate that I have endorsed before who continues to do good work that I’d like to see continue doing that work.

Treasurer – Fiona Ma

Fiona Ma is a career politician who continues to get my vote more for her opponent in the election than her record.

Attorney General – Xavier Becerra

I continue to be impressed with Xavier Becerra, even since the June Primary, when I said: 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 – Ricardo Lara

I had fun voting for Nathalie Hrizi in the June Primary for Insurance Commissioner as she wants to abolish insurance companies. But, now we’re at the general election and she’s not on this ballot to tempt us, so I’m picking the smiling Democrat rather than perennial candidate Steve Poizner.

Board of Equalization Member, District 2 – Malia Cohen

I abstained voting in this race during the June Primary: 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 chose to abstain. But, someone is going to win the seat, and I rather it be Malia Cohen than Mark Burns.

United States Senate – Kevin de Leon

I was so shocked and outraged that Dianne Feinstein wasn’t representing Californians against the Trump administration right from the beginning of his term that I was super fired-up during the June Primary to vote for Kevin de Leon. I said I was super proud of Kevin de Leon for standing up for California and defending our sanctuary state policy, and I am. But since the June Primary, I had the opportunity to review how he handled sexual harassment at his workplace and it seemed weak and palliative. And even as underwhelmed as I have become by de Leon, I am still so pissed at Feinstein for not representing us, California, her constituents, that I am not dignifying her candidacy with my vote, even though I am certain she will win.

United States Representative – Nancy Pelosi

I have abstained from voting for Pelosi in the past because she is the codification of big money in government. But the federal government is a scary government body right now and I am so freaked out I am voting safe this election.

State Assembly Member, District 17 – Alejandro Fernandez

I was going to sit out this race this election because I think David Chiu should do more for San Francisco because lots of city issues are tied up by state policy and he could make real, tangible changes for the good of San Francisco, but so far not really. And now that he has come out against Prop C (see below) and I am just over him. Alejandro Fernandez won’t likely win, but he’s got some nice progressive ideas and he also supports Prop C.

State Assembly Member, District 19 – Phil Ting

Should I be in his district, I had also been planning to recommend abstaining in this race for the same reason as District 17 above: 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. And guess what?? Phil did better!! He passed us a policy allowing SF to tax ride-hailing companies’ annual revenue! And he provided the public easier access to law enforcement’s body cam footage! So I suggest voting for him! See how excited I get when elected leaders do good stuff?

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court – Carol Corrigan. No

The judges are where I typically have to do the most research and come up with the smallest amount of info. This year I got most my help from http://politics.voxpublica.org/. One thing to remember is that judges are typically appointed by governors/executive branch and then elected by unknowing voters. So, you can look up who appointed the judge and assert any inferences accordingly. Judicial elections don’t get the same attention as the rest of the polls get, and there is decidedly more insidiousness at play with serious consequences. If a judge were to lose a seat in an election (rare), the current governor would appoint a new justice. So, I think about the judge’s record and the chance that a new appointee would be worse, and make my choice.

While it sounds like Corrigan may be the first lesbian to serve in the California Supreme Court, she also has the unfortunate distinction of having written not one, but two dissents to the Court’s finding that the California Constitution protected the right of gay people to marry. I am voting no.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court – Leondra Kruger. yes

Leondra Kruger was the court’s second youngest appointee after serving as an Obama official. Since 2014 her judicial record has been strong. And, she is a woman of color, a welcome presence in our courts.

Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1 – James Humes. Yes

Jim Humes was California’s first openly gay justice when he was appointed by Jerry Brown, who he worked for prior, including on Brown’s Prop 8 briefing stating why the state would not defend the anti-gay measure. I also hear he favors prosecutors, which isn’t great but most judges do.

Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1 – Sandra Margulies. no

I am a no on Margulies based on her record: ruled in favor of Uber and ruled in favor of expanding the circumstances that police could do blood draws on motorists without a warrant. Nope.

Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2 – James Richman. No

Richman is another I am voting “no” on based on him ruling against protecting public worker pensions.

Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2 – Marla Miller. No

I am voting no on Miller after she ruled against tenant protections via Ellis Act reforms for San Franciscans. She also supposedly made problematic efforts to protect the Governor’s office during the CPUC corruption issue.

Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3 – Peter John Siggins. No

While some credit Siggins for being one of the justices who ruled that California’s prisons are overcrowded to the point of human rights violations, I don’t endorse him because way back in 2010 I read a paper he wrote that said we all have to get used to increased government intrusion and invasion of privacy for the sake of national security. Ummm, no thanks, dude.

Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 4 – Jon Streeter. Yes

I’m a big yes for Jon Streeter who sued the federal government for holding immigrants without a chance of bail while in private practice.

Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 4 – Alison Tucher. Yes

I’m also a big yes for Alison Tucher who got a person exonerated who was wrongfully convicted of murder after doing a ton of pro-bono work.

Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5 – Barbara Jones. Yes

I am a yes on Barbara Jones who has a long celebrated career serving California. She ruled in favor of the Raiders’ Cheerleaders in a wage theft issue.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony K. Thurmond

Thurmond is one of my favorite candidates on the ballot this election, and I said as much before the June Primary: 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.

Member, Community College Board – John Rizzo, Thea Selby.

For Community College Board, you vote no more than three, there are four running. Two incumbents, John Rizzo and Thea Selby, are true champions of the institution for helping City College weather the accreditation storm that seemed like it was going to nearly sink the school for years. Incumbent Davila has lost my faith due to recent ethics complaints and her general mismanagement of her affairs.

BART Board, District 8 – Janice Li

Sadly, I am not in BART District 8, so I won’t get to vote in this race. But, if you are so lucky to vote for this unicorn candidate, please do. What makes Janice Li so rare is that she both someone you feel great voting for (a queer woman of color who does amazing work in the community), and simply one of the best qualified people for the role (I count eight commissions and policy bodies she has been on since 2014). She is one of the hardest working transportation advocates making our systems more equitable and safe. She quite literally walks the talk and has been doing so for years. Vote Janice Li for BART Board District 8.

Member, Board of Education – Alison Collins, Faauuga Moliga, Gabriela Lopez

For Board of Education you can vote for no more than three. And the race is stacked with compelling candidates. Too many. I researched others who also seem good, Li Miao Lovett, Lex Leifheit, Martin Rawlings-Fein, to name a few. But Alison Colins, Faauuga Moliga and Gabriela Lopez are the standouts for me.

Collins and Moliga have been working within the school system already; Collins as part of the district’s African-American Parent Advisory Council, and Moliga at both the district and school levels, where he works on systemic change for the benefit of Pacific Islander students and providing services for students impacted by violence in their neighborhoods.

Gabriela Lopez is a bilingual elementary teacher in SFUSD (the only candidate who is a teacher) and would be the first Latina on the school board in 20 years. I am psyched to vote for these three candidates, and I am gratified so many talented candidates are ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work for San Francisco students.

Proposition 1 – Authorizes bonds to fund specified housing assistance programs. YES

News flash! California is in a housing crisis. This authorizing of bonds for veterans housing and affordable housing will not solve California’s housing problems, but it will help. Vote yes.

Proposition 2 – Authorizes bonds to fund existing housing program for individuals with mental illness. Yes

Another yes to authorize even more bonds for housing, this time for people with mental illness. There has been some grumbling about taking money from a fund that provides direct services for people with mental illness to provide housing for people with mental illness. But, housing is a basic human need, so I think that this is an appropriate use for the funds.

Proposition 3 – Authorizes bonds to fund projects for water supply and quality, watershed, fish, wildlife, water conveyance, and groundwater sustainability and storage. Yes.

I have debated this one back and forth and back again. It is SO HUGE. $8.877 billon! It authorizes bonds for massive water projects that are necessary to maintain our crumbling water infrastructure. It is just the sort of thing a legislature should be working on funding by engaging experts and stakeholders and making tough decisions and passing several pieces of legislation. Or not. Seems like our legislators just passed it off to us voters in one big fat controversial ballot initiative that seems to address vital water infrastructure needs while leaving no one happy.

But the problem is our infrastructure is actually crumbling! Remember when we thought the Oroville Dam was gonna burst?? Yeahhhhhh. So: Time is of the essence. I don’t think we can count on the existing legislature to do their job since they punted this to us voters. Let the opponents on the various sides of the various issues of this prop duke it out in court after this passes. It’s not a good answer, but it’s an answer.

Proposition 4 – Authorizes bonds funding construction at hospitals providing children’s health care. No

I know the optics aren’t great here, but let’s not fund the building of private hospitals with bonds that accrue interest at taxpayers’ expense. Isn’t government funding spread too thin?

Proposition 5 – Changes requirements for certain property owners to transfer their property tax base to replacement property. NO NO NO

This is bad. The Legislative Analyst’s Office found that, if passed, this would initially cost local governments and schools over $100 million/year, growing about $1 billion/year after. It would do so by allowing homeowners to transfer their existing property tax base to a new property. Currently, when homeowners buy a new property of greater value than their existing property, their tax base increases. This change would benefit real estate investors without providing any new housing nor assisting first-time homebuyers at the expense of our schools and local governments. We literally cannot afford for this prop to pass.

