Election Slate for November 3, 2020

Each election I prepare a slate card for my friends so we can debate how to vote here in San Francisco (and beyond). Here’s what I have so far, based on the ballot I received in the mail, various organizational endorsements, and an online discussion with local activists… I’d love your input (I’ll post comments people submit to me below)– 

* = especially important

Elected Offices

US President/Vice President: Joseph Biden/Kamala Harris

US Representative, District 12: No vote (I was going to protest vote for Buttar against Pelosi, but there is scandal with Buttar)

State Senator, District 11: Jackie Fielder

State Assembly, District 17: Starchild (as protest vote against David Chiu)

Board of Education (no more than 4):
*1. Matt Alexander
*2. Mark Sanchez
3. Kevin Boggess
4. Alida Fisher

Community College Board (no more than 4):
*1. Anita Martinez (the only candidate that actually seems to have CCSF students and faculty interests in mind… see comment below about why to “bullet vote” only for Anita!)
2. no vote
3. no vote
4. no vote

BART Director, District 9: Bevan Dufty

Board of Supervisors, District 9: Hillary Ronen

California Propositions

14: No

*15: Yes (most important measure on the ballot IMHO, tax commercial property worth over $3M at current values, leaves unchanged the exemption to value-based tax increases for residential property and commercial property under $3M)

16: Yes

17: Yes

18: Yes

19: No

20: No

21: Yes

*22: No (don’t let “gig” mega-corporations carve out special exemptions to California/federal employment law, spending $180 million plus on campaigning that could have gone to employee benefits)

23: Yes

24: No

25: No (I support getting rid of money bail system, just not like this… don’t use algorithms… this particular measure could actually increase pre-trial detentions)

Regional Proposition

RR: Yes

San Francisco Propositions

A: Yes

B: Yes

C: Yes

D: Yes

E: Yes

F: Yes

G: Yes

H: No

*I: Yes (tax wealthy real estate owners a bit)

*J: Yes (support teachers and prevent potential lawsuit clawback of previously spent education funds)

*K: Yes (removes legal obstacle to city-built affordable housing)

*L: Yes (reverse income inequality)

8 thoughts on “Election Slate for November 3, 2020

  1. I received the following comment and have changed my recommendation accordingly–

    Dear SF Voter,
    There is a race on the November ballot (not that one!) that is of the utmost importance to the future of public higher education in San Francisco. Four seats are open on the City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees. Two incumbents are running and eight challengers. Please cast your vote solely for Anita Martinez.

    Why Anita Marinez?
    Ever since 2012, City College is slowly being destroyed. Yes, that sounds hyperbolic, but Madeline Mueller, long-time music department chair (over 50 years at the college) said, “I have NEVER seen the college this close to being destroyed.” As someone who has been working hard to Save CCSF since the (manufactured) Accreditation Crisis of 2012, I believe that Martinez is the only one running who can reverse the direction of the college and set it on a path to thrive and serve the communities who need it so desperately.

    Why cast a sole vote when I can vote for up to four?
    Martinez is up against powerful San Francisco Political Machines. She can be elected but we need to be strategic. The education boards are not subject to ranked-choice voting which means that the 4 City College candidates receiving the most votes will fill the 4 slots. A sole vote for one candidate will give that person a better chance to be among the top vote-getters.

    If you are convinced, please consider these two more asks in addition to casting your vote solely for Anita Martinez.
    1. Pass on this recommendation to at least 5 San Francisco voters. Anyone should feel free to get in touch with me if they have any questions or want more information.
    2. Donate money and/or labor to the Martinez campaign. Anita Martinez for City College

    In hope for a better future,
    Wynd

    Wynd Kaufmyn
    CCSF Engineering Instructor (37 years)
    Kaufmyn@aol.com

  2. Prop25 . Every time we try to fix the bail system, the bail industry spends a lot of money to stop it. It was brilliant to come up with the slogan , I don’t like algorithms. What algorithms can be are unbiased. I think we should give this a chance. I am voting yes.

  3. Speaker Pelosi is third in line for the presidency and deserves our humble support!
    What a fabulous president she would make! I am definitely voting for her.

  4. Thanks as always for sharing your recommendations, Stardust. I’m undecided on CA Prop 23, which you support (and so do the SF Green Party, Milk Club, and League of Pissed Off Voters). Opponents Tim Redmond (oops I mean the San Francisco Bay Guardian) and SPUR argue that the regulation of medical clinics would be better handled by the state legislature “in a way that balances the needs of all parties” (Redmond), and that the specific requirements of Prop 23 might drive up the cost of care, or reduce access to care if dialysis clinics close due to increased operating costs. What convinced you to support?

  5. Thanks for your comment Ben. I decided to support Prop 23 because it comes out of a longstanding conflict between the employee union at these medical facilities and the for-profit companies running them. It seems that the profit motive has caused these dialysis clinics to run down the quality of care and working conditions for the benefit of the shareholders… I know, what a surprise. 😉 Apparently to the point of many sites having only unqualified technicians supervising dialysis without adequate medical personnel present. I don’t believe that the invisible hand of the free market handles these matters, so I do believe that governments should intervene in these situations. In fact, that’s the purpose of having a government. There is an argument that this matter should be handled in the legislature, but apparently the legislature has not been capable of drafting adequate legislation over many years. Perhaps a state regulatory body should handle it? Yes, but have they?

  6. Thank you Stardust — your reasons for supporting Prop 23 make sense to me. Now for another one I’m challenged by: Prop 25. If Prop 25 fails, there’s a risk that the state legislature will interpret that as a reason not to make further efforts to eliminate cash bail (at least in the near term), and a risk that the Humphrey ruling will not be upheld by the State Supreme Court, with the result that cash bail continues. On the other hand if Prop 25 passes and the problems with the pre-trial detention algorithm are not subsequently fixed by the state legislature or another ballot initiative, we could end up with more people detained, as you pointed out — you think this is the greater danger?

  7. Yes on what you wrote for Prop 25. Also, apparently the algorithm can be kept secret (the details any such algorithm should be a matter of public record) and will very likely perpetuate systemic racism in the “justice” system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.