Tag Archives: prop 26

Alix’s Voter Guide – California – November 2022

Before we begin, I should tell you that the opinions I express in this voter guide are my own, and should not be attributed to my employer, my little girl, or any of the many Democratic clubs I belong to. Please send all hate mail to me at info (at) votealix.com.

So you know where I’m coming from: I’m a single mom, a liberal Democrat, an attorney and a government nerd, whose passions include arts and culture, getting more women elected to public office, and protecting our environment for future generations. I’ve worked on more political campaigns than I can count, including my own, and I also like long walks on the beach.

This ballot is surprisingly short for a Gubernatorial election, with only seven statewide measures. (I think I still have PTSD from 2016’s ballot, which clocked in at 18 measures. Writing that voter guide nearly killed me). What this ballot lacks in length, however, it makes up for in complexity – several of these measures require a graduate degree and a few hours of free time to study and understand them. That’s where I come in – I research the hell out of these measures so that you don’t have to! My aim is to provide you with way more information than you ever thought you would need to make an informed decision. 

This year I have decided not to analyze the statewide candidate races. Every race is a Republican running against a Democrat, and I shouldn’t need to tell you how to vote in those races. But I’ll make it easy for you:

Governor: Gavin Newsom (D)

Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis (D)

Secretary of State: Shirley Weber (D)

Controller: Malia Cohen (D)

Treasurer: Fiona Ma (D)

Attorney General: Rob Bonta (D)

Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara (D)

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond

Board of Equalization, District 2: Sally Lieber

Here are my thoughts on the 2022 statewide ballot measures. First a summary, followed by the more detailed analysis.

Prop 1 – State constitutional right to reproductive freedom – HELL YES

Prop 26 – Legalizes sports betting at American Indian casinos and racetracks – NO

Prop 27 – Legalizes mobile sports betting and dedicates revenue to homelessness– NO

Prop 28 – Requires funding for K-12 art and music education – YES!

Prop 29 – Yet another dialysis measure – HELL NO

Prop 30 – Tax on Income Above $2M for Electric Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention – HELL YES!

Prop 31 – Upholds the ban on flavored tobacco sales – YES!

Prop 1 – Provides a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion – HELL YES

I’ll make this one easy for you: if you support reproductive rights, vote yes on this constitutional amendment to enshrine “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.” If you oppose abortion and contraceptives, you will vote no.

“But wait,” you ask, “aren’t abortion and contraception already legal in California?” The answer is yes. Prop 1 doesn’t change reproductive rights law in California, per se, because contraception and abortion are both fully legal here, with abortion being legal up to fetal viability and after viability only if an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. These rights are protected by the privacy provision of the California Constitution, which has been repeatedly used by the California Supreme Court to strike down numerous attempts at abortion restrictions, as well as the Reproductive Privacy Act of 2002, approved by the California State Legislature and signed by then-Governor Gray Davis.

But if the recent Dobbs decision by the US Supreme Court (striking down Roe v Wade) has a lesson for us, it’s that longstanding precedent can be reversed at any time. And legislatures can change the law whenever they feel like it. This is why the proponents of Proposition 1 put this constitutional amendment on the ballot – because the constitution is much, much harder to amend, and they wanted to lock that shit down.  

Supporters include the California Democratic Party, Governor Gavin Newsom, US Senators Feinstein and Padilla, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Teachers Association, ACLU, and the Human Rights Campaign. 

In his endorsement, Newsom said, “California will not sit on the sidelines as unprecedented attacks on the fundamental right to choose endanger women across the country. This measure will ensure that women in our state have an inviolable right to a safe and legal abortion that is protected in our constitution.”

My cynical political mind suspects that the measure is also about pulling Democratic women out to vote in the Gubernatorial election for Newsom, whose Kennedy-esque looks and feminist spouse make him popular with liberal moms. Polls show that support for reproductive rights are strongest in the Bay Area, which also happens to be Newsom’s base. Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again, Governor Newsom’s opponent is a Republican State Senator that no one has ever heard of, so maybe he doesn’t need the extra votes? But I digress.

Opponents of Prop 1 include the Republican Party of California, which is kind of surprising to me since the state GOP can’t afford to lose more suburban moms from its base, and opposing Prop 1 will continue to marginalize the party in this state. 

Naturally, lots of Catholic organizations also oppose the measure, including the California Conference of Catholic Bishops, Democrats for Life of America, and the Knights of Columbus. In his endorsement, Roman Catholic Bishop Jaime Soto said, “The state’s political leadership continues to stubbornly cling to the practice of abortion and the throw-away culture. It is reprehensible to enshrine in the State Constitution the practice of abortion even until moments before delivery. The language of SCA 10 is overly vague, reckless and could further endanger children, especially among the poor and marginalized in our state.”  

The Republican Party also argues that the amendment’s language is too broad, and will therefore allow all abortions late into pregnancy, overriding current laws that restrict post-viability procedures. This is baseless fear-mongering; there is nothing in Prop 1 that will change the current law’s viability restrictions.

Anyhoo, Prop 1 is likely to win by an overwhelming margin, since Democrats dominate California politics, and the polls are looking good.  And you can follow the money: the committee sponsoring the campaign has raised over $9.3 million, and the opposition has raised less than $100k. A huge imbalance in campaign spending doesn’t always predict the outcome, but it is a strong indicator of a measure’s relative support.

Prop 26 – Legalizes sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California – NO

Prop 27 – Legalizes mobile sports betting and dedicates revenue to the California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account and the Tribal Economic Development Account – NO

I’m going to analyze Prop 26 and 27 together since they are intertwined.  Before I tell you what the measures would do, I’ll share a bit of the history.

If you want to gamble in California, you are pretty much limited to 84 card rooms, 33 horse racing facilities, 23,000 stores selling lottery tickets, and the 66 Native American casinos on tribal land. Sports gambling is not legal here.

Enter Draft Kings and other online sports betting companies, who are working to break into the state. Online and mobile gaming has become a multi-billion dollar business across the U.S. in recent years, particularly during the pandemic. To give you a sense of just how big these guys are… Draft Kings went public in 2020 and its valuation in 2021 was over $20 billion. The global sports betting market size was valued at $76.75 billion in 2021 and is expected to grow by 10.2% every year from 2022 to 2030.

California is a huge untapped market for these companies, so they designed a measure in California that would allow them to operate here. Prop 27 would legalize sports gambling for adults 21 and older, and would establish regulations for the mobile sports betting industry. As a sweetener, it would also impose a 10% tax on sports betting revenues and licensing fees, and allocate the revenue to an account for homelessness programs (85%) and an account for tribes that don’t operate sports betting (15%). According the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, that sweetener could generate “possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but likely not more than $500 million annually” in state revenue.

But allowing sport wagering in California will jeopardize the financial future of the state’s Native American tribes, whose casinos generate $23.2 billion in economic activity every year. The companies tried to cut a deal with the casino-owning tribes, but they couldn’t reach agreement. So the tribes wrote their own measure (Prop 26) that would allow sports betting and other kinds of gambling only at casinos and licensed racetracks in California, further marginalizing the online betting companies. Ha. Game on!

