O2C's 2022 California General Election voter guide

Yep, another one of these.

7 props, usual slate of candidates, let's get this done with.

Prop 1 - "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT." Legislature wrote an amendment and now we need to vote on it. Prevents the state from denying or interfering in having an abortion or contraception choices. So. Normally I'd be all for that. But it's written weirdly, so that it might actually go too far in contraception, and not far enough on abortion. I think this would prevent the state from banning even dangerous contraceptives (I'm not sure how much the state actually regulates these as opposed to the FDA). Also unclear if it would interfere with state regulations on who can perform abortions. But for that matter, it's worded so loosely that I'm not sure it wouldn't allow the state to ban doctors from performing one! It also doesn't guarantee that a woman can choose to refuse an abortion (it does guarantee the right to refuse contraception), which is kinda weirding me out. It also would necessarily eliminate the existing requirements for life or health of the mother for late-term abortions. This hasn't been a problem in California. I'm... going to need to think more about this one. It's also not a great example for other states to follow in terms of political feasibility and acceptability to the masses. I have a pretty strong bias for inaction here, given the state of the state. The state of the country obviously makes this a statement worth making, but maybe not quite so thoughtlessly. Very tentative Yes.

Prop 26 - "ALLOWS IN-PERSON ROULETTE, DICE GAMES, SPORTS WAGERING ON
TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE."

The first of two sports betting propositions. This one allows sports betting and a few additional types of table games (roulette, craps) in-person at Indian casinos. They're pushing this one hard and against Prop 27, which I gather will allow online sports betting, but we'll get to that later. Sets a sports gambling age of 21 and prohibits advertising to those under 21 (that seems difficult to enforce). Keeps existing bans on gambling on HS sports or college games including CA teams, so no betting on Cal-Stanford. Imposes a 10% tax on sports wagering and other gaming. Establishes a CA sports betting fund, which mostly goes to the general fund, with bits left over for problem gambling help and enforcement. There's a weird enforcement mechanism for the 21+ rule; allowing private rights of action if the AG declines to sue or the suit is thrown out without prejudice, but the penalty goes into the fund, not to the person who initiated the action. I guess some moralizing crusaders against underage gambling might do it, but I imagine that'll be relatively rare. As-is, I don't see much of a reason not to vote for this. As a constitutional amendment, a vote by the people is required. Yes.

Prop 27 - "ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE."

The second sports betting one. Sponsored by DraftKings and FanDuel, it allows tribes to contract with online operators to allow online sports betting. Indeed, it requires that the betting *not* be in person. The tax scheme is convoluted - 10%, but with a lot more deductions than 26, though the licensing scheme is straightforward - $10 million to start and $1 million to renew for a tribe, $100 million to start and $10 million to renew for a company. Money goes into the CA Online Sports Betting Trust Fund (COSBTF). COSBTF ostensibly goes to homelessness and gambling addiction programs (85%) and a 15% to tribes that are not involved in sports betting. People who use unlicensed sports betting companies face a penalty of 15% of the wager and $1000/day for unpaid penalties. Note that there is no penalty for offering unlicensed sports betting. The arguments against 27 are pretty terrible, for the most part, but they make two testable claims I'll check in the text: they claim that license fees are creditable to taxes, which is a huge red flag, and that there's no age verification for online gambling (proponents claim otherwise). The text seems overly inflexible. There does not seem to be an explicit age verification scheme, but it require operators to make "commercially reasonable efforts" at age verification. So that one's false. There's some silly meaningless restrictions like that operators have to have a link to 1-800-GAMBLER and if they offer more than just sports betting, a way for users to not see sports betting on their sites or apps. There's a few things that are clearly designed as red tape to keep out small companies. I'ave just verified that the license fees are creditable to taxes. So yeah, any year in the first 5 in which the operators don't earn $200 million in operating profit from California (less a lot of things, including federal excise taxes, promotional credits (which this conveniently prohibits limitations on!), and more), they pay nothing (they'd only have to hit $20 million in subsequent years before they start paying). This is so ridiculously one-sided and designed to lock in just a couple of operators who will likely not pay much at all. It creates quite a bit of new bureaucracy too, but that's probably to be expected. Worryingly, it does not prevent the enforcement or advisory bureaucracy from engaging in sports betting, a huge, glaring red flag. The "independent advisory committee" is designed-captured. Of 17 members, 8 are representatives of gaming tribes or operators. 27 is explicitly compatible with 26, though damned if I understand how, as it explicitly prohibits sports betting of any kind in the places 26 allows it.