Proposition 6 – Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding. Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate. NOO NOOO NOOOOOOOOOO

This is terrible. If you like bridges maintained, roads repaved, public buses and trains, perhaps the occasional sidewalk, then VOTE NO ON PROP 6. This would strip the state of $5 billion/year, San Francisco $60 million/year of transportation funding that voters just approved to dedicate to transportation projects in the June 2018 Primary! Voters just said we want to fund transportation projects! And worse, it requires the a voter supermajority to approve any future gas or vehicle tax, which is very difficult to achieve.

I don’t understand why this would even be put on the ballot, other than a fundamental misunderstanding about how infrastructure is maintained and built: it’s about money. How are we supposed to pay for the infrastructure that gets us where we need to go? The impact this would have on transportation infrastructure, both city and state-owned would simply be devastating. Vote no, tell your friends to vote no, tell your family to vote no.

Proposition 7 – Conforms California daylight saving time to federal law. Allows legislature to change daylight saving time period. Yes

This one is vaguely interesting. If passed, it would allow California to petition the federal government to stay daylight savings time all the time. Full disclosure: I have experimented over the past couple years NOT adjusting my sleep schedule to standard time, giving myself a bonus hour in the mornings to exercise, read, cook, etc. And, I liked not having the couple of weeks of adjustment to the new time. I am voting yes.

Proposition 8 – Regulates amounts outpatient kidney dialysis clinics charge for dialysis treatment. Yes.

This is a no-brainer. It would cap profits on patient care. Healthcare is a human right. Vote yes.

Proposition 9 – Not on ballot.

You don’t get to decide on whether to divide up California into smaller states because the California Supreme Court says so.

Proposition 10 – Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property. YYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS

This gives cities and counties the ability to expand and/or modernize rent control. Currently the state severely restricts rent control at the expense of its most vulnerable populations. In this scary housing crisis, our ability to maintain housing requires having stable rent. All the arguments against this prop are greed-based, favoring the rich at the expense of the poor. I call bullshit. Housing is a human right. Vote yes, vote loud and proud, and encourage your neighbors to vote yes, too.

Proposition 11 – Requires private sector emergency ambulance employees to remain on-call during work breaks. Eliminates certain employer liability. No.

This was put on the ballot by private ambulance companies after they were sued for violating state law regarding workers’ break rights. There was going to be state legislation to address this, but talks broke down between owners and labor so the ambulance company paid signature collectors to get this put on the ballot to resolve its liability. Boo.

Proposition 12 – Establishes new standards for confinement of specified farm animals; bans sale of noncomplying products. Yes.

This would give slightly better conditions to some farm animals. What will the other animals would think if us humans if we don’t vote yes?

Proposition A – Embarcadero Seawall Earthquake Safety bond. YES.

Huge kudos to the public officials behind the terrifying PSAs. Thank you, I am voting yes. Just in case you didn’t know, San Francisco is quite vulnerable both to earthquakes and sea level rise. And it also turns out our seawall is about 100 years old, and our little buddy is overdue for reconstruction to protect our regional and local transportation system’s tunnels (BART and Muni), utility networks, and the docks. If you aren’t convinced yet to vote yes, watch the video at the link.

Proposition B – City privacy guidelines. no.

I am a pretty soft “no” on this, but still no. It is nonbinding, and is good because it sets guidelines for data collection for SF. But, since data collection is an international business, the benefits of this prop, implemented at just the city level would be minimal at best. And, frankly this could be implemented by the Board of Supervisors on any given Tuesday without a ballot initiative.

But also hidden in here somewhere is that this would allow the Board of Supervisors to make changes to the Sunshine Ordinance, now required by ballot. It seems shady (ha) that the Proposition as it appears on the ballot only mentions privacy guidelines and doesn’t mention that it would allow changes to the Sunshine Ordinance. And, the needed changes to the Sunshine Ordinance I’ve seen by this Prop’s proponents are uncontroversial and would likely be easily passed by voters should the changes be put on a ballot. For now, I vote no.

Proposition C – Additional business taxes to fund homeless services. YES.

This would raise $300 million annually for homeless services by taxing San Francisco’s businesses with more than $50 million receipts annually. San Francisco has been struggling with homelessness for years.

