Endorsements for March 5, 2024 Election

This is a Quick Guide to the ballot, check below for more detailed descriptions

Superior Court Judge

Seat 1 – Support Michael I. Begert
Seat 13 – Support Patrick Thompson

Propositions

A:  Affordable Housing Bond – YES!
B: Guaranteed Police Staffing – NO!!
C: Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption – NO!!!
D: Ethics Law Reform – YES
E: Police Policy / High Speed Chases / Drones & Surveillance – NO!!
F: No Cash; No Care – NO!!!

G: Non Binding 8th Grade Algebra Declaration of Policy – No Position

Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC)

Assembly District 17 – Eastern half of city
John Avalos
Gloria Berry
Vick Chung
Peter Gallota
Kristin Hardy
Jane Kim
Jeremy Lee
Anita Martinez
Michael Nguyen
Joshua Rudy Ochoa
Sal Roselli
Sydney Simpson

Assembly District 19 – Western half of city
Connie Chan
Queena Chen
Natalie Gee
Greg Hardeman
Frances Hsieh
Hene Kelly
Leah LaCroix
Sandra Lee Fewer
Gordon Mar
Mano Raju

 

Endorsements for March 5, 2024 Election

Detailed Guide Guide

Superior Court Justice, Seat #1: Judge Michael Isaku Begert

Superior Court Justice, Seat #13: Judge Patrick Thompson

Judges Begert and Thompson are widely respected, broadly endorsed incumbents on San Francisco’s Superior Court. But billionaires are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars to remake the SF judiciary. They are targeting sitting judges by propping up dangerously unqualified challengers in an effort to bully sitting judges who apply laws fairly and according to legal precedent.

This is a misguided attack to seemingly vent frustration, but the opposition has alarmingly little understanding of the criminal justice system. For instance, they have alleged that Begert fails to convict enough criminals – probably because the court over which he presides is not a criminal court!

If Judges Thompson and Begert are defeated, judicial elections will go to the highest bidder. We must support judges that rule fairly and apply the law, not politics.

 

Prop A – Affordable Housing Bonds: YES

San Francisco has made a promise to develop 46,000 units of affordable housing in the next 8 years, In order to even make a dent in our astronomical goals, we’re going to need funding in the form of bonds.

When they say “affordable housing” here, Prop A actually means it. Prop A will generate:

  • Up to $240 million to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate new rental housing, including senior housing and workforce housing, for extremely low-income, very low-income and lower-income households;
  • Up to $30 million to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate existing housing to preserve it as affordable for lower-income households and moderate-income households; and
  • Up to $30 million to construct, develop, acquire or rehabilitate housing for extremely low-income, very low-income and/or lower-income households who need safe and stable housing and are experiencing street violence, domestic violence and abuse, sexual abuse and assault, human trafficking or other trauma relating to homelessness.


Prop B – Police Staffing Minimums (based on theoretical future tax): No

This is a weird one. More conservative members of the Board initiated this, before Labor took it over and changed it so much that its original proponents abandoned it. Essentially, it’s a political theater to head off a potentially worse measure in November.

On principle, we endorsed a No vote on this measure, because we oppose setting minimums for our best-funded City department, while every other essential department such as 911 Operators or social service organizations are expected to scrap for breadcrumbs every budget cycle.

 

Prop C – Real Estate Transfer Tax Trojan Horse: NO NO NO

Prop C is not what it claims to be. In reality, this power grab by the mayor to override the will of the voters, and could lead to the elimination of democratically passed revenue measures.

Allegedly, Prop C would be a temporary exemption to 2020’s voter-approved transfer taxes (Prop I) for commercial space to be transformed into residential space. In reality, Prop C would enable City Hall to unilaterally overthrow any real estate transfer tax, anywhere in the city, without voter approval. So Prop I could be permanently repealed, as well as the mansion tax voters passed to save City College, or any other real estate transfer tax – all without voters having a say.

Prop I has been wildly popular – voters supported it, and it proved to be a windfall for SF. The only opposition has come from the real estate industry and the politicians they pay for. In 2020, they spent millions trying to defeat Prop I, and failed. Now, they want to trick voters into handing over a dangerously broad tool to undermine the will of the people.

Remember: Mayor Breed just slashed the budget by an additional $75M in mid-year budget cuts. At the same time, she’s trying to eliminate $196M in annual revenue. This is not a mayor acting in good faith!

 

Prop D – Strengthening Ethics Department: Sure

We all know San Francisco has deep corruption problems. Will Prop D fix it? No, but it won’t make it worse. This is a pretty minor tightening of the rules around gift giving to those in city government. It’s not a silver bullet, but it can’t hurt.

 

Prop E – Police Policy No One Wants: No

Mayor Breed introduced Prop E in order to loosen restrictions on high speed chases, expand police surveillance options, and gut the Police Commission of its oversight powers.

Certainly, it’s a red flag when our oversight body repeatedly identifies misconduct, and the mayor decides to solve the problem by eliminating oversight. You can’t complain about misconduct if you don’t know it’s there

But here’s the weird thing: the SFPD actually opposes the mayor’s plan. According to the Chief and others, the current (more restrictive) high speed chase policy is safer and more legally compliant.

With opposition coming from everyone from police to the ACLU, no one within the criminal justice sphere seems to want Prop E.

 

Prop F – Forcing Suspected Drug Users Into Homelessness: NO NO NO

Last summer, researchers at UCSF released the most comprehensive study in decades on the root causes of homelessness, with policy solutions drawing upon actual public health expertise. The mayor obviously didn’t read it. Instead, she proposed a policy that will increase homelessness.

Prop F would create a Kafkaesque landscape whereby anyone even suspected of using drugs would risk losing public assistance (CAAP, also referred to as “welfare”). Remember that SF already all but eliminated CAAP for unhoused people back in the 2000s. Today, people experiencing homelessness receive a maximum of just $105 a month, but the unhoused population is generally under-enrolled in these sorts of benefits – particularly those with addiction issues – and most do not receive anything close to the maximum, if at all.

The only people who still receive normal benefits are housed individuals, who can be eligible for up to $619 a month (usually less). These funds are typically used to offset the cost of rent, so low-income renters are the ones who stand to lose the most.

Prop F would create new bureaucratic friction that will cause thousands of people to lose benefits and be evicted for non-payment of rent – which we know to be a leading cause of homelessness! Homelessness, in turn, is a leading cause of substance abuse disorder (not the other way around), with homelessness being a major cause of someone developing a drug problem or relapsing after sobriety.

The experts agree: Prop F would dramatically increase homelessness and substance abuse in San Francisco.

Thanks to the research by public health experts at UCSF, we know what our city needs to do to end the crisis conditions on our streets. Prop F does exactly the opposite of what scientists are advising. Vote NO!

 

Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC)

Registered Democrats will also have the opportunity to elect members of the DCCC based on their Assembly District. This will be on your normal ballot you receive in the mail from the Department of Elections.

The DCCC is the SF chapter of the Democratic Party, and is made up of 24 representatives elected every 4 years by all the Democrats in San Francisco. The most important thing they do is endorse and support local ballot measures and candidates for public office. These endorsements from the Democratic Party are especially important in presidential election years like 2024, when so many voters in San Francisco are energized to support Democratic initiatives and fight back against Republicans, Trump, billionaire-backed forces.

The difference between having a local Democratic party that has the backs of tenants as opposed to one that will constantly side with landlords and evictors is massive. Over the years, we have seen the Democratic Party lead by many different chairs, ranging from some who are fierce tenant advocates and renters themselves, to others who in are far more aligned with the real estate industry. In fact, for many years the Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party was the leader of the San Francisco Association of Realtors, one of the most notorious anti-tenant groups in the city!

Right now, there is a concerted effort to install anti-tenant extremists onto the DCCC. We went over the candidates with a fine-toothed comb, and have endorsed the following:

Assembly District 17 Candidates for DCCC (East Side of SF)

John Avalos

Gloria Berry

Vick Chung

Peter Gallotta

Kristin Hardy

Jane Kim

Jeremy Lee

Anita Martinez

Michael Nguyen

Joshua Rudy Ochoa

Sal Rosselli

Sydney Simpson

Assembly District 19 Candidates for DCCC (West Side of SF)

Connie Chan

Queena Chen

Natalie Gee

Greg Hardeman

Frances Hsieh

Hene Kelly

Leah LaCroix

Sandra Lee Fewer

Gordon Mar

Mano Raju