The best arguments in its favor are that online sports betting should be allowed, and that non-gaming tribes get more under this than they would under 26. The homelessness fund actually looks pretty okay, if it actually makes a lot of money. But the whole thing just reeks of regulatory capture. There's absolutely nothing stopping DraftKings and FanDuel from just contracting with one tribe each, and everyone else (including the left-out gaming tribes) is left with tiny bits of that 15% of the tax revenues. That could be very small indeed. Add in nearly all the penalties for unlicensed gambling fall on the gambler, not the company. The official arguments against it are truly bad, but not bad enough to make me vote for it. No.

Hardly anything stirs mixed emotions in me more than gambling. I have just enough of a libertarian streak in me to feel it's no one's business if I (or some other punter) wants to drop a few quid on Boise St or Chelsea, but when we start getting into actively encouraging it and relentlessly shilling for it on every televised sports event, I start getting queasy. You can no more stop people from gambling than you can stop them from indulging in other vices, so I tend to lean toward saying "go ahead", but the whole emerging picture of gambling being just a touch on your phone away makes me wonder where the hell we're headed. On the other hand, I really don't have any problem at all with Indian tribes making money off gambling from the people who have shit on them for so long.

Any chance this could be pinned? @O2C puts a lot of work in these threads and I find them very interesting and informative.

Prop 28 - "PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC
EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE STATUTE."

CA has a constitutional education funding scheme (Prop 98) such that 40% of all tax revenues have to go to K12 schools except in years where the legislature says otherwise by a ⅔ vote. This would add, by statute, an additional 1% specifically for arts and music, and prevents cuts to arts and music programs without proportional cuts to the rest of education funding. Requires the funds to be 80% spent on new music and arts teaching staff, 1% on admin, and the rest on training, supplies, and materials. There aren't any official arguments against it, which is rare. Yeah, seems fine enough. It doesn't belong on the ballot, but this isn't likely to get done any other way. It's also got an amendment clause allowing the legislature to amend it by a ⅔ vote. So it's a bit suboptimal, but I've seen a lot worse governance in ballot measures. Yes.

Prop 29 - "REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY
DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE."

The kidney dialysis one. Does that sound familiar? This is the 3rd time they've tried to push this through. Here's what I said last time. The differences this time are that:

• NPs and PAs are eligible by default instead of just with a one-year waver
• the physician, PA, or NP has to have at least 6 months experience treating end-stage renal renal disease. I don't think this is a trivial requirement.
• the clinic can apply for an exemption which allows them to have a physician/NP/PA to be available via telehealth.
• There's a new thing about not denying service based on who the payer is. This doesn't matter at all. Medicare pays for almost all dialysis, and actually all of it once it's been going for 30 months.
• adds a requirement that the act can't be modified by ballot proposition except consistent with the purposes of this one.
• There seems to be less of an emphasis on the reporting infections, but it's still there.

This version is at least somewhat more feasible than before, but the governance issues are even worse than before. The modification clause is almost certainly unconstitutional. The non-denial thing is empty virtue signaling. I feel like the telehealth waiver undermines the ostensible reasons for this proposition. The CMA is still against it and now so is the ANA/CA. Voting No.

How would Prop 29 help the SEIU unionize dialysis centers? I wouldn't be surprised by that being the motivation, because SEIU has a history of doing dodgy things in an effort to get more of that sweet, sweet dues money (in Michigan, they tried to get the state to declare that everyone who gets a check from the state for caring for a disabled relative was automatically an SEIU member so that the SEIU would get to grab a chunk of that money), but I don't understand what the mechanism would be.

The whole "oh noooooo, these regulations would be sooooo burdensome that businesses will have to close!" routine from the Chamber of Commerce types generally gets an eyeroll from me.

Honestly I barely remember at this point. Something about the union shops being run by companies that wouldn't fall under these regulations for some reason.

EDIT: yeah not-for-profits make up like 30% of clinics, and they're all union-staffed. None of these requirements apply to not-for-profit clinics, not even the infection reporting requirements.