Here is a robust plan to build and acquire housing, treat addiction and mental health and prevent homelessness. Don’t let anyone tell you that there is not a good plan: it is all spelled out. There are 10 points to the plan, there are charts, there are graphs. And, don’t let anyone tell you the mayor has to do it herself and she doesn’t like it: the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development is one of three city agencies to which funding will be allocated (Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and the Department of Public Health being the other two), and it will be the office’s staff doing the work, not the mayor herself. Since the Mayor has said she is committed to addressing homelessness, it seems solid. And do not tell me that this is too hard for San Francisco businesses or would repel businesses: Corporations earning more than $50 million in gross receipts can definitely afford a half penny per dollar to help address homelessness. If they are too greedy to address the problem on their doorstep they don’t deserve to be here.

Housing is a human right. C’mon San Francisco. Let’s address really start addressing this problem: VOTE YES.

Proposition D – Additional tax on cannabis businesses; Expanding the businesses subject to business taxes. no.

This is a ridiculous and unfair sales tax because: weed, dude. I am supportive of taxing weed, but this allows an additional tax of 1-5% and could be changed to 7% by the Board of Supervisors. That is nuts. Sure, tax it, but tax it relative to other taxes. This tax seems really outsized, so I am voting no.

The last few years in the United States have seen a chorus-line of watershed moments for the cannabis industry, but revisions to 2018’s Farm Bill were perhaps the most silent and significant. Despite some persisting legal murkiness around how and where hemp and CBD products can be purchased and shipped, this federal action has led to widespread distribution of CBD products like tinctures, lotions, sodas, gummy bells—even hemp flower you can smoke. CBD has made the news. Everyone is talking about what it can do for people suffering from scores of chronic medical issues. Some ask how well cbd gummies bears benefits work and what are the effects.

Addiction is a brain disease and needs to be managed like any other chtonic disease. On this site recoverydelivered.com use medications that can stop cravings, block wihdrawal symptoms so you do not feel dope-sick and block the high from heroin and opioids.

Proposition E – Partial allocation of Hotel Tax for Arts and Cultural purposes. YES.

Do you remember Prop S in 2016? It was a better version of this. But the backers of S have brought us C and E in this election and I am here for both. Currently hotel taxes go to San Francisco’s general fund. When the hotel tax was initially established in 1961, it was to woo tourists with cultural facilities. But, it was amended over time to eventually fund the general fund and the Moscone Center. If approved, this would allocate 1.5% of the 8% hotel tax back to arts and culture. The rest stays in the general fund. VOTE YES.

Assessor Recorder – Paul Bellar

Carmen Chu’s political career is a story of political appointments and incumbent elections. And, here is another incumbent election for her, except it is in a race against a property tax nerd who wants to address a major flaw in the existing system: accountability. She’s been fine, but he’d be great and that’s how my vote goes.

Public Defender – Jeff Adachi

Jeff Adachi is a great public defender running unopposed. He is addressing racial disparities in arrests and sentencing and he is a vocal proponent for overdue bail reform. Yay.

District 2 Supervisor – Nick Josefowitz

While I align politically most with Josefowitz of the D2 candidates, I take issue with how we throws around his money to get what he wants. It is just icky. Even if we agree that bikeshare should be citywide. But I don’t have another candidate I like better. Sorry, District 2.

District 4 Supervisor – Gordon Mar

A grassroots community organizer and brother of former supervisor Eric Mar. He has a stellar resume and supports immigrant rights, workers rights, and the environment.

District 6 Supervisor – Matt Haney

For this race I paid attention to which campaign the developers funded, and it wasn’t Matt Haney’s! Meanwhile his endorsements shine like the stars. He has an impressive resume and he is very polished.

District 8 Supervisor – Rafael Mandelman

Didn’t we just elect this guy? Oh yes, we did. But we elected Mandelman to finish Scott Weiner’s term when we sent Scott to the state senate. Now we must re-elect Mandelman for a full term of his own.

District 10 Supervisor – Theo Ellington

Theo Ellington is deeply engaged in the District 10 doing grassroots community development work; he fought the coverup of the toxic waste disaster and its mismanagement at the Hunters Point Shipyard, and he isn’t accepting campaign contributions from corporations. A candidate you can feel good voting for.

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

The Kate Slate – June 5, 2018

Posted: May 31st, 2018 | Author: Kate Michelle McCarthy | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate | Comments Off

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.

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.

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!

Kate Slate – March 5, 2024

Kate Slate – March 3, 2020

Kate Slate – November 2019

Kate Slate – November 2018

The Kate Slate – June 5, 2018

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives