Skip to content
Share
Explore
San Francisco
San Francisco
Everything on San Francisco ballots: local to state to national
👨💼👩⚖️ Candidates
State-wide offices
Governor
Gavin Newsom (D)
He’s no Jerry Brown, but he’s way better than the alternative. He’s gotten more willing to spend political capital to get housing built recently, which I applaud.
Lieutenant Governor
Eleni Kounalakis (D)
Secretary Of State
Shirley N. Weber (D)
Controller
Lanhee Chen (R, yes an R!)
Tough call, but Chen is from the better side of the Republican Party. He worked in the Obama White House, and even garnered endorsement from the SF Chronicle, LA Times, and Andrew Yang. He’s a Stanford professor and Hoover Institute guy (not MAGA).
We need better fiscal oversight in California and I’m willing to take a risk on Chen (despite the “R”!) whereas Cohen seems less willing to challenge the status quo.
This is the first Republican I can remember voting for in I don’t know how long.
Treasurer
Fiona Ma (D)
While Ma is well qualified — and far more so than her Republican opponent who is likely to cause roadblocks to funding issues that the legislature and majority of Californians aim to fund — she is flawed with pending ethics and sexual harassment claims. This is another unfortunate artifact of one-party rule in California, and we’re not left with a better option in this race.
Attorney General
Rob Bonta (D)
Has been a strong advocate for pro-housing policies and the “housing element” plans. Has gone head-to-head against the NIMBYs — and won.
Insurance Commissioner
Ricardo Lara (D)
Not great, better than the alternative.
State Board Of Equalization (2nd District)
Sally Lieber (D)
US Congress
US Senate (Full-term)
Alex Padilla (D)
US Senate (Remainder-of-term)
Alex Padilla (D)
US House (District 11)
Nancy Pelosi (D)
A win for Nancy is a win for SF, California, and America.
US House (District 15)
Kevin Mullin (D)
California Legislature
CA Assembly (District 17)
Matt Haney (D)
Haney is the better of the two on housing issues despite being a recent convert to the pro-housing side. Campos dropped out since, so it’s a non-race at this point.
CA Assembly (District 19)
Phil Ting (D)
Phil Ting is a very flawed candidate and human being with #MeToo claims. Unfortunately, we’re left with a problematic other candidate.
I wish this guy got primaried by someone better. He didn’t, so here we are.
State judicial
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Presiding Justices, Court of Appeal
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Associate Justices, Court of Appeal
Yes to all
Generally skeptical of voter recalls of judges. No major reasons I gather to not retain those on the ballot.
Education
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tony K. Thurmond
SF Board of Education (3 votes)
Ann Hsu + Lainie Motamedi + Lisa Weissman-Ward
They have their flaws and Hsu has made some troubling comments. I don’t think they meet the bar for replacement. They’ve brought well-needed stability to the board after the recall and valuable skills to keep moving it forward.
Community College Board Seats (full term, 3 votes)
Brigitte Davila + John Rizzo + Thea Selby
Community College Board (remainder of current term, 1 vote)
Murrell Green
City offices
SF District Attorney
Brooke Jenkins
I didn’t support Chesa in his original election (but I didn’t support his recall either). Jenkins is a flawed candidate but so is her opponent. If forced, I’d go Jenkins.
SF Public Defender
Mano Raju
Raju seems more committed to doing the work of a Public Defender’s office — defending the 80% of those charged with a crime in court — than other extracurricular activities the office may allow for. I think we need a strong Public Defender, and he’s done a decent job to-date.
SF Assessor-Recorder
Joaquín Torres
SF Board of Supervisors (District 2)
Catherine Stefani
Unopposed but has also been a strong voice for housing and good governance.
SF Board of Supervisors (District 4)
Joel Engardio
Strong advocate for transit-oriented development, more housing. In contrast, Mar has folded consistently to the NIMBYs.
SF Board of Supervisors (District 6)
Rank choice — 1st: Matt Dorsey / 2nd: Honey Mahogany
Mahogany is a, well, recent convert to the pro-housing movement. We welcome her, and I feel Dorsey is more committed to these policies so should be your first choice.
SF Board of Supervisors (District 8)
Rank choice — 1st: Kate Stoia / 2nd: Rafael Mandelman
Stoia is a strong housing advocate with a background that seems ready to get things done. Mandelman has been strong, but I think hasn’t embraced housing as deeply as Stoia may as the issue of our generation.
SF Board of Supervisors (District 10)
Shamann Walton
Not a great candidate, problematic across a number of policy angles. Not convinced the alternative is better.
Special districts
BART Director (District 8)
Janice Li
Unopposed, so 🤷♂️
📰 Propositions
California-wide
1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom
Yes: Guarantees reproductive rights in the state constitution.
While these rights are already guaranteed in state law, this further protects those rights.
26: Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands
No: Enshrines in the state constitution a right for tribal gambling and the taxes taken from the proceeds.
Same reasoning as Prop 27: Can be done through the legislature — which would preserve the flexibility to amend this as needed. In particular an issue with how the revenue is spent. This proposition is instead written by the interested parties i.e. the existing tribal gambling lobby — usurping citizens ability for oversight.
27: Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands
No: Enshrines in the state constitution a right for online gambling with revenue allocated in part to tribes and some social services.
Same reasoning as Prop 26: Can be done through the legislature — which would preserve the flexibility to amend this as needed. In particular an issue with how the revenue is spent. This proposition is instead written by the interested parties i.e. the existing tribal gambling lobby — usurping citizens ability for oversight.