Jeez, another dialysis proposition? Any thoughts on why these initiatives keep getting put forward? (Besides the abysmal state of our health insurance system)

Prop 30 - "PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION
AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL
INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE."

This is an income tax hike on individuals making $2 million/year or more from 2023 to 2043 (or sooner), with most of the revenue earmarked for EV incentive rebates (45%), EV charger incentives (35%), and wildfire prevention and suppression programs (20%). There's also required audits of the spending. This is an optional part of a larger program to affect EV adoption. The EV incentives are basically a strict rich to poor transfer scheme applicable solely to EVs. The EV charger incentives are about half that (for in-garage chargers) and half a subsidy to public EV charger companies. The wildfire prevention was probably just tacked on at the end because Californians like wildfire ballot measures. The governance aspects of this are mediocre, and possibly conflict with the Gann Limit, a 1979 (amended 1988) Constitutional limit on state government spending, which is distinct from the amendment that requires the state to make 40% of spending on education. These funds could not go toward schools, which also means that if the Gann Limit is approached, other programs will be required to be cut and we'll end up with a budget surplus. (As an aside, I didn't realize how those provisions interacted until now.) It also won't affect the proportion of EVs sold in CA, because the legislature has since passed a ban on new ICE cars for (IIRC) 2035. It should affect new EV sales rates by making them more affordable.

So I mentioned that the tax could end sooner; that happens if CA's total GHG emissions fall below 20% of 1990 levels. This is unlikely. Even completely decarbonizing transportation in CA would only eliminate 41% of GHG emissions.

The bill text itself seems fairly well thought out. There are provisions for non-EV ZEVs and fueling stations, including hydrogen. There's one thing that stood out I can't recall having seen before: "Any fines recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to this subdivision shall be retained by the Attorney General." Is that normal? Google turns up no results for that sentence.

It's an interesting experiment, tying very high income earners' taxes to GHG emissions goals directly. I'm rather worried about the governance aspects of the initiative. This is a BIG chunk of change to be spending so close to the Gann Limit. I do appreciate the built-in audits, and other other circumstances, I generally like the lockbox model when there's a particular dedicated funding source. Not thrilled that it's income tax either. Rich people can and do move out of state all the time. It is at least self-limiting: if all the rich people move out of state, the taxes go away, and so does the required spending, which means less likely other things will be cut. The CTA and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are on the same side of this one (NO), which is pretty freakin' weird. I don't particularly like either one, but they might have a point. Personally, I think both are taking the wrong side of this one, on their own terms; the two things that the state can do with a budget surplus immediately are return it in tax refunds, or allocate it to schools that have had a funding shortfall in recent years.

I definitely get the impulse to do more toward decarbonization, but it feels like there's a lot of things that have to go right to make it work and not hurt anyone else. Voting No. I expect the legislature to come up with something similar eventually anyway, and they might be able to fix some of these governance tightrope issues.

Man, the CA constitution needs more reform than I thought.

Prop 31 - "REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE
RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS."

Does what it says on the tin. Bans flavored tobacco (except hookah consumed on-premises and premium cigars) and vape juice, and flavor enhancers therefor. It's a referendum which means default yes.

It's also hypocritical nanny state bullshit. The state loves the 2 billion in tax revenue they're bringing in too much to outright ban tobacco, but they'll ban flavors to make it worse-tasting for everyone, hypothetically to make kids less likely to try it. The federal flavor (except menthol) ban on cigarettes in 2009 was followed by a 43% drop in youth (12-17) smoking, and this appears to have been surveyed prior to the big federal tobacco education campaign in 2017, so that's probably at least somewhat causal. The same paper estimated a 60% reduction in youth smoking if menthols were also banned.

This might, unfortunately, be the least restrictive means of further reducing youth tobacco use. 50% of vape pens used by youth are borrowed, 20% are "other" (read: stolen), other methods comprise 3-10% each. Better age enforcement at retail POS would only lower it by ~4%. I would want even less a state that policed family and friends' private interactions to prevent the transfer to kids even less than this. I can't help feeling like this would be akin to banning the sale of condoms to minors to prevent them from having sex. Voting Yes as a governance matter as the evidence isn't strong that the legislature sis making ship up here as they go along,, but I don't feel good about it, and I'd have voted against if it were an initiative. It won't surprise me if a black market for flavors crops up; between 10% and half of all cigarettes in CA are already sold illegally, depending on whose numbers you read.

Statewide candidates

I've dived into the statewide candidates a bunch already, and I don't expect there's anything new, so here's my recommendations:

Senate (partial and full term): Alex Padilla
Governor: Gavin Newsom (ugh)
Lt. Governor: Eleni Kounalakis
Secretary of State: Shirley Weber
Treasurer: Fiona Ma
Attorney General: Rob Bonta

For Controller and Insurance Commissioner, I actually need to go review them and decide later; the former pits the 2nd-worst statewide Dem candidate against (IIRC) the best Rep candidate, and the latter pits the worst statewide Dem against a Republican I remember nothing about at this hour.

For BOE and Superintendent, I need to review what I said before about the options.

Will follow up when it's not 4 AM.

Superintendent: Tony Thurmond; forgot how much I disliked Christiansen.
BOE district 2: Sally Lieber
Controller: it's a choice between likely ineffective because others will ignore him out of partisan spite, and likely ineffective because there's no evidence she knows how to do the job. I guess I'll vote Chen as the token Republican in the executive branch. It's likely Cohen will win though.
Insurance Commissioner: Like the OC Register, I can't endorse a candidate in this race. Lara is corrupt, and Howell has no idea what he's doing or why. I'll be voting for Lara, but extremely unhappily. At least Lara probably can't stop any investigations into him. Levine was the candidate we deserved, and need right now.

US Rep District 11: Nancy Pelosi (ugh)
Assembly member district 17: Matt Haney

Supreme Court of CA retention elections. These are all up/down votes, not running against each other.

Patricia Guerrero (Chief Justice) - Former SCOCA associate justice, former 4th district court of appeal (state). Center-left moderate. Judicial board says "exceptionally well qualified". Nothing obviously terrible about her. Yes.

Goodwin Liu - Second retention election, after one in 2014. Not a fan of how partisan he is. Reregistered NPP in 2020, but he'd been a pretty strong Democrat previously, even while on the court. Still, his opinions and dissents have not been out of bounds. Yes.

Martin J. Jenkins - Nominated to courts by Dukemeijan, Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Gavin Newsom. How bad can he be? Yes.

Joshua P. Groban - Also pretty partisan. I can't find out much about him besides his employment history, which is probably a good thing. He was a nominations advisor to Jerry Brown. Okay sure, whatever. Yes.

Same thing with the First District Court of Appeal

Basically going to vote yes on these unless I find something egregious within 2 pages of Google searches.

Therese M. Stewart - attorney for SF turned (mostly) criminal appeals judge. Sure.

Alison M. Tucher - Yes.

Ioana Petrou - Yes.

Carin T. Fujisaki - Yes.

Tracie L. Brown - Yes.

Jeremy M. Goldman - The lawyer who fought to end cash bail before becoming a judge. Sure.

Teri L. Jackson - Yes.

Gordon B. Burns - The only one I was able to find any cases on. Shot down an appeal from J&J in the asbestos-in-talc case. Looks like good reasoning. Yes.

SF Board of Education

Background: after spending most of 2020 believing that the biggest threat to childrens' learning that year was that some of their schools might not have been named for history's least racist people, while one of them was caught making racist statements of her own, 3 of the 6 members of the school board were recalled. The other 3 were ineligible for recall because they'd started their terms too recently. 3 of the candidates are the mayor's appointed replacements. 3 open seats. Prior to the recall, the board made a lot of missteps. The aforementioned school renamings, spending half a million dollars in a legal fight to paint over a WPA mural at George Washington HS (its critical depiction of white pioneers abusing Native Americans and black slaves is now too racist), switching the college prep Lowell HS to lottery rather than merit admissions while cutting out AP and honors classes, not doing anything about the skyrocketing innumeracy among black students (only 9% can do math at grade level, and the old school board thought it's because there's a high school named after George Washington).

Alida Fisher - Was my 4th or 5th choice in 2018, but there are a lot fewer candidates this time around. She presented as a parent and parents' advocate then, now as a Special Education Advocate. Also I dislike quite a few people on her endorsers list. Default 1.

Karen Fleshman - "Diversity Inclusion Educator". Thinks the primary problem with SF schools is that we don't give students enough room to talk about how oppressed they are. Her only concrete steps here are pushing for more non-teaching staff (librarians, counselors, etc.), and somehow getting all high school students summer jobs. Wants to promote collaborative decision-making on the school board. Okay then. Default 2.

Ann Hsu - Appointed school board member. Has much better endorsements than Fisher. List of accomplishments are tangible. Filled out a questionnaire rather politically incorrectly - responding to "How can SFUSD increase academic outcomes for the most marginalized students?" she said,

and later apologized. NAACP did not accept her apology, calling for her to resign. Was she wrong? Probably not. Was she inelegant, hell yes. She clearly didn't understand implications of the code in the question (that marginalized means any black or brown student, not just the very poor, so saying anything remotely critical of their parents is strictly verboten), and that's not a good trait for a BOE member to have. Was the NAACP's response basically tit for tat re: Collins getting recalled for her racist statements about Asians? Seems likely. I still think she's probably better than Fisher and Fleshman. New 1 (Fisher 2, Fleshman 3), albeit barely. I might change my mind between her and Fisher later.

Gabriela López - One of the 3 recalled school board members. No.

Lainie Motamedi - Appointed school board member. I think she was a primary driver of the recall campaign. Helped get most of the aforementioned issues dealt with. Hopefully she can do something about the math education problems. Savvier than Hsu, the 3 mayoral appointees are no longer campaigning together. New 1 (Hsu 2, Fisher 3).

Lisa Weissman-Ward - The third appointed school board member. No controversies. New 2 (Hsu 3).

So that's the mayor's slate for me. I'm torn over Hsu vs Fisher. I think Hsu may have damaged her ability to be effective on the board, but if she wins with a large enough margin, that could be fixed.

Community College Board - partial term (ending 1/8/2025)

Background: City College of San Francisco (CCSF) (the community college) is emerging from a decade or so in the shitter. It nearly lost accreditation multiple times, its finances have been a mess. Layoffs abounded. There are 4 vacancies, 1 for a partial term ending in 2025, 3 full terms ending in 2027. This is the race for the former. There are, mercifully, only 3 candidates.

Murrell Green - Community College Dean and appointed board member at CCSF. Appointed and endorsed by the mayor and endorsed by the Lt. Governor. Extremely focused on identity politics, to the point where his actual policy priorities get a single sentence in his candidate statement, while the rest is all about the various boards he's served on (all but 2 are racial advocacy) and a list of which underserved groups he supports. This is dumb, and I hate the environment that makes this basically a requirement. Dude's been an Adjunct Instructor, Tenured Counseling Faculty, Department Chair, and Student Services Dean. You don't do all that without being at least a little competent. But he can't actually list any of the things he's done in those roles because that's not what wins elections here, apparently. Default 1.

Daniel Landry - Arts nonprofit director. Has an impressive resume (if it's all true. Some sounds overhyped). I don't like his endorsement list, but his priority list is pretty good, if shallow, and with nothing concrete. Formatted the endorsements to look like he's endorsed by the Democratic Party, when he's not. I don't like that. I don't get the sense that he has a plan for actually accomplishing his priorities. Pass.

Adolfo Velasquez - Retired chair Educational Opportunity Program & Services (EOP&S) / Academic Counselor. His candidate statement is somewhat more compelling than the others, but the closest thing I could find to a policy position page was his SF Democratic Party Endorsement Application*, and I wasn't impressed with some of his answers, eg "Do you have a plan to restore performing arts?" "Yes!". or "Between campus closures and cuts to instruction and programs, the college has reduced its offerings by 40% since January 2019, and the college's enrollment has declined considerably in that time. Do you think City College is meeting the demand for access to affordable public higher education for credit and non-credit instruction in San Francisco? What actions would you take as a board member to build the college's enrollment and meet local education demand?" "CCSF is not currently meeting the demands I would work closely with the board to ensure it does, need to restore classes and faculty.[sic]". Pass.

*which I'd never read before, but I'm now convinced I could never, ever, run for office as a Democrat in San Francisco. I'm pretty sure even the communist party isn't as concerned with party loyalty as the SF Democrats. You can't get an endorsement if you've ever so much as voted a for a non-Democrat, for any office. No wonder our city government is so dysfunctional; only the most willfully blind to any of the party's flaws can possibly win office.

Guess it's Green for me.

