Endorsements
Kucinich for president. Khanna for Congress. No on 57. No, No, No on J. Our complete recommendations for the March 2 primary

THIS WILL BE the fourth time in the past six months that San Francisco voters are going to the polls, so it's entirely possible there will be a degree of election burnout – particularly since the top of the ticket, the presidential primary, seems like a foregone conclusion. But there are a number of critical issues on the ballot, starting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to finance the state's budget deficit by mortgaging the future, and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce's plan to build high-density condos for the rich in neighborhoods all over town. There's a crucial congressional primary (an antiwar candidate challenging Tom Lantos) and races for the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee.

Our recommendations follow.

President

Democrat

Dennis Kucinich

Let's start with a bit of political reality: Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is going to be the Democratic nominee – and that's not such a bad thing. Yes, Kerry was wrong on the invasion of Iraq, and he voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. Yes, he's backed some pretty bad domestic policies (he once pushed to end tenure for public school teachers and supported increased H1-B visas, which the high-tech industry loves and the unions hate).

But his record is generally liberal, he's taken some tough stands (he opposes the death penalty, always has, and doesn't duck it on the campaign trail), and he can effectively challenge President George W. Bush on national security and can turn the president's dubious record in the National Guard into a major campaign issue. And the whole idea of having the founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War in the White House is immensely appealing. As primary voters around the country have concluded, he's probably the most electable Democrat in the race.

But Kerry runs the risk of moving to the right, not only during the campaign but also in office, becoming (politically, not personally) another Bill Clinton and alienating a large part of the Democratic constituency. He needs to remember that progressives are also part of the party – and that urban issues are key to its future. And the best way to send that message is by voting for Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich isn't going to win the nomination, and if this were a really close race, we might not endorse him. In 2004, against an incumbent Republican, Kucinich is absolutely unelectable. But he's an inspirational candidate who is almost universally right on the issues, and he's put on the table concepts that none of the other Democrats want to talk about.

Kucinich grew up poor, part of a big Cleveland family that moved 21 times in his childhood, always just a step ahead of the rent collectors. For a time he slept on the backseat of the family car. He was elected to the Cleveland City Council at 23 and was elected mayor at 31. He took over the top city job in 1977, in the midst of a horrible fiscal crisis. The big Ohio banks, which held the city's bond notes, demanded he sell the local municipal electric utility to a private company – and when he refused, they called in the notes and forced the city into default. But by holding his ground and not giving in to the giant corporate interests, he saved public power in a major U.S. city, and 17 years later, after the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a big story demonstrating how Kucinich's courage had saved ratepayers and the local economy hundreds of millions of dollars, he got back into politics. He was elected to the state senate in 1994 and the U.S. House of Representatives two years later.

Kucinich is a genuine progressive. He supports government-run single-payer health care. He opposed the PATRIOT Act and was against the war almost from day one. (In fact, he's been pushing for the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Peace.) He's demanding a national living wage. He wants to raise income taxes on the wealthy and cut payroll taxes for the poor. He was against the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. He doesn't waffle, like Kerry does, on gay marriage: he out-and-out supports it. And he talks about cities, homelessness, low-income housing, and other issues that are barely on the agenda for most of the presidential candidates. We're a little dubious about his stance on abortion rights (a Roman Catholic, he was pro-life until last year, when he changed his mind and became pro-choice). And we wish he'd run a more effective campaign. But we're glad he's out there, and he deserves encouragement and support.

Howard Dean, the most prominent antiwar candidate, has done a tremendous service by turning Iraq into a defining issue and by energizing a huge sector of the Democratic electorate. Aside from the war issue, he was never a real progressive – his record in Vermont is decidedly moderate, even fiscally conservative – but we admire his energy and his willingness to directly take on the president on the war. He forced the other Democrats to follow and may very well have helped make Kerry a more electable candidate.

But his campaign has essentially collapsed, and his followers need to move on. The Kucinich campaign – which shows no signs of giving up – can be an organizing force for the left and help keep the activist spirit alive in the party as we head to a convention where the focus has to be on defeating Bush. We'll come around to John Kerry, and the rest of the party should too. But for now we're voting our conscience and backing Kucinich.

Green

David Cobb

We're not at all convinced the Greens should be running a presidential campaign this year. The issue involves not only strategy (the Greens might help Bush win reelection if they take votes away from the Democratic nominee) but also perception: A lot of people blame Ralph Nader, the 2000 Green nominee, for handing Florida (and thus the election) to Bush. And as the disaster of the Bush administration gets worse, that perception does little to help the Greens build an effective national third party.

The future of the Greens, we've always said, starts with local elections: more candidates like San Francisco supervisor Matt Gonzalez and school board members Eric Mar, Mark Sanchez, and Sarah Lipson. At this point no Green is going to be elected president – and national campaigns should be largely about building the party. The worst way to do that is by being seen by potential allies as a spoiler helping reelect Bush.

There are two major candidates seeking the Green nomination in California, Peter Camejo and David Cobb, and both have the experience and qualifications to lead the party. But they offer very different strategic visions – and we prefer Cobb's. Cobb, a public interest lawyer from Texas, ran Nader's campaign in that state in 2000. But he argues that in 2004 the Greens should focus on a "safe state" strategy, only running a presidential candidate in states that are either overwhelmingly Republican or in which the Democratic nominee has an overwhelming lead. (In California in 2000, with Al Gore holding a double-digit lead in the polls, we were happy to endorse Nader. In retrospect, we could make a case that Nader shouldn't have been on the Florida ballot.)

Camejo, a Bay Area resident who ran for governor in 2002 (with our support) and played a valuable role as a contender in the recall election, takes the opposite approach. He argues that the Greens should continue to push the line that there's little difference between the Democrats and Republicans (certainly untrue in this election) and should campaign vigorously in every possible state. He's been pushing Nader to run again as a Green – something that would be a disaster for the party. We like Camejo, and we appreciate his energy and political activism. But right now, in 2004, the best thing for the Green Party is to not allow itself to be in the position of helping reelect Bush. Vote for David Cobb.

U.S. Senate

Democrat

Barbara Boxer

Every time Sen. Barbara Boxer has come up for reelection, all the pundits and pollsters have said she's vulnerable and have tried to paint her as too liberal for California. This year is no different, with former secretary of state Bill Jones leading a Republican field that will mount a well-funded challenge to Boxer this fall. But all that talk is just political spin and hype, because for all Boxer's sometimes fiery liberal rhetoric, the fact is she's anything but a flaming leftist.

Liberal groups have always rated Boxer fairly well, and she's been a reliable vote for women's right to choose and for campaign finance reform. She's good on trade issues – voting against NAFTA and presidential fast-track authority – and she voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But she has consistently supported the war on drugs and overly punitive approaches to criminal justice, and in 2001 she voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.

Still, the U.S. Senate is hardly a bastion of liberal thought these days, and Boxer is one of the best votes. It's likely her opponent will be Jones, a right-wing ideologue who authored the disastrous "Three Strikes, You're Out" legislation. We can endorse Boxer for another term with little reservation.

U.S. House of Representatives

District Six, Democrat

Lynn Woolsey

The only member of Congress who's ever been on welfare, Rep. Lynn Woolsey was always a progressive leader on social and economic policy. In the past few years, she's become one of the leading liberals in the Bay Area delegation. Although she didn't join Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) in voting against President George W. Bush's resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, she's generally been a strong voice against the war. She spoke at a January 2003 San Francisco peace rally and joined Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) in sponsoring a bill to repeal the use-of-force authorization. She voted against the USA PATRIOT Act. She has no serious opposition in the primary, and we're happy to endorse her for another term.

District Eight, Democrat

No endorsement

In 2002, Rep. Nancy Pelosi made history by becoming the House of Representatives' first female party leader. That got her headlines in major newspapers around the country. A few years earlier, though, she also made history by leading the fight to create the first privatized national park – and even in San Francisco, the mainstream media paid little or no attention. All you have to do is enter the Presidio from the Marina District and you can see her legacy: a gigantic new private office complex, for George Lucas's film-production company, is rising in what ought to be public space. That's not the only problem we have with Pelosi: she publicly announced in 2002 that she would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq, and she voted for a resolution endorsing the war. She's in one of the safest districts in the country and will almost certainly be reelected, but we can't endorse her.

District Nine, Democrat

Barbara Lee

What can we say? Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress with the courage to stand up right after 9/11 and oppose giving Bush a blank check to go to war with Afghanistan. She's been a solid progressive on almost every issue, a leader in the antiwar cause, and a worthy successor to the legendary Rep. Ron Dellums. We're happy to endorse her for another term.

District 12, Democrat

Ro Khanna

We've been saying for years that Rep. Tom Lantos needs a good challenge, and a bright, Yale University-educated 27-year-old lawyer named Ro Khanna is finally giving him one. Khanna – who would be the first person of Indian descent elected to Congress since the 1950s – is campaigning primarily on the issues of the Iraq war and the PATRIOT Act. Lantos supported both; polls show a strong majority of the voters in this western San Francisco and northern peninsula district oppose both.

In fact, Lantos, while generally liberal on social issues, is out of touch not only with his district but also with the rest of the Bay Area's congressional delegation on foreign policy and military issues. For example, he and Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek) were the only local Democrats who voted in favor of Bush's $87 billion appropriation for military action in Iraq and Afghanistan (see "The Ro Factor," 2/11/04).

Khanna calls the PATRIOT Act "an embarrassment for our country" and argues that the United States should turn over all military action in Iraq to NATO and all civilian work to the United Nations. He supports government-run single-payer universal health insurance and wants to rescind President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Endorsed by San Francisco supervisor Matt Gonzalez, he is an articulate, refreshing voice for progressive policy positions and would make an excellent member of Congress. In the 12th, vote Ro.

District 12, Green

Barry Hermanson

The Greens have two candidates vying for the right to take on the Democratic nominee in the district now represented by Lantos. If Khanna doesn't beat Lantos in the primary, we hope Barry Hermanson will mount a strong campaign against him on the Green ticket.

Hermanson, a small-business owner and longtime activist, was the principal backer of the November 2003 ballot measure that increased the minimum wage in San Francisco. He's been active in single-payer health care organizing and homeless issues. He's running on a strong Green platform calling for an end to the war in Iraq, a comprehensive effort to produce renewable energy, and a national increase in the minimum wage.

Pat Gray, an artist and former public school teacher, also has a likable platform, but she lacks Hermanson's experience and political credentials.

State senate

District Three, Democrat

Carole Migden

Carole Migden's an operator. She raises money from all sorts of powerful interests (she's got $1.5 million in the bank) and cuts deals on legislation. She's also a consummate politician: for a while, in the 1990s, she was close to the Brown machine, but around the same time public sentiment turned against him, she began working with Sup. Tom Ammiano in the campaign to put her old friend Harry Britt in the state assembly (he lost to Brown's choice, Mark Leno).

But through it all, Migden has remained a progressive at heart. Though she voted to support the energy deregulation bill that created the state's energy crisis (she now admits it was a mistake), of late she's been pushing community aggregation and renewable-energy programs – and she's solidly in support of public power in San Francisco (in fact, she donated money for a pro-public power billboard in the last ballot campaign). If anything, she seems to be getting more progressive as the Brown machine dies off and her political independence increases.

Term limits forced Migden out of the state assembly after three terms; she spent a brief stint on the State Board of Equalization and now wants to go back to the legislature, which is probably where she belongs. She has no opposition in her primary and will cruise to victory in November. You have to keep an eye on Migden – but we're happy to endorse her for state senate.

State assembly

District 12, Democrat

No endorsement

What's Leland Yee doing up in Sacramento? We can't figure it out – and neither, as far as we can tell, can his colleagues or constituents. He's introduced almost no significant bills – compared, for example, to Assemblymember Mark Leno's record, Yee's is an embarrassment. The only high-profile thing he's done in the past several years is introduce a bill to urge state and local governments to allow feng shui principles in building codes.

Yee has been virtually invisible in local politics, has shown little or no leadership in his district or in the Democratic Party, and ought to face a real challenge. He's going to win another term, but we can't support him.

District 13, Democrat

Mark Leno

Mark Leno – a cautious moderate and Willie Brown ally as a San Francisco supervisor – has become a pretty decent assemblymember. He's taken the fight for transgender rights, gay marriage, and medical marijuana to the state level. He's pushed a key tenants' rights bill, a bill that would require all cities to pass local income taxes, and a bill to increase access for journalists to state prisons. As chair of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus, he's brought queer issues to an all-new level in Sacramento. And his work has been more than symbolic: He's had some remarkable successes. Gov. Gray Davis signed his bills banning discrimination against transgender people and exempting residential hotels from the Ellis Act, both significant breakthroughs.

Still, back on the home front, at times he's been something of a disappointment. His endorsement of Gavin Newsom for mayor was a disgrace and gives a degree of credence to critics who say he just can't make a complete break with the old Brown-downtown machine axis. But we're happy to endorse him for another term.

District 14, Democrat

Loni Hancock

The former mayor of Berkeley and a longtime East Bay activist, Loni Hancock has been one of the more progressive members of the state assembly. Her focus in the past two years has been on education and youth issues, although she's also been an out-front proponent of raising taxes on the wealthy. She has no opposition, and we're pleased to endorse her for another term.

District 16, Democrat

Wilma Chan

Like Hancock, her colleague to the north, Wilma Chan portrays herself an advocate for children and families, and she's been a decent vote on progressive issues. Last session she also introduced a bill to raise the income tax on top earners back to the level it was in the 1990s – and for that alone she deserves support. She will easily win in March and in November.

State ballot measures

Proposition 55

Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004

YES This is what billion-dollar bond measures are supposed to be for: building schools, or bridges, or other worthy onetime capital projects. Unfortunately, voters March 2 may be reluctant to approve two big bond measures, so a proposal to repair and upgrade crumbling schools may fall victim to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's deficit bailout (Proposition 57).

That would be a mistake. California schools badly need an infusion of state funds – and the governor can balance the budget by raising taxes on the rich (see Proposition 57 explanation). Of the $12.3 billion this bond measure would raise, $10 billion would go to K-12 schools, while the remaining $2.3 billion would go to facilities work on college campuses that have been hit hard by recent state budget cuts. Vote yes on 55.

Proposition 56

State budget, related taxes, and reserve. Voting requirements. Penalties. Initiative, constitutional amendment, and statute

YES, YES, YES Sure, some of Proposition 56 is a little gimmicky and antigovernment. Withholding the pay of legislators and the governor probably won't do much to end the budget logjams that have become a regular aspect of late summer in Sacramento. And requiring legislators to stay in session while their leaders and the governor hash out a deal won't help much either. But the reform at the heart of this measure – which is to reduce the two-thirds requirement for approving a budget to 55 percent – is a real and meaningful measure that's absolutely essential to California getting its fiscal and political houses in order.

In recent years we've watched minority Republicans hold California's budget hostage to their ideological and unrealistic anti-tax crusade. That, not excessive spending, is why California has an abysmal credit rating and why the governor is trying to shift $15 billion worth of debt down to our kids. The two-thirds vote threshold is an unreasonably high level matched by only two other states in the nation: Arkansas and Rhode Island. It makes a mockery of the notion of democracy by allowing such a small minority to wield such inordinate influence over the state's budget priorities, and it ultimately exacerbates pork barrel politics by forcing the party in power to bribe the half-dozen legislators they need from the other party to pass a budget. Vote yes on 56.

Proposition 57

Economic Recovery Bond Act

NO This is a tough one, and it involves a certain degree of risk. In the short term, Schwarzenegger's $15 billion bond act would, indeed, bail the state out of its yawning budget deficit – a lot of worthy social programs would be saved, and business would go on (more or less) as usual. But for the next nine years, the state would be paying as much as $5 billion a year out of the General Fund to pay off the bonds – and, under the governor's plan, there would be no additional taxes or other revenues to cover those costs.