In addition to sports betting, Prop 26 would allow casinos to expand into roulette and dice games.  The measure defines “sports betting” as wagering on professional, college, or amateur sport and athletic events, with the exception of high school sports and events featuring a California college team. Like Prop 27, it would limit sports betting to adults 21 and over, and it would impose a 10% tax on profits derived from sports betting at racetracks (but not casinos). The revenues would be distributed to gambling prevention and mental health treatment (15%); enforcement of sports wagering laws (15%); and the rest to the state’s General Fund.

TBH, I am not a gambler or a fan of professional sports, so I’m ambivalent about whether California should allow online gambling. Should Californians be able to participate in sports wagering, as a matter of public policy? I could go either way. Do we need to spend more money on solving homelessness? Heck yeah!

Oh. Except that Prop 27 would generate no more than $500 million annually, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. And the state already spends three to four billion dollars on homelessness every year – will another half a billion solve the problem? I’m not convinced.

I was surprised to learn that Major League Baseball supports Prop 27. They say, “As legalized sports betting continues to expand across the country, Major League Baseball remains committed to protecting the integrity of its games and creating a safe experience for fans who wish to wager on those games. Proposition 27… includes strong integrity provisions designed to help MLB carry out those commitments.” I think they are saying, much like illegal drug use, sports betting is happening anyway, so let’s get it out in the open and tax the hell out of it.

Opponents of Prop 27 include the California Teachers Association, a smattering of Democratic and Republican elected officials, the League of California Cities, and both the Democratic and Republican Parties of California, who never agree on anything. They cite the need to protect tribal sovereignty, as well as the fear that legalizing sports wagering would send 90% of profits from sports gambling out-of-state or even out of country.

And of course, there’s the argument that unprecedented access to sports wagering would lead to more problem gambling, addiction and crime. The San Jose Mercury News opposes Prop 27 and argues that “turning every cell phone into a 24/7, portable casino” would increase the rate of gambling addiction across the state, just as it has in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut after each of those states legalized sports wagers.

Gambling addiction, they say, leads to financial ruin, broken families, increased crime, mental health issues and homelessness. That’s right, homelessness.

For me, it really comes down to what Prop 27 will do to the existing Indian casinos. Native Americans remain the most impoverished and underprivileged minority community in the nation, and I’m sure I don’t need to tell you why. (But I will anyway…) Early white Americans forced them onto land that they couldn’t mine or farm, and left them with nothing after obliterating their communities by way of violence and disease. (But how do you really feel, Alix?). The 19th century federal government acknowledged their tribal sovereignty, which later enabled some tribes to establish gaming casinos to support their communities. But the casinos have had inconsistent results: while some tribes (near urban areas) are doing relatively well, rural casinos don’t generate as much revenue. Here’s a good history of tribal casinos if you’re interested. 

Anyhoo, U.S. census data consistently indicate that the legalization of Indian gaming has not improved the lot of the indigenous population in the aggregate, and many tribes continue to languish in poverty. Allowing sports betting to become legal in California would certainly undercut the casino-owning tribes’ self-sufficiency, and threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that tribal casinos generate every year, along with a few hundred thousand California jobs.

Both the yes on 26 and 27 campaigns have been accused of spreading misinformation. For example, check out the Yes on 27 campaign website – the header is “Yes on Prop 27 – Homelessness Funding Backed by California Tribes.”  It says almost nothing about sports betting, which I find incredibly disingenuous and deceptive. They also tout the support they have from the non-casino-owning tribes who stand to benefit from their measure, without mentioning that tribes have raised tens of millions in opposition.

It is intentionally confusing. Yuck.

You may also find it interesting that Prop 27 never gained widespread support among the folks you’d think would be thrilled to have a new half billion dollars a year to play with: California’s homeless service providers and low-income housing builders.

As for Prop 26, the supporters include a few law enforcement organizations and racetrack owners in addition to the casino-owning tribes. The supporters’ main argument is that Californians should have the choice to participate in sports wagering at highly regulated, safe and experienced gaming locations. Prop 26 helps make Indian casinos more profitable, which in turn supports the tribes’ independence.

The No on Prop 26 campaign includes the Republican Party, the California Animal Welfare Association (which presumably doesn’t support making racetracks more profitable), in addition to the online sports betting companies. They argue that Prop 26 will expand the tribal casinos’ “tax-free monopoly on gaming” and “rewards those operators for prioritizing their own wealth over public health and safety.” Oh, boo hoo. The tribes are being selfish instead of sharing the bounty of gambling in California with multi-billion-dollar corporations. Poor Draft Kings! Someone call them a Wambulance.

Given how much money is at stake in these two measures, it won’t surprise you to learn it is the most expensive campaign in California history. As of September 24, the pro-27 campaign had raised over $169.2 million. Its top three donors include BetMGM LLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC (FanDuel Sportsbook), and Crown Gaming, Inc. (DraftKings).  The No on 27 campaign has raised $214.6 million. The top three donors include the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation.  The Yes on 26 campaign is supported by several American Indian tribes, and has raised more than $73.08 million. The online gambling companies have raised more than $42 million to oppose the measure. 

All of the newspapers oppose both measures: LA Times, SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, and I agree. Vote no.

Prop 28 – Requires funding for K-12 art and music education – YES!

Prop 28 is very simple – it secures funding for arts and music education in California schools, without raising taxes.

In 1998, California voters approved Prop 98, which required at a minimum, roughly 40% of California’s budget to go to schools and community colleges each year.  Prop 28 would mandate that at least 1% of the total Prop 98 funds be spent on arts and music education. It also makes sure that more funding is allocated to schools with a high percentage of students from low-income households, rather than wealthy schools. Finally, it requires schools with 500 or more students to spend 80% of the money on employing teachers, with 20% going to training and materials. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office puts the number at around $1 billion annually! That’s a lot of arts teachers.

I won’t waste much of your time on Prop 28, because there is no organized opposition and Prop 28 is likely to pass. Proponents have raised more than $9.3 million in support of the campaign, and endorsers include former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the California Teachers Association, lots of elected school board members across the state.

Numerous celebrities and musicians back the measure, including Dr. Dre, Goldie Hawn, Jason Momoa, Katy Perry, Lenny Kravitz, Will.I.Am, John Lithgow, Christina Aguilera, Issa Rae, and even Weird Al Yankovich.

Even though there isn’t organized opposition, there is at least one good government argument against Prop 28, which is that budgeting by the ballot box is a bad idea. While arts and music education is an extremely noble cause, I generally don’t like it when voters are asked to earmark specific programs. Once a measure is approved by the voters, it is extremely hard to change or repeal. Prop 28 will be forever tying the hands of the legislature, of the Governor, and of the very schools this measure is intended to help. Measures like Prop 28 are all well and good in a year like 2022 when there is a budget surplus, and we have an extra BILLION dollars to throw around, but the next time the economy takes a downturn, Prop 98 funds are going to be much tighter and will force the schools to make some hard decisions.  

As the San Jose Mercury News noted, “It’s fiscally reckless to keep earmarking unpredictable state general fund money when we don’t know what the future needs of California will be as it confronts, for example, a housing shortage, climate change, inadequate water supplies and wildfires.”

I am a mom and an arts enthusiast, so on balance I will support this one. Experts agree that arts education is not a luxury – it’s critical to the health of civil society, as expressed by increased civic engagement, greater social tolerance, and reductions in criminal behavior. One study in Boston showed that students and parents were more engaged in schools where art and music were a part of the curriculum — which led to lower truancy, and better test scores in some instances.

Unless you have a kid in public school, you may be surprised to learn that only 1-in-5 California schools have a full-time art or music program, according to Prop. 28 proponents. So this measure is sorely needed, particularly in schools that don’t have multi-million dollar PTA fundraisers. Rampant learning loss due to the pandemic, and the flight of students from the public school system continue to challenge our education system. Juicing up the arts and music programs in schools could get some kids and parents more engaged in schools again, and that is a good thing.

I am voting yes.

Prop 29 – Enacts staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics – HELL NO

OMG, seriously?? Prop 29 makes me mad because it is such a waste of your time. It is indeed the third time in six years that California voters have been asked to weigh in on whether dialysis clinics should be subjected to new requirements, because the union trying to organize those clinics can’t get the clinic owners to bargain with them. Voters have overwhelmingly rejected the dialysis measures in the past (See Prop 8 in 2018, which lost by 20% of the vote, and Prop 23 in 2020, which lost by a whopping 27%).

Prop 29 would require dialysis clinics to:

  • Have at least one licensed physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant to be on site during treatment;
  • Report dialysis-related infection data to state and federal governments;
  • Not close or reduce services without approval from the state; and
  • Not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.

The only difference between this year’s measure and 2020’s Prop 23 is a change in the staffing requirement. Prop 23 would have required all clinics to keep a physician on-site during treatment hours. Prop 29 is the same, only the new measure would require either a physician, physician assistant or nurse practitioner with at least six months of experience providing care to kidney patients to be available on-site. If clinics can’t find the personnel, they can request an exemption to provide this service through telehealth.

Note that dialysis facilities are already required to employ a physician medical director and keep a registered nurse on site.Prop 29 would require that the physician, PA or RN be on site during every treatment, around the clock. California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that this measure would “increase each clinic’s costs by several hundred thousand dollars annually on average.” You don’t need to be a financial whiz to know that this could force clinics to close, particularly in rural regions, putting patients at risk.

Here is what I wrote in 2020:

I can’t believe it, ANOTHER KIDNEY DIALYSIS BALLOT MEASURE?! You may remember Prop 8 from 2018, which asked voters to limit the profits of kidney dialysis clinics. I went “no” on that one because I didn’t think it was the kind of law that should be decided by the voters. And it was clearly a revenge play by SEIU-UHW West, the labor union that was in a fight with the state’s two largest dialysis businesses DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. I feel that same way about Prop 23.

Here we are again. Same story, different day. …

SEIU-West has been trying to organize the kidney dialysis clinics for years, and they claim that the big greedy dialysis clinic owners aren’t doing right by their patients or staff and they want better staff-to-patient ratios. The union put Prop 23 on the ballot because they tried getting a law passed in the legislature, but they couldn’t get the votes.

As to the doctor requirement, they argue that dialysis is a dangerous procedure, and if something goes wrong, a doctor or highly trained nurse should be nearby. As for the reporting requirement, they say that they want problems to be identified and solved to protect patients, implying that the clinics aren’t meeting patient needs. Finally, they say that the clinics are critical to patient survival so they shouldn’t be allowed to close or reduce their services, even if this measure makes their costs go up.

…[Opponents] argue that Prop 23 jeopardizes access to care by imposing unnecessary bureaucratic mandates, making it harder for the clinics to do their jobs well. They worry that Prop 23 would increase state healthcare costs by an estimated $320 million annually, and force some clinics to close, pushing patients into emergency rooms for treatment.

For the on-site physician requirement, [opponents] argue that every dialysis patient is already under the care of their personal kidney physician and dialysis treatments are administered by specially trained and experienced dialysis nurses and technicians. Prop 23 would make the state’s physician shortage worse by taking physicians away from other hospitals and clinics where they are more needed.

Prop 23’s restrictions on clinics are a bit triggering for me. For most of my career, I’ve been closely watching all the restrictions religious conservatives have succeeded in placing on abortion clinics around the country, and the rules proposed in Prop 23 are eerily familiar. The abortion clinic rules have never been about quality of care, they have always been about making it harder for the clinics to keep their doors open. I suspect the same is true here. Why else would a non-healthcare related labor union put a measure on the ballot with healthcare-related implications? Seems very fishy. ESPECIALLY since the healthcare advocacy organizations (see: California Nurses Association, California Medical Association) oppose the bill.

I’ll conclude by quoting my 2018 analysis of Prop 8, because the same reasoning applies here:

“As you know, a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by another ballot measure, and that’s no way to govern a state. Super detailed, highly technical laws should NEVER be passed by ballot measure because they usually need adjusting over time, and that can’t happen if they are approved by voters. Moreover, if this measure passes, and dialysis clinics start going out of business, it jeopardizes access to care for patients in California who need dialysis treatments to stay alive.  SEIU should make its case in court, or with the legislature, or the National Labor Relations Board, anywhere but the ballot box.”

It’s notable that many public health and patient advocates oppose Prop 29, including California Nurses Association, California Medical Association, Minority Health Institute, Renal Healthcare Association, Chronic Disease Coalition, and many others. Likewise, all the newspapers have come down against it, including the SF Chronicle, LA Times, Sacramento Bee, Santa Cruz Sentinel, and San Jose Mercury News.

Over 80,000 Californians receive dialysis for kidney diseases. For these patients, missing even one dialysis appointment can be life-threatening. This cynical effort by SEIU to bring the clinics to the bargaining table is playing a dangerous game with these patients’ lives. I am a strong NO on this one.

Prop 30 – Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative – HELL YES! – I have posted my analysis separately here  

Prop 31 – Upholds the ban on flavored tobacco sales – YES!

In August 2020, Governor Newsom signed into law a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. Senate Bill (SB) 793 bans menthol cigarettes, flavored e-cigarette products, and flavored oral tobacco products. Retailers can be fined $250 for each illegal sale, and exceptions were made for hookah, premium cigars, and pipe tobacco.

Even though it was signed two years ago, SB 793 has never gone into effect. The big tobacco companies bought themselves some time by filing Prop 31, which delayed the enforcement of the law until after the voters could weigh in. A YES vote on Prop 31 would approve of SB 793’s ban on flavored tobacco, and a NO vote would overturn the law.

If Prop 31 passes, California would become the second state in the U.S. to enact such a ban after Massachusetts. A number of cities, including Los Angeles and San Diego, have already enacted their own bans.

When you’re deciding how to vote on a measure, sometimes all you need to do is look at who is lined up on both sides. In the case of Prop 31, supporters include liberal politicians and advocates for children and public health: California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic Party, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society Action Network, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the California Teachers’ Association.

Opponents include big tobacco companies (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA), small business advocates who worry about the loss of revenue from cigarette sales, and the folks who hate taxes and regulation, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the Republican Party of California. Which side do your values align with?

Supporters of Prop 31 argue that flavored tobacco products are intended to hook kids on tobacco, and they are especially dangerous amid the COVID pandemic when youth deaths spiked from respiratory complications.  They acknowledge it’s already illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under 21, but they say flavored cigarettes and vaping cartridges are still too easy for teens to obtain.