Just a question. Are you guys going to get rid of that representative you have who backs abortion opponents in the dem party and tries to stop anyone from interfering with her and her hiusband's corrupt insider trading?

I am talking about Nanci Pelosi. I am thinking one of the homes of so called liberalism could do much better than an anti-abortion pro-insider trading corrupt asshole on the dem side. If california cannot find a better progressive are they really that progressive?

At least we all know the duh is a depraved shithole full of drugs, violence, and right wing crazy. You all need to stop pretending to be progressive and caring when you cannot get rid of Pelosi.

I don’t pretend to be progressive. The only alternative (no write-ins in the general election) is John Dennis, a Republican. I will not vote for a Republican for Congress nor encourage anyone else to do so, no matter how much I dislike Pelosi, at the very least until Trump is rotting in prison, the Electoral Count Act is reformed, and MAGAt control of the House is impossible.

I voted for the sentient man-bun in the primary, and encouraged everyone else to.

Community College Board - 4 year term

There are 3 vacancies here, so I vote for 3,

Vick Chung - Former student trustee. Running on a slate with Anita Martinez, Susan Solomon, and Adolfo Velasquez. Has union endorsements, several supervisors I don't have strong feelings about, one I don't like. In typical Berniecrat style, has abetter grasp of problems than solutions. Meh. Default 1.

Brigitte Davila - Last time (2018): "Brigitte Davila - one of the three incumbents on the college board. Long list of endorsements, but other than the Chronicle, none stand out. Was on the board going through the accreditation crisis. Has had issues filing campaign finance paperwork, and possibly also board finance paperwork. Hmm... Baseline 1." Current college board president and professor. Has an actual platform, seems to have an actual plan. I think she's done all right (maybe not much better than all right) since then. Default 2.

Marie Hurabiell - former Republican and professional university regent. Proven fundraiser. CRT opponent, though she's apologized for that as is required by a candidate for college board in SF. That's probably too much baggage to be effective at the job. Default 3.

Anita Martinez - former teacher and administrator. Same endorsements as Chung, slightly more of a platform, no more solutions. New 3.

John Rizzo - Last time: "incumbent #2. Wants to provide housing for students on campus. Umm... this is a community college. Also affiliated with the Sierra Club, the SF branch of which is terrible. Still, Weiner endorsed him, so... takes 2, I guess? (Davila 3)" He seems to have done all right. Still not sure why a community college in a 49 sq, mile city needs housing, but he got 100 units built, which I think makes him the most effective candidate at the local level I've seen in ages. Same endorsements list as before. New 1 (Chung 2, Davila 3).

Thea Selby - Last time: "incumbent #3. Lots of pie in the sky ideas, but endorsed by Breed and Weiner. Meh, takes 3." Has a pretty decent list of accomplishments from the past 4 years. Similar endorsers to Rizzo, but a couple biggies, like Kounalakis. New 2. (Chung 3)

Susan Solomon - retired teacher. Same slate as Martinez and Chung. Her biggest thing is avoiding and reversing layoffs. Enrollment fell a lot during the pandemic and it hasn't recovered. I don't know that layoffs aren't wrong for that situation. I think between her and Chung, she's got slightly more of a platform, and I appreciate her candidate statement isn't 50% just a list of reasons she and people who look like her are so oppressed. New 3.

William Walker - another former student trustee and current teacher. His candidate statement and a few videos on twitter seem to be the extent of his campaign. But it's a very solid candidate statement. Few endorsements except for a neighborhood paper, but I'll give him a shot. New 3.

Jill Yee - academic dean, 25 year professor, chair of the behavioral sciences department. Wants to build housing. Endorsed by the mayor. Her resume is quite impressive, including founding a department. New 2. (Selby 3)

Jason Chuyuan Zeng - data engineer. Independent, says he ran in 2015 but I don't remember him. Seems rather eccentric, somewhat shallow. Pass.

Okay, so that's Rizzo, Yee, and Selby.

Assessor-Recorder

Joaquín Torres - Apparently he was elected in the recall election? I don't remember the race at all. Maybe he was unopposed, having been appointed in Feb '21. He's been unremarkable. Sure.

District Attorney

Background: Chesa Boudin was successfully recalled. Brooke Jenkins was appointed to replace him. This is a ranked choice vote. This is probably one of the more important elections.