So in truth, what Proposition 57 is doing is rolling existing budget problems over into the future – at a high cost – and avoiding the kind of real structural tax reform the state needs. It's no way to run the government of the world's sixth-largest economy.

This huge bond act was never necessary. The state legislature, run by Democrats, last year approved a $10.7 billion bailout bond, backed by the state's sales tax, but it's been tied up in court by the conservative, anti-tax Pacific Legal Foundation. Even if the courts approve the Democratic approach, though, it won't be enough, because Schwarzenegger's shortsighted decision to revoke the vehicle license fee (without identifying any replacement revenue) left the state another $4 billion in the hole.

If Prop. 57 is defeated, the governor and the legislature will have to make some painful choices. They can brutally cut into a long list of worthy programs – or they can talk seriously, for the first time in many years, about big tax reforms like a split-role property-tax system that would raise taxes on commercial property. (Remember, it was Warren Buffett, the conservative Omaha investor, who argued during Schwarzenegger's campaign that the state simply had to amend Proposition 13 and address property-tax iniquities; Schwarzenegger ignored him.)

Yes, there's a chance cities, counties, and social programs will take a bigger budget hit this year if Prop. 57 loses. But all of us will pay a higher price in future years when the bond interest comes due. And if Prop. 56 passes (see above) and Prop. 57 doesn't, we may have the best shot in years at real reform. Vote no.

Proposition 58

California Balanced Budget Act

NO By itself, Proposition 58 a relatively innocuous constitutional amendment that requires the legislature to adopt a balanced budget and creates a healthy reserve fund as a part of the budget process. But it's directly linked to Prop. 57, which can only take effect if Prop. 58 passes. Together they represent Schwarzenegger's proposal for solving the budget crisis – and together they're an impediment to real tax reform. Vote no.

Regional ballot measures

Regional Measure 2

Regional traffic-relief plan

YES This is another tough one. Although virtually every environmental and social justice group in the Bay Area supports Regional Measure 2, most of them are at least a little nervous about some aspects of the comprehensive transit-funding plan. We're nervous too – but on balance we're supporting it.

Measure 2 – backed, pushed, and promoted by state senator Don Perata (D-East Bay) – would increase the tolls on all Bay Area bridges by $1 and would use the $125 million in new annual revenue to fund local transit projects. Some of the projects – expanded A.C. Transit bus service, rail service on the Dumbarton Bridge, expanded bike and pedestrian access on both sides of the bay, and the creation of a universal transit pass good on all Bay Area systems – are eminently worthy. So is the overall approach of using bridge toll money (paid by car users, who tend to be more affluent) to fund urban transit programs. Bay Area transportation is an uncoordinated, car-and-highway-driven mess, and Measure 2 takes the region a few steps in the right direction.

Some of the projects on the list, though, are just awful. They include a fourth bore in the Caldecott Tunnel (a $51 million disaster that was put in as a sop to Contra Costa County lawmakers and more-conservative voters), BART extensions to Warm Springs and east Contra Costa County, and a new ferry line that Alameda developer Ron Cowan has been pushing for years. That was enough to convince BART Board member Tom Radulovich to come out against Measure 2.

But even Radulovich admits there are a lot of good elements to the plan. And it's almost impossible to get the state legislature to approve anything that forces people who commute in private cars to cough up a lot of money to subsidize more environmentally sound transportation options. (This measure passed the state assembly by just one vote.) And the idea of a universal transit pass, and some measure of coordination between Bay Area transit systems, is long, long overdue.

The Green Party supports this. Environmental justice groups are making it a political priority (they like the idea that Bay Bridge commuters, many of whom come from the suburbs and have a median income of about $75,000, are going to foot the bill for improving bus service that's used by the urban poor). If it goes down, chances are the next big transit measure will be far worse. So hold your nose and vote yes on Measure 2.

San Francisco

DEMOCRATIC COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE

For years the body that set policy for the local Democratic Party was entirely an arm of the Brown-Burton machine. That meant key decisions – like whom the party would endorse for local office and how it would spend its money – were in the hands of machine loyalists. That ended several years ago, when reformers made a big push and won enough seats to wield significant influence. Now the committee is a battleground.