They note that menthol cigarettes disproportionately impact minority communities, observing that around 85 percent of Black smokers use a menthol cigarette, with the tobacco industry gearing its marketing of menthol cigarettes toward Black Americans. They also allege that menthol acts as a cooling agent, masking the harsh taste of tobacco, which allows new smokers to become hooked more easily.

The tobacco industry has fired back, defending the right of Black and Latinx consumers to smoke menthols. “It’s unfair for communities of color. Bad law. Bad consequences,” said one ad paid for by R.J. Reynolds.  But the ads drew a backlash from some Black leaders. Then-Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, said it was offensive for the tobacco industry to “make us believe that mentholated cigarettes are part of African American culture, and that this is a discriminatory piece of legislation against Black people.”

The tobacco giants also argue that the increase in the tobacco age to 21 in 2020 has already reduced youth access to tobacco products. While the desire to protect youth may be well-intentioned, opponents say that California is becoming a nanny state, and adults should have the right to choose whether to use these products just like with alcohol and marijuana.

Howard Jarvis and the California Republican Party wants to repeal SB 793 because they say it would cause a giant loss in tax revenue. (This is a strange argument coming from the guys who normally oppose all taxes. But these taxes are OK, I guess? Mmm hmm.)

And they are right about the loss of revenue – sorta. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates a ban could cost the state tens of millions of dollars to around $100 million annually in tax revenue. However, the LAO continues, if a substantial number of smokers quit because of the ban, it could mean some savings to the state’s health care system. And yet, the LAO further adds, if these smokers quit and live longer, it could increase the government’s health care costs. “Given the possibility of both savings and costs, the resulting long-term net impact on government health care costs is uncertain,” the LAO concludes.

Opponents also argue that a ban on flavored e-cigarettes is problematic from a health care standpoint because e-cigarettes are safer than combustible cigarettes. And yet, the claim that vaping is a healthy alternative to smoking isn’t supported by any legitimate medical authority. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence to the contrary. 

According to the Chronicle, tobacco use still kills 40,000 people each year in California and costs the state nearly $10 billion in health care. And the evidence about teens using menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products is undeniable – 1 in 8 California high school students was a tobacco user as of 2019,  86.4% of whom used flavored products.

It is worth noting that Canada banned menthol cigarettes several years ago without any controversy. One study predicted, based on Canada’s experience, that if the U.S. were to ban menthols it would help over 1.3 million people quit smoking.

What pisses me off is the tobacco industry’s cynical manipulation of the political system to buy themselves some time.  By delaying the implementation of SB 793, and spending $20 million to get Prop 31 on the ballot, they will make an estimated $830 million in revenue from menthol cigarette sales alone since the start of 2021. So, regardless of whether they win or lose Prop 31, they have already won. Let’s hand them a clear message that they are on the wrong side of history. Vote no.

Thanks for reading! If you found this voter guide useful, please throw a few pennies in the jar to help me cover my costs. And please forward this link to your friends and frenemies, or post it on social media. Thank you!

Big Ol’ Voter Guide – California & SF 2010

Now that I sit on the governing board of the San Francisco Democratic Party, I’ve had to pay very close attention to the campaigns that are vying for your vote in November. I’ve researched and grumbled, debated and pondered.  And here’s what I’ve come up with for the upcoming election in California and San Francisco.

At the top is a brief summary, and below you can find more detailed explanations of my endorsements.  In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a government lawyer and a San Francisco progressive whose passions include preserving and promoting nightlife and culture, fighting for economic and social justice, and getting more women elected to office.  I also like long walks on the beach.

If you live in California, but not SF, check out the statewide endorsements at the very top.  SF peeps? Hang on, this is a long one. You have 53 decisions to make before election day. Yikes. Aren’t you glad you know a policy nerd who did the research for you? ; )

CALIFORNIA BALLOT:
U.S. Senate – Barbara Boxer
Congress, 8th District – Nancy Pelosi
Governor – Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown
Lieutenant Governor – Gavin Newsom? Kinda?
Secretary of State – Debra Bowen
Controller – John Chiang
Treasurer – Bill Lockyer
Attorney General – Kamala Harris
Insurance Commissioner – Dave Jones
Board of Equalization (Dist. 1) – Betty Yee
Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tom Torlakson
State Senate Dist. 8  – Leland Yee
State Assembly Dist. 12 (West side of SF) – Fiona Ma
State Assembly Dist. 13 (East side of SF) – Tom Ammiano
Prop 19 – Legalize Marijuana – OH HELL YES
Prop 20 – Congressional District Reapportionment – NO
Prop 21 – Vehicle License Fee for Parks – YES
Prop 22 – Stop the State’s Raid on Local Government – YES
Prop 23 – Suspending Air Pollution Control Laws – OH HELL NO
Prop 24 – Restore Business Taxes – YES
Prop 25 – Simple Majority Budget Passage – OH HELL YES
Prop 26 – 2/3 Vote for Fees – OH HELL NO
Prop 27 – Eliminating Redistricting Commission – YES
 

SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT:
Supervisor District 2 – Janet Reilly
Supervisor District 4 – Carmen Chu
Supervisor District 6 – Debra Walker!
Supervisor District 8 – Rafael Mandelman!
Supervisor District 10 – Malia Cohen
SF Board of Education: Margaret Brodkin, Emily Murase (and Hoehn, Maufas or Mendoza)
SF Community College Board – John Rizzo
BART Board of Directors – District 8 – Bert Hill
Assessor-Recorder – Phil Ting
Public Defender – Jeff Adachi
SF Superior Court Judge (Seat 15) – Richard Ulmer
Prop AA – Vehicle Registration Fee – YES
Prop A – Earthquake Retrofit Bond – YES
Prop B – City Retirement and Health Plans – OH HELL NO
Prop C – Mayor Appearances at the Board – YES?
Prop D – Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections – YES
Prop E – Election Day Voter Registration – YES
Prop F – Health Service Board Elections – NO?
Prop G – Transit Operator Wages – NO
Prop H – Local Elected Officials on Political Party Committees – NO
Prop I – Saturday Voting – YES
Prop J – Hotel Tax Clarification and Temporary Increase – YES
Prop K – Hotel Tax Clarification – NO
Prop L – Sitting or Lying on the Sidewalk – OH HELL NO
Prop M – Community Policing and Foot Patrols – YES
Prop N – Real Property Transfer Taxes – YES

CALIFORNIA BALLOT:

U.S. SENATE – BARBARA BOXER
It’s a fascinating trend in politics, particularly in California. The Republican billionaire with little or no political record (or voting history) takes on a sorta well-liked Democrat with a long history in politics. The GOP tries to use that history against the Democrat, with some success. Here that Republican – Carly Fiorina – might just win. She’s arguing that she has run a multi-billion dollar company, and so she can help recover California from its financial mess. Nevermind that Fiorina was fired from HP after screwing up a merger, and exported 30,000 jobs while she was there. The choice is clear – Boxer’s one of the leading progressive voices in the U.S. Senate. She’s good on foreign policy and on immigration issues, she has been a lifelong champion of the environment and reproductive rights. Nuff said.

CONGRESS, 8TH DISTRICT – NANCY PELOSI
First female Speaker of the House. She’s a fighter, and a survivor. She’s also not perfect, but she takes care of her district, she is doing the best she can under extremely trying (highly partisan) circumstances.

GOVERNOR – EDMUND G. (JERRY) BROWN
Having worked in Oakland City Hall under Mayor Brown, I know him well. He’s a far more moderate guy than the Jerry who served as Governor from 1975-83, and perhaps that’s what it takes to get elected statewide in 2010.  Brown opposes tax cuts for the rich, he is promoting green jobs and takes bold stands on the environment and on gay marriage. And his hail-Mary campaign strategy (save all your limited resources until the very end when the voters are actually paying attention) is a HUGE risk. But it might just work. The more money Meg Whitman spends on her campaign, the less popular she becomes. And she’s just awful. First thing she wants to do is lay off 40,000 state employees. Really? The state’s unemployment rate will skyrocket. She’ll cut taxes at exactly the time that we’re closing state parks and libraries due to revenue problems. She’s yet another billionaire Republican who thinks she can buy the election – she has no political experience or background, and hasn’t indicated an interest in voting or government until she decided to run.  Ew. Vote for Jerry.

 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR – GAVIN NEWSOM? KINDA?
Yeah, I’ve heard the argument. Vote for Newsom to get him out of San Francisco. But given his history in City Hall, his political pettiness (see Prop H below) and his pattern of sabotaging the careers of strong women in government, I have a hard time promoting his career any further. Besides, the job of Lieutenant Governor is not very important. The LG sits on, or appoints representatives to, several of California’s regulatory commissions and executive agencies. He or she doesn’t write laws or issue executive orders, and has very little influence over policies that come out of Sacramento. Both Newsom and his opponent are political moderates – there isn’t much difference between them. If you were to vote for a Republican for any statewide seat, this would be it. BUT – Newsom is a little better on promoting a green economy and on marriage equality. If you can’t bear to vote Republican, vote for Newsom.

SECRETARY OF STATE – DEBRA BOWEN
This office runs elections and keeps corporate filings, and Bowen has done a great job at both, IMO. As a former Elections Commissioner in SF, I care very much about maintaining the integrity of electronic voting systems – and this is something Bowen has excelled at.  Like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, Bowen’s opponent is another wealthy Republican who has shown no interest in voting or government until recently.  Damon Dunn is a 34-year-old former pro football player who FIRST REGISTERED TO VOTE LAST YEAR.  If you picked a random person off the street, chances are they would have more elections-related experience than this guy.  And he wants to run the office that oversees elections? His campaign is an insult to your intelligence. Vote for Bowen.

CONTROLLER – JOHN CHIANG
Get to know John Chiang (pronounced “chung”). This guy’s a keeper. Aside from being a perfectly competent Chief Financial Officer for California, Chiang butted chests with Gov. Schwarzenegger when the Guv tried to cut the pay of state employees to minimum-wage level — and forced the Governator to back down.  Chiang is great.

TREASURER – BILL LOCKYER
Lockyer is a lock. His opponent is a weak candidate, and Lockyer has been a decent Treasurer by all accounts. Done.

ATTORNEY GENERAL – KAMALA HARRIS
This is a tight race, and an easy one for me.  Kamala’s opponent – Steve Cooley, DA of LA County – is your typical law-and-order, throw-more-cops-at-the-problem Republican. He’s a big proponent of the death penalty, vowing to make it easier to send people to the death chamber. Cooley has hammered Harris  on problems in the SF crime lab, and in the failure to out bad cops – problems that Kamala’s people should have detected earlier. But Kamala is still a far a better choice. Where Cooley is focused on punishing crime, Harris is focused on deterring it. She has placed an emphasis on preventing recidivism, being “smart on crime” rather than just “tough on crime.” She wants the AG’s office to attack a broad range of issues, including environmental justice and human trafficking. She has refused to seek the death penalty in San Francisco, and would bring the perspective of a woman of color to the AG’s office. She’s the future. Vote for Harris.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER – DAVE JONES
Assemblymember Dave Jones is a former Legal Aid attorney who is widely known as a consumer advocate.  I like him because he’s so earnest. He’s got the chops – and more important, the integrity – to do this job well.  His opponent, a classic conservative, opposes consumer protections, and wants to limit lawsuits that would keep corporate America accountable.  Jones it is.

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, DISTRICT 1 – BETTY YEE
The Board of Equalization is more important than you think – it sets and enforces tax policy, and has a hand in just about every area of revenue generation for California.  Betty is one of my political heroes. She was one of the first elected officials to endorse the legalization – and TAXATION – of marijuana. Betty’s a strong progressive, she mentors young women who want to run for office, and she’s one of the rare San Francisco political figures who is liked by folks on both sides of the (San Francisco) aisle. Go Betty!

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION – TOM TORLAKSON
This race is a battle over the power of the teachers’ unions. Torlakson – who has the support of the unions – is in a runoff with Larry Aceves, who thinks the unions are the biggest problem in public education.  (I personally think chronic underfunding is the problem, but what do I know?)  Torlakson is a former science teacher who has made education his focus while in the state legislature. Aceves is a former principal and school superintendent who wants the unilateral right to suspend labor contracts. I think the teachers unions have done a good job of keeping school funding at the forefront of every budget debate in California, and I support their endorsement in this race. Vote Torlakson.

STATE SENATE – DISTRICT 8 – LELAND YEE
Yee has no real opposition, and he’ll be easily re-elected.  Even so, he’s running hard because he’s probably running for Mayor next year. He’s worth sending back to Sacramento, because he’s particularly good on governmental and corporate transparency issues.

STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 12 – FIONA MA
Fiona represents the more conservative district in SF, and her politics align with her constituency. I disagree with many things she’s done in Sacramento, including promoting anti-tenant laws – but she’s good on lots of other issues I care about, like public power and high-speed rail. If you live on the west side of town, vote for Fiona.

STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 13 – TOM AMMIANO
Ammiano is the elder statesman of San Francisco politics; his accomplishments are too plentiful to enumerate here.  He was the author of SF’s universal health care law and the City’s rainy day fund – both game-changers.  In the Assembly, he’s championed legalizing and taxing marijuana, and has demanded accountability on public safety issues. Tom is great, please vote for him.

PROP. 19 – LEGALIZE MARIJUANA – OH HELL YES
Millions of Californians have been waiting for this day. Prop 19 lets cities and counties set their own regulations for the adult use of marijuana – it’s a modest way of going about ending prohibition.  Fresno may want to keep it illegal, and Oakland may want to become the weed capitol of California, thereby benefiting from taxing and permitting grow-houses and dispensaries.  Experts agree that marijuana use is far less bad for you than cigarettes or alcohol, both of which are legal and widely used. The Bay Guardian said it best: continuing with pot prohibition will (1) empower the Mexican drug cartels and their violence and political corruption, (2) perpetuate a drug war mentality that is ruining lives and wasting law enforcement resources, and (3) deprive state and local governments of tax revenue from California’s number one cash crop.   Yes on Prop 19! It’s about time.

PROP. 20 – CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT REAPPORTIONMENT – NO
Full disclosure – I’m a big-D Democrat. And this issue is a Democrat versus Republican issue, period. Prop. 20 has to do with the power to draw congressional districts in California – and whether we want to re-draw the district lines to give more power to Republicans (and moderate Democrats) than there is now. The Prop 20 campaign argues that the measure would create more competitive elections and hold politicians accountable. I’m all for holding politicians accountable. But Prop. 20 could also give the GOP an advantage in a Democratic state. Doesn’t make sense to me.

PROP. 21 – VEHICLE LICENSE FEE FOR PARKS – YES
Before the Governator took office, Californians were paying a reasonable vehicle license fee – one that helped cover the full impacts of cars on the state – in road maintenance and repairing environmental damage, for example. Schwarzenegger repealed that fee, costing the state tens of billions of dollars. Prop 21 would charge an $18 annual fee on vehicle license registrations and reserve at least half of the $500 million in revenues for state park maintenance and wildlife conservation programs. The measure would also give cars free entrance to the state parks – bonus! $18 a year? We can afford it. Vote yes.

PROP. 22 – STOP THE STATE’S RAID ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT – YES
As an employee of local government, this one is close to home. In 2009, the California state legislature raided about $5 billion from city, county, transit, redevelopment and special district funds. These local taxpayer dollars would have been used to fund public safety, emergency response, and other local government services (and uh, my salary). Prop 22 would prevent the state from raiding these funds. Which is the right thing to do, because when these taxes were approved, taxpayers were expecting the revenues to go toward LOCAL services, not state programs.  Vote yes.

PROP. 23 – SUSPENDING AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS – OH HELL NO
This one is really REALLY bad.  Prop. 23 was put on the ballot by oil companies and wingnuts in order to repeal a really important law that is helping combat global warming. Assembly Bill 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, imposed enforceable limits on greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 — and Prop. 23 would reverse that law, by suspending it until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for a full year. Right. Like that’s going to happen any time soon. They call it the “California jobs initiative,” which just makes me sick. By pitting jobs versus the environment, you would think the business community would get behind 23 – right? Wrong. The SF Chamber of Commerce is actively opposing Prop. 23. And many business leaders recognize that green jobs are the future, and AB 32 is actually going to lead to more jobs, not less. For more, see this interactive video by my friends at Green for All. No on 23!!

PROP. 24 – BUSINESS TAXES – YES
Prop. 24 will restore certain taxes on large corporations (that had previously been repealed), and it will raise about $1.7 billion for the state’s general fund. California is in dire straits and the money to support our essential services has to come from somewhere. Might as well be the people who can afford to pay. Vote yes.

PROP. 25 – SIMPLE MAJORITY BUDGET PASSAGE – OH HELL YES
This is a really important one. The state budget was a full THREE MONTHS LATE this year. Why? Because California requires a 2/3 majority of the legislature to approve the budget. Which means that a minority (Republicans) can hold the budget process hostage until they get what they want. And in the meantime, workers can be furloughed, state offices can be shut down, the state can issue IOU’s, until a budget is passed. Prop. 25 would fix this problem by allowing the state legislature to pass a budget with a simple majority vote.  And the budget, frankly, will look a lot more like the priorities of the progressives in the legislature. End the gridlock. Vote yes on 25.

PROP. 26 – TWO-THIRDS VOTE FOR FEES – OH HELL NO
Currently, state and local governments must ask the voters to approve any new tax with a 2/3 vote. But “fees” are different from taxes because the revenues that fees generate go directly toward covering costs. For example, SF can charge a fee to block off a street for a festival, to cover the costs of cleanup or re-routing traffic. But Prop 26 would require the legislature or City Council or Board of Supervisors to go to the voters every time they wanted to impose a new fee. You think the ballot is too long now? Wait ‘til this measure passes. Seriously. It’s yet another attempt to make it harder for the City to cover the cost of doing business. Oh yeah, it’s also supported by Big Business and Big Oil, because it would also prevent governments from imposing new environmental impact fees on polluters. Vote NO!

PROP. 27 – ELIMINATING REDISTRICTING COMMISSION – YES
In 2008, voters approved a measure to create a redistricting task force on the premise that the state Legislature shouldn’t be drawing its own district lines. Yeah, I can see how that’s a conflict of interest. But the new task force – which is composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans – isn’t the solution. While the task force is supposedly less political, it is not representative of the state, which is dominated by Democrats. (Which of course I think is a good thing). Prop 27 would abolish the task force and return the task to the state legislature. Vote yes.

 

SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT: 

SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 2 (Pac Heights, Marina, Cow Hollow, Presidio) – JANET REILLY
Frankly, Janet Reilly is overqualified to be Supervisor. She sits on the governing board of the Golden Gate Bridge, she’s a crackerjack fundraiser and policy wonk, she’s smart, thoughtful and level-headed. Which is exactly why City Hall needs her. Janet and I won’t always agree – she opposes most tax measures and she won’t always be aligned with the progressive majority on the board. But her politics seem to closely reflect that of her district – which is on the conservative side of town. And she has far more good ideas and experience than her opponents. Vote for Janet.

SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 4 – (Sunset) – CARMEN CHU
You may start to detect a theme here. Carmen Chu and I usually disagree, but I recognize that she represents a conservative district, and her politics are similar to those of her constituency.  What I find interesting is that Chu never wanted to be Supervisor – Mayor Newsom plucked her out of his policy staff to serve out the rest of Ed Jew’s term. But she quickly got the hang of it, and she’s running unopposed for re-election. While we may not see eye-to-eye, I trust that she arrives at her decisions honestly, and with her constituents’ best interests in mind.

SUPERVISOR,DISTRICT 6 – (SOMA, Tenderloin, Civic Center, parts of Inner Mission) – DEBRA WALKER!
This is a fascinating race. Debra Walker serves on the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) with me, she’s worked on District 6 issues for a couple of decades, and has served on the Building Inspection Commission for many years. She understands land use and housing, the key issues in D6.  School Board member Jane Kim moved into the district recently in order to run for Supervisor, because she thinks her background, name recognition and political leanings can get her elected in this very leftist district. She, too, is a solid progressive, and her candidacy has split the City’s political left, opening the door for the more conservative candidate to win.  Theresa Sparks is the Chamber of Commerce’s candidate, though it’s interesting to note that she’s also transgender, used to be CEO of Good Vibrations, and served on the Police Commission – an interesting combination. It’s a big field, but those are the three candidates to watch. I’m supporting Walker because she’s paid her dues, she knows the district well, and she’s a progressive with proven integrity and a sharp mind.  Vote for Debra!

SUPERVISOR,DISTRICT 8 – (Castro, Noe Valley, Inner Mission, Glen Park) – RAFAEL MANDELMAN!
I ran for this seat four years ago, and so I’ve been following this race very closely. The three top candidates are Rafael Mandelman, Scott Weiner, and Rebecca Prozan. (All three are gay Jewish attorneys. Funny.)  This is a critical race for San Francisco, because District 8 is ground zero for the changing demographics of the City, the gentrification of our neighborhoods, the flight of families and the middle class. Rebecca Prozan is a deputy prosecutor and former campaign strategist who is painting herself as the middle-of-the-road candidate. She’s endorsed by outgoing Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose focus on neighborhood services she wants to emulate. Scott Wiener, a deputy city attorney, has done a lot of work in the district. But he might be the most conservative candidate running for Supervisor in any district this November. He and I disagree on almost every local issue.