28: Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools
No: Requires 1% of school budgets go to arts programs, mainly around teacher salaries.
While I support the underlying aims, this should happen through the legislative process, not hard-to-fix propositions. Not going to lose sleep if it passes (and would be happy to see this happen through the legislature).
29: Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements
No: Requires dialysis clinics to submit to more strict staffing rules.
This isn’t about healthcare — this is about a labor dispute that’s dragging voters into the mix. Total waste of money and voters time. Vote no for the I’ve-lost-count-how-many-times-you’ve-voted-no time.
30: Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million
No: This proposition would tax those earning >$2M/yr to fund EVs, related infrastructure, and wildfire programs.
While I think the carbon reduction goals of this are admirable, it’s focusing (yet again) too much on cars vs transit. If we’re generating $100 billion in revenue as is estimated, this isn’t the highest impact way to reduce carbon emissions.
31: Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products
Yes: Bans the sale of tobacco products that are especially enticing to kids.
We’ve seen these bans be successful at achieving those goals. Let’s not undo decades of public health work to keep kids safe and ensure dangerous products stay out of the hands of children.
San Francisco
A: Retiree Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment; Retirement Board Contract with Executive Director
Yes
B: Public Works Department and Commission, Sanitation and Streets Department and Commission
Yes: Repeals most of a prior year’s measure to create the Department of Sanitation.
I was against the original Department of Sanitation because it solved no clear problem and cost tax payers millions of dollars annually. Glad we’ve got the opportunity to fix that by repealing the original measure via this new measure.
Great example of why propositions are a terrible way to legislate — this should’ve just been fixed by the Supervisors, but couldn’t because the original legislation was a proposition, they couldn’t.
C: Homelessness Oversight Commission
No: Creates a board to monitor SF’s homelessness and supportive housing programs.
Great in theory, but the allocation of the commission’s seats means it’s not setup for real oversight — it’ll be a “fox guarding the hen house” situation.
D: Affordable Housing – Initiative Petition
Yes: Speeds up approval for select housing projects.
Helps reduce bureaucracy, a major cost driver and thus deterrent for building new housing. This is the actually impactful housing proposal (vs Measure E, which is trying to sow confusion and harm the aims of this measure)
Note: if both Measures D and E pass, the one with higher votes wins.
E: Affordable Housing – Board of Supervisors
No: Fewer review steps for select housing projects and increasing regulatory requirements on market rate development.
A cynical attempt at killing Measure D by the NIMBYs. It allows Supervisors to kill even 100% affordable projects, as they’ve shown a knack to do while Measure D fully streamlines those projects. It also increases the cost to build market-rate housing, which we also desperately need.
At best, this proposal risks reduce new housing supply in the city, just as the anti-housing groups want.
Note: if both Measures D and E pass, the one with higher votes wins.
F: Library Preservation Fund
Yes: Continues existing funding for the library and helps it increase open hours.
G: Student Success Fund – Grants to the San Francisco Unified School District
Yes
H: City Elections in Even-Numbered Years
Yes
I: Vehicles on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway
No: This would bring cars back to Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway that was previously shut down to cars for recreational and other human-first use.
Also... did you know one of the better art museums in SF is part of the Car Lobby? 👋 de Young! Sad to see you literally spending folks’ admission fees and donor funds to advocate for more cars in parks through this measure, so I guess that’s a thing now? Maybe it’s a performance art piece I just don’t understand.
J: Recreational Use of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park
Yes: Maintains the status quo of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park being closed to cars and instead for bikers, pedestrians, and other recreation.
This is the backlash to the backlash on Prop I — basically everyone wants to keep cars out of Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway, so folks wrote this prop to try to protect against Measure I.
K: Removed from the ballot
L: Sales Tax for Transportation Projects
Yes: Maintains existing tax to guarantee bonds to fund all types of transportation projects across SF
Nearly every city issues bonds for public infrastructure, and SF is no different. From roads to bike lanes to transit — we need money to improve infrastructure, and this is how we fund it.
M: Tax on Keeping Residential Units Vacant
No: Taxes houses in 3+ unit buildings (e.g. condos) if vacant for >6 months.
If you’re a NIMBY, how do you make it look like you did something for housing but really make sure we don’t?
Find a policy that would actually help — e.g. a vacancy tax (great idea in theory!)
Carve out 3/4ths of units so that your property and most of the actual units that need the incentive to not be vacant are except — i.e. all multi-million dollar single family houses, or really any housing with only one or two units. This makes the proposal now almost useless by removing the units that could meaningfully increase supply, and worse it ensures that younger folks with less wealth pay the tax, not the rich multi-million dollar homeowners!
Get it passed and use it to say you did something. Profit! There’s no more political will to pass the actually useful thing anymore.
So that’s the game plan, and that’s why I’m a no here.
Oh and if you want to make it even worse... fun fact: the supervisors who endorsed this will have their rental units conveniently exempt from the law. (Source: info on their sources of wealth, info on exemptions from the tax)
N: Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility; Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority
Yes: Gives the city more control over the parking garage in Golden Gate Park by the de Young / Cal Academy of Science.
Backlash to the backlash to the backlash on Props H and I — basically, the right solution to making sure the city can still enable good ADA access to the museums in Golden Gate Park.
O: Additional Parcel Tax for City College
No
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.