This year a group allied with supporters of Mayor Gavin Newsom is trying to get rid of the more independent, progressive-minded committee members – some of whom worked for the mayoral campaign of Sup. Matt Gonzalez, a Green Party member. The so-called New Generation Democrats (www.newgenerationdemocrats.com) want to ban not only the county committee but also all Democratic clubs from endorsing or supporting non-Democrats (even in local, nonpartisan elections) and are threatening to revoke the charter of any club that doesn't follow those rules. They've asked candidates to accept a "loyalty oath" binding them to reject Greens or independents.

That's exactly the wrong direction for the local Democratic Party to go. The Greens and progressive Democrats are, and should be, allies on a lot of issues and can and should work together on a lot of local campaigns.

In the 13th assembly district, there are plenty of good candidates for committee membership – we could easily have endorsed 15 people for the 12 available slots. All the people we've backed reject the loyalty oath and support public power, district elections, and higher taxes on big business. Most supported Gonzalez over Newsom. We didn't endorse anyone in the 13th district who backed Newsom over Gonzalez. In the 12th district, it's a bit tougher: We've decided to endorse a full slate (since, after all, 12 people will get elected), but it was a bit of a stretch. We've backed, for example, two of the Next Generation Democrats, Malik Looper and Connie O'Connor, since both are incumbents with decent voting records, both have the support of progressive groups like the Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club, and both told us in response to our written questionnaire that they would allow Democratic clubs to endorse non-Democrats.

Our endorsements are as follows:

District 12

• Susan Hall

• Amy Harrington

• Dan Kalb

• Greg Kamin

• Malik Looper

• Elaine Collins McBride

• Paul McConnell

• Jane Morrison

• Connie O'Connor

• Robert Pender

• Julio Ramos

• Steve Williams

District 13

• Bill Barnes

• Tracy Baxter

• Kirsten Boyd

• David Campos

• Gerry Crowley

• Michael Goldstein

• Robert Haaland

• Joe Julian

• John Kosinski

• Jonee Levy

• Bruce Livingston

• Greg Shaw

GREEN COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE

This race is a lot less dramatic than the Democratic one. There are only 12 candidates for 9 seats, and the issues aren't as crucial: the Greens tend to leave more of the direction of the party to the members, and the central committee (which Greens like to call the County Council) doesn't try to exert as much control. Almost all of the candidates are qualified and would be good council members; here are our choices:

• Michael Alterman

• John-Marc Chadonia

• Maureen DeBoer

• Micheas Herman

• Sujung Kim

• Susan King

• Catherine Powell

• Paul Quick

• Mark Salomon

Ballot measures

Proposition A

Deferred-taxation plan

YES All you really need to know about this plan is it saves both the city and retiring city employees money, and nobody is opposing it. The idea is to take the onetime payment departing employees get for their unused vacation and sick time – for which the employees now pay payroll and income taxes and the city pays Social Security and Medicare taxes – and place it in a deferred taxation account similar to a 401(k). City Controller Ed Harrington estimates this will save the city about $250,000 a year. Vote yes.

Proposition B

Retirement benefits for public defenders, district attorneys, and investigators

YES Proposition B would sweeten retirement benefits for prosecutors, public defenders, and their investigators, bringing their retirement pay more in line with that of cops and sheriff's deputies. Public sector lawyers and support staff make far less than their colleagues in private law firms – and generally have less advantageous benefits than cops.

Still, given the city's calamitous economic situation, we wouldn't endorse Prop. B if it didn't include the following key words: "cost neutral." That means Prop. B only takes effect if the city can find a way to raise retirement pay without pulling more money out of the General Fund.

Proposition C

Civilian jobs in the police department

YES, YES, YES There's no reason to have sworn, gun-carrying, highly paid police officers sitting around filing paperwork or taking phone messages in the San Francisco Police Department. Cops should be out on the streets busting killers and violent thugs. Instead, a lot of them are doing work that much-lower-paid civilians could do just as well. Proposition C would save the city money by gradually replacing cops in clerical positions with civilian workers. It's a commonsense cost-cutting move.