I support Rafael Mandelman – he is the only progressive on this ballot, he promises to fight for immigrants and tenants, and for economic and social justice. As a former member of the Building Inspection Commission and Board of Appeals, and as a lawyer who advises local government agencies on land use issues, Rafael has good judgment and he has the know-how to be a great Supervisor. Vote for Rafi.

SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 10 (Potrero, Visitation Valley, Bayview, Dogpatch) – MALIA COHEN
A fellow graduate of the Emerge Program, which recruits and trains Democratic women to run for office, Cohen is my choice for D10 Supervisor. Malia has a long family history in this district, and knows it really well, having served as the D10 neighborhood liaison to the Mayor’s office many years ago.  Her priorities are keeping D10 “working, healthy and safe” – she wants to clean up the Hunters Point shipyard, create jobs, and focus on combating crime in the district. Elect Malia.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF EDUCATION – MARGARET BRODKIN, EMILY MURASE (and Hoehn, Maufas or Mendoza)
Three spots are open on the School Board, and I have only endorsed two candidates, Emily Murase and Margaret Brodkin. As for my third vote, I’m torn among Kim-Shree Maufas, Natasha Hoehn and Hydra Mendoza. Emily Murase was in my class of the Emerge Program (which recruits and trains Democratic women to run for office), and she is Executive Director of the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women. She is a public school parent activist, and her emphasis is on performance incentives for teachers and encouraging parental involvement. She’s a coalition builder, as evidenced by her variety of endorsements from all sides of the San Francisco political world. I am supporting Margaret Brodkin because she is creative, independent and smart, and because she might have more experience advocating for children and their families than all of the other candidates combined.  She has had some personality clashes with certain City Hall folks, but I don’t think that should keep her from serving the school district well.  As the former director of Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, and as the former director of the SF Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, she is by far one of the most qualified people to run for School Board in a long time.

As for my third choice, I’m torn among Hoehn, Maufas and Mendoza. Natasha Hoehn is an up-and-comer, an 8th grade teacher with a broad range of endorsements. I think her teaching experience would be valuable to the board. But she doesn’t have much local political experience, and so I don’t know if she has what it takes to survive the blood sport that is San Francisco politics. Kim-Shree Maufas (also an Emerge alum) has a strong progressive voting record on the board, and I’m inclined to support her, but I have some reservations. Last year, she was reported to have used a school district credit card for personal expenses, and while she paid the district back, it was an error in judgment. But – she has been a tireless advocate for low-income kids and teachers, and she has always voted the right way on the issues that matter to me.  Hydra Mendoza is dynamic, experienced, and shrewd. While serving on the School Board, she has worked for Mayor Newsom as an education advisor – which I think is a conflict of interest – but she’s been a good School Board member, and she cares deeply about public education. You really can’t go wrong with any one of these three.

SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD – JOHN RIZZO
Here’s the thing: Only three people are running for College Board – for three spots – and all three are incumbents. They are all going to be re-elected, but that doesn’t mean they all should be. The Community College District is a mess. I’m deep into local politics, and even I have had a hard time keeping track of all the scandals and indictments and misused funds that have made the news in the many years while I’ve lived here.  And I place some of the blame on Lawrence Wong and Anita Grier, the two longtime incumbents running for re-election this November. Even if they weren’t responsible for the College Board mess, they certainly haven’t been a part of the solution. John Rizzo, on the other hand, has only served one term, and he is a leader in the movement to reform the Community College District. He is former chair of the Bay Area chapter of the Sierra Club, he is thoughtful and well regarded, and has worked hard to get the district’s finances and foundation under control.  Vote for Rizzo.

BART BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DISTRICT 8 – BERT HILL
I like Bert Hill – he’s earnest, smart, and knows a whole lot about transportation policy. And he’s a Democrat, running against the only elected Republican in San Francisco (James Fang). He wants to bring more transparency to the BART Board and more accountability to the BART police department. Bert for BART!

ASSESSOR-RECORDER – PHIL TING
The Assessor-Recorder evaluates real estate for tax purposes. Boring, right? Wrong! Ting has been an aggressive assessor who has gone after big corporations (and the Catholic church) for trying to duck taxes. He has also been pushing for a statewide tax reform that, if approved, would lead to billions more dollars a year in annual revenues for the state. In this era of dwindling municipal resources, this is exactly the kind of Assessor we need. Phil is great, please vote for him!

PUBLIC DEFENDER – JEFF ADACHI
Most people will agree that Adachi has been doing a solid job as Public Defender, with limited staff and shrinking resources. He did a strange thing this year by sponsoring Prop B – a heinous measure that will cut health care benefits for City employees, and which will hurt the low-wage workers the most. That said, he’s definitely worth re-electing, assuming this Prop B thing was an anomaly.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 15 – RICHARD ULMER
To me, this election has little to do with the candidates – Incumbent Richard Ulmer and challenger Michael Nava – and everything to do with the interference of politics in judicial decision-making.  I apply a different standard to my judicial endorsements than to political endorsements. In my view (and the view of most attorneys I know), sitting judges who are widely considered to be competent and ethical should be allowed to do their jobs without a political challenge. If a sitting judge is challenged, it requires that judge to raise money from the very attorneys and law firms who appear before him or her, which is icky.  And if judges regularly face electoral challenges they will start factoring endorsements and other political considerations into the decisions they render, with an eye toward their next campaign.  This is how the bench becomes politicized.

In this race, incumbent Judge Ulmer is an interesting candidate – he’s been a judge for less than a year, he’s a former Republican with a long history of pro bono work fighting for reforms in the juvenile detention system. He has a long list of endorsements from people whom I respect. By all accounts, he is doing a fine job. Michael Nava is a gay Latino who has been working as a research attorney for a California Supreme Court Justice, and whose campaign is based on adding diversity to the bench.  Nava has every right to run, of course, but if he wins, it could set a dangerous precedent whereby every judgeship is fair game, and the local judiciary is permanently compromised by electoral politics. I look forwardto supporting Nava when he runs for an open seat in the future. Vote for Ulmer.

PROP. AA – VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE – YES
Proposition AA would add $10 to the existing annual fee for vehicles registered in San Francisco, and generate an estimated $5 million a year in revenues that would go toward street repairs, public transit, new bike infrastructure, pedestrian crosswalks, and transit reliability projects. These projects need money badly. I think $10/year is a fair price to pay for improving our streets and MUNI. Vote yes.

PROP. A – EARTHQUAKE RETROFIT BOND – YES
Prop A is a $46.15 million bond to support seismic upgrades for affordable housing. Hundreds of buildings will be affected – and this bond is essential to protect vulnerable San Franciscans who live in affordable housing units.  The measure would fund seismic upgrades with grants and deferred loans, which would accrue interest but would only need to be paid back if the building owner converts the building from affordable housing to some other use. Vote yes on Prop. A.