Maurice Chenier - trial lawyer, law and order type. Unwilling to criticize his opponents directly, just says he thinks he can do a better job. Pretty pro-police. I think perhaps he might be right that he can do a better job, but do I think he might be so pro-police that he lets them get away with murder? Yes. He also seems a bit out of touch. Default 1.

John Hamasaki - civil rights lawyer, thinks that Jenkins has been too tough, which really doesn't seem to be the case. Has the support of two former police commissioners. His website is considerably less progressive-sounding than his rhetoric. Seems less out of touch than Chenier. New 1 (Chenier 2).

Brooke Jenkins - appointed incumbent. All the endorsements I generally like. Wants to crack down on quality of life crimes. Good. Doesn't seem to be promoting police violence. Also good. Is she succeeding? Seems so on the second point despite Hamasaki's rhetoric. Not so sure about the first. She's also intensely wrapped up in city politics, in some probably ugly ways. Not great, but also probably not avoidable. New 1 (Hamasaki 2, Chenier 3).

Joe Alioto Veronese - former fire and police commissioner, former cop. Progressives think he's trading on his name (grandson of former mayor, son of Board of Supervisors member and once BoS president and perennial mayoral candidate), but idk how many recent San Franciscans have any idea about that. That said, interviews always bring it up, and he doesn't shy away from the legacy. There were some shenanigans at city hall around a previous attempt to run, so this isn't obviously a dalliance. The BoS passed an ordinance prohibiting certain sitting appointed officials from running for office, which hit only him. Also very political. Trying hard to make the worst of Jenkins' flaws at every turn. I don't really want a former cop. New 3 (Chenier 4).

So that's 1. Jenkins (but I'm not thrilled), 2. Hamsaki, 3. Alioto Veronese, and 4. Chenier.

Public Defender

Also a RCV election, but with only 2 candidates, doesn't really matter

Mano Raju - incumbent public defender. Not flashy or terribly political, in contrast to his late predecessor, Jeff Adachi. Has shaken up the internal org chart at the PD office though, and not everyone there is happy about it. Lots of endorsements, both people I like and dislike (though there are a number of those I like missing). Chronicle likes him. Haven't heard anything bad about him. Default 1.

Rebecca Susan Feng Young - attorney in the PD's office who doesn't like the org chart shakeups. Brings allegations of the office no longer being as welcoming a space for women, but I really think the Chronicle would have mentioned that if it were true. She's a veteran of the office and junior attorneys were promoted over her, so this seems personal. Her only major endorsements are a former public defender and the Green Party. 2.

1. Raju, 2. Young.

Board of Supervisors District 8

Rafael Mandelman - incumbent. Last time: "I think he was Green Party at one point. Affordable housing attorney. Lots of endorsements. 1 (Degasse 2)" Definitely not as good as his predecessor. He hasn't been as bad as I thought though. Best I can say is things haven't gotten worse faster than anywhere else in the city. Default 1.

Kate Stoia - lawyer, possible Karen. Got into the race because Mandelman's office didn't respond to a request for help with city bureaucracy. Platform is very short on specifics. Heart might be in the right place, but I have serious doubts she can accomplish anything she wants to. She just doesn't seem to know how, and I worry she'd end up ignoring constituents the way she was for lack of knowing how to help. 2.

1. Mandelman (very reluctantly), 2. Stoia. Maybe I'll write myself in again.

I think that's everything except the local ballot measures.

So here we go, A-O

Proposition A - Retiree COLA and retirement board executive director compensation limit exception. Starts out innocuously enough: gives a boost to pre-1996 city employee retirees' pensions. And then there's one sentence that blows it up: "Proposition A would also allow the [Retirement] Board to [hire an executive director after 1/1] without regard to City civil service salary, benefits, and other limits." WTF? This reads like there's someone they want to funnel a lot of money to, but don't have a legal way to yet. The arguments don't mention it at all (there are no paid or official arguments against). I can't understand why none of the coverage of this ballot prop is about this part of it. Doesn't even get a passing mention. I've reached out to other people who might have some idea what's going on, but for now this looks hella shady, and I'm planning to vote No.