PROP. B – CITY RETIREMENT AND HEALTH PLANS – OH HELL NO
Public Defender Jeff Adachi placed this measure on the ballot to combat rising health insurance costs for the City. Prop. B requires public employees to bear the brunt of these ballooning costs, and in some cases it will cost the employee thousands of dollars.  And it’s regressive – the measure hurts the lowest-wage workers the most, because the additional payment is the same whether the employee earns $40,000 or six figures. I agree that something must be done to limit the City’s expanding health care costs, but this measure is not the answer.  Adachi placed Prop B on the ballot without consulting public employee unions, who deserve a seat at the table when major decisions like this are made.  Let’s defeat Prop B, and then bring everyone to the table to arrive at a more reasonable solution.

PROP. C – MAYOR APPEARANCES AT BOARD – YES?
This measure requires the mayor to appear monthly, in person, at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors to formally discuss policy matters. I’m torn on this one. On the one hand, I’d like to see Mayor Newsom engage in a serious and public discussion of the issues that face the City. This mayor doesn’t value transparency; he has been particularly secretive about his budget decisions and appointments. On the other hand, this measure seems petty. It is clearly aimed at one particularly petulant mayor, whose term is up in a year (or less, if he is elected to statewide office). But can we set aside personal vendettas for a minute, and ask whether we really want to require all future mayors to engage in debate with the Board once a month? I have a feeling that whoever the next mayor is, he or she will be far more personally engaging and transparent than the incumbent. But heck, why not? It will make for good political theater.  Vote yes?

PROP. D – NONCITIZEN VOTING IN SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS – YES
This charter amendment would establish a 4-year pilot program to allow San Francisco residents who are parents, guardians, and caregivers of children who attend school in San Francisco, to vote in local school board elections, regardless of whether these residents are U.S. citizens.  The idea is that voting in school board elections will encourage parental involvement, and educational studies show that when parents are involved in the school system, the entire school system improves. Vote yes.

PROP. E – ELECTION DAY VOTER REGISTRATION – YES
California requires voters to register at least 15 days before an election. Prop. E would allow any SF resident to simply show up at a polling place on Election Day, register to vote, and participate in a municipal election. It will increase turnout (by at least 3%-6%), expand the number of people who are eligible to vote, thereby including more citizens in the democratic process! This is a good thing! This change would primarily benefit low-turnout populations such as the young, renters and transients, those who have mobility issues, and the poor. (Note that these people also tend to vote more progressive, ahem). The Department of Elections is confident that if Prop E passes, their existing procedures can ensure against fraud.  I agree with the Bay Guardian here: “In an era of growing political apathy and cynicism, anything that draws more people into the electoral process is a good thing.” Vote yes.

PROP. F – HEALTH SERVICE BOARD ELECTIONS – NO?
I’m not sure why this one is on the ballot. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd sponsored this measure to save the City $30,000 per year (that’s nothing, really), by consolidating elections for the board that oversees the city employee health care fund. Unions are against it because they say the measure will turn board elections into more expensive and complex political contests. So I say no.

PROP. G – TRANSIT OPERATOR WAGES – YES
Muni drivers are the only City employees who don’t have to engage in collective bargaining for wages and work rules, and the City Charter guarantees them the second-highest salary level of all comparable transit systems in the nation. The Muni drivers union squandered all their good will during this year’s budget negotiations. Many of Muni’s work rules need to be changed, and if Prop G passes, it would give the City the leverage it needs to make those changes. Don’t get me wrong, I am a proud union member, and I usually oppose measures that detract from union power – see Props B & F. But here, as a government employee whose pay and benefits have been slashed in the last few years, I think it’s only fair that all City employees – including Muni drivers  – share the pain. Vote yes.

PROP. H – LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS ON POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES – NO
If I were an average voter, I’d be pretty annoyed at Mayor Newsom for wasting my time with this one. Here’s the back-story: Newsom supported a bunch of candidates for the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) this past June, and almost all of them lost. The progressive slate (of which I was a member) had several current and past members of the Board of Supervisors on it, with more name recognition, good will among the voters, and funding than Newsom’s candidates. And we won. Which really chapped Newsom’s hide.  So he placed Prop H on the ballot in order to bar elected officials in San Francisco from serving on the Democratic or Republican committees. Bitter much?  Even if it passes, it’s almost certainly unenforceable  — the parties get to decide their own membership rules — and it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Vote no.

PROP. I – SATURDAY VOTING – YES
As a former chair of the San Francisco Elections Commission, I get excited about measures that make it easier for people to vote (see Props D & E). Prop I proposes an experiment in opening the polls the Saturday before the next mayoral election (November 2011). Saturday voting makes way more sense than Tuesday. Congress established Tuesday voting in 1845, in order to accommodate horse-and-carriage travel times. Obviously, this is not important in modern day San Francisco. I’d like to see Election Day held at a time when most people aren’t working, allowing the voting process to be more of a community and family activity. Vote yes.

PROP. J – HOTEL TAX CLARIFICATION AND TEMPORARY INCREASE – YES
PROP. K – HOTEL TAX CLARIFICATION – NO
Props J and K are two competing measures that correct a loophole in San Francisco’s existing hotel tax. The loophole is this: If a visitor books her hotel herself, she’d pay the full tax. But if she booked it through Travelocity or some other online booking service, she avoids paying a tax on a chunk of the cost.  Also, airlines that book rooms for flight crews avoid paying hotel taxes. Both Props J & K correct these loopholes. Those changes are expected to generate at least $12 million a year. Prop. J asks visitors to pay a slightly higher tax — about $3 a night — for the next three years. The $3 increase in the hotel tax will generate about $26 million per year.  If both measures pass, whichever gets the most votes will take effect. The Chamber of Commerce and the tourism board say the $3 tax could hurt tourism — but I find this hard to believe. San Francisco desperately needs this revenue to prevent additional layoffs of city workers, and to protect vital services. Vote YES on J and NO on K.

PROP. L – SITTING OR LYING ON SIDEWALKS  – OH HELL NO
Prop L prohibits sitting and lying on the sidewalk. Have you participated in a street fair or Bay to Breakers? Then you know there is nothing inherently wrong about sitting on the sidewalk. We lawyers call measures like Prop L both “overinclusive and underinclusive.” On the one hand, it goes too far – it would prohibit certain behavior that can and should be legal – like sitting on the curb while watching a parade or waiting for a bus. On the other hand, it doesn’t go far enough – it doesn’t actually prohibit the kind of behavior that it is supposedly aimed at, which is the harassment of pedestrians by menacing kids. Moreover, the police already have all the laws they need to stop the harassment of pedestrians.  This measure is unnecessary and it delegates too much authority to the police to cite behavior that should remain legal. Vote no.

PROP. M – COMMUNITY POLICING AND FOOT PATROLS – YES
Prop. M is a great idea. It would require the chief of police to establish a citywide program to get cops out of their cars – and on foot – to deal with safety and civility issues – like, say, the harassment of pedestrians by menacing teenagers (see above).  It would also get the Police Commission involved in developing a community policing policy and encouraging citizen involvement in combating crime.  Prop. M also includes a poison pill: if the voters adopt both M and L, but M gets more votes, then the Sit/Lie Law (Prop L) will not take effect. I’m voting for Prop M because I think it’s a good idea, and also because I don’t like Prop L. Vote yes.

PROP. N – REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – YES
This measure slightly increases the tax charged by the City on the sale of property worth more than $5 million, and promises to bring in additional revenue of $36 million. Given the City’s budget woes, that’s all I need to hear. Vote yes.