Proposition B - last time: "Prop B: Splits the Dept. of Public Works into DPW and a Dept. of Sanitation. Ostensibly it's because the DPW does a shit job of cleaning up the shit in the streets. Opponents say that there's no proof that this measure will improve that. I'm not so sure. Not because there's anything inherently better about a dedicated department, but because it also specifies that both departments will now be subject to annual audit for effectiveness and waste. I strongly dislike adding bureaucracy, but I am a big fan of effectiveness and waste audits. The official opponent's argument against is bizarre and parts aren't borne out by the text. It is an expensive bureaucracy though... $2.5-$6 million. This also comes amid the backdrop of corruption at the DPW. Plus my least favorite supervisors voted for it. I'm voting No, and hoping for a proper audit-only proposition. Or better yet, an ordinance that we don't have to vote on. " That Prop B passed, and, shocker, I was right that it was too expensive and too much bureaucracy. This year's Prop B folds the Dept. of Sanitation and Streets back into the DPW, but keeps the SAS commission. Great, this is much closer to what I wanted the first time. And then they removed the annual audit requirement, which was the one thing I most wanted :| I guess this is a step in the right direction, so a reluctant yes on it. It also doesn't seem like the streets have been any cleaner the last 2 years, so the separate department didn't really work. Yes.

Proposition C - homelessness oversight commission (charter amendment). Creates a homelessness commission, requires audits. Feels like a minor bureaucratic addition, but the audits should help, or at least shine some light on how badly things are failing in a quantitative way. No official argument against, SF GOP is halfheartedly against it. Voting Yes for the audits.

Edit: various opposition points out that this is a cynical ploy to distribute blame for lack of progress on homelessness among so many people that no one will ever lose their job for it. I think that's a possibility, but on the other hand 4/7 of the commission are appointed by the mayor, so a new mayor means a new direction.

Proposition D - "Affordable Homes Now Initiative" (initiative charter amendment). One of two dueling housing props (meaning whichever gets more votes is the only one that goes into effect if both pass). This one would streamline approvals for 3 categories of developments: 100% affordable housing (max 140% AMI, average < 120% AMI; AMI = $97,000 for a 1 person household; $138,550 for a 4-person household), 100% CCSF student or (any) teacher housing (multi-unit only, no SFH), and 10+ unit buildings with 15% more affordable units onsite than are required (22%; so 25% total). It would seem to streamline a LOT - everything except Planning and Building codes, and approval can't take more than 8 months. It would also require paying prevailing wages (read: union) and 40+ unit projects require contractors to provide health care benefits and apprenticeship opportunities. I'm not generally in favor of initiatives, but this seems pretty darn great at first glance. There are appropriate protections for historical landmarks, parks, existing developments, and movie theaters (okay that one's a little odd), but everything else gets streamlined into ministerial approval, even environmental review! This is pretty great, and the worst people (Green Party) are against it. Voting Yes.

Proposition E - in response to prop D, the Board of Supervisors put an affordable housing charter amendment on the ballot. Their version has similar categories: 100% affordable housing (max 120% AMI, average < 80% AIM), 100% CCSF student or (any) teacher housing (multi-unit only, no SFH), and 10+ unit buildings with an additional 8% more units of the total as affordable onsite units (22%-> 30% (vs 22%->25%)). Additionally, permitting has to be completed in 6 months instead of 5-8, 25+ units instead of 40+ units invokes apprenticeship requirements, This one has some qualitative differences too, the largest of which is that the BoS still has veto power over affordable housing projects (guess how often they use it. If you guessed "all the time" you win), and no deadline is set for when they need to approve or veto. The second qualitative difference is that the BoS can't extend this charter amendment with legislation to include more types of housing. No such prohibition exists in prop D. The third qualitative difference is the apprenticeship part. Instead of requiring contractors working on 40+ unit projects to offer apprenticeship programs, they require 25+ unit projects to use apprenticeship program graduates. Only 10% of California's construction workforce qualifies. It's not clear what percentage of workers needs to have gone through that program, but I strongly doubt it's negligible. The text just refers to a state code which doesn't refer to a specific number either. Indeed, in the 5 years that a state version of approvals streamlining has been in effect, not one new home has been built in San Francisco under that program. The point is, these differences make it rather unappealing, if not completely uneconomical, to try to use the expedited processes, which, when used seem to be largely the same as D. If D weren't on the ballot, I might have voted for this as an incrementalist, but with such a better one available, the choice not to is easy. Voting No.