In the name of fairness, Prop. C wouldn't immediately boot secretary-cops from their jobs. Rather, they'd be replaced by nonofficers as they retire. Vote yes.

Proposition D

Equal treatment of domestic partners

YES Proposition D is essentially a housekeeping measure, one that would standardize benefits and rights for domestic partners in keeping with the principles of equality the city has strongly supported in the past. And though San Francisco's recent issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples would obviate the need for these changes, it's important this measure be on the books if the courts rule against the city on this issue.

Prop. D would enable the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to modify existing domestic-partner laws in the interest of true equality. Specifically, the supes could make it so people who live or work outside of the city are still able to register their domestic partnership at City Hall. This is particularly important for city workers because, currently, if they happen to live outside city limits, they aren't allowed to transfer pension benefits in the same way as married couples or domestic partners who live here. The supervisors could also make it so San Francisco would recognize domestic partnerships registered elsewhere. Vote yes.

Proposition E

Requests for city records containing private information

YES, YES, YES Proposition E is designed to beef up San Francisco's ability to resist incursions against basic, constitutionally protected civil liberties. Sponsored by Sup. Jake McGoldrick, it's a direct slap at the USA PATRIOT Act and any other state or federal legislation that might try to force public employees to help the government spy on people.

Under current law, the federal government can demand individuals' personal information – such as library, health, and other confidential records – from any city department without showing any evidence that the person may be involved in any sort of criminal activity. Not only are city departments required to comply with such requests, but also they are barred from informing the public or even the individuals involved that they received those requests or shared such data with the feds.

Prop. E would require that any requests for private information made under a law designated by the Board of Supervisors as a "watch law" be routed through the board for processing. That would put the decision whether to cooperate with the feds in the hands of the elected supervisors, not some line-level city worker. And if the supervisors, with the advice of the city attorney, decide not to give up the information, the U.S. Justice Department would have to go after the 11 top city officials – making any prosecution a big political issue.

Equally important, if Prop. E passes, the board could take steps to track and analyze PATRIOT Act requests received by city agencies, giving the public at least a measure of oversight over how the repressive law is being implemented.

Prop. E puts teeth into the resolution passed by the board against the PATRIOT Act a year ago and, as such, could serve as a valuable model for the more than 250 municipalities that have done likewise. Vote yes.

Proposition F

Labor negotiations with deputy sheriffs

NO Proposition F is a terrible idea. A quirk in the City Charter currently allows police and firefighters to wait until after the city's budget is passed, and the fiscal year has started, before they have to conclude contract negotiations. This gives them inordinate leverage, allowing them to wheel and deal indefinitely, while all other city employees have to sign their contracts before the new fiscal year. Now the roughly 850 sheriff's deputies, who run the city's jails, are asking to have the same extended negotiating time as the cops and firefighters.

We're all for equity, but this is doing it backward. The cops and firefighters ought to have to same deadlines as everyone else – the early deadlines. Instead of the voters moving the deputy sheriffs forward, the supervisors ought to push the other public safety contracts back. In tight fiscal times, Prop. F will only make the existing problem worse. Vote no.

Proposition G

Supplemental pay for city employees on military duty

NO People who serve in the military reserve have been called up in large numbers for duty in the Iraq war – and it's hurt some of them financially. Military paychecks often amount to less than what reservists earn at their civilian jobs. As it stands, the city and county of San Francisco may choose to make up the difference for local government employees for up to 180 days, in the event of "extraordinary circumstances" such as a protracted war: the mayor introduces a proposal to the Board of Supervisors, which must then approve it in the form of an ordinance. San Francisco employees called to active duty as a result of the United States' campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq are already receiving this supplemental pay.

Proposition G would remove the 180-day limit and allow the supervisors to supplement the pay of reservist city employees for as long as they're on active duty. It sounds like a nice idea, but we can't support it.

What Prop. G amounts to is a subsidy by the city for Bush's war. Sure, military families suffer when their breadwinners are at war – but a lot of San Francisco families are suffering right here at home, thanks in part to Bush's recession and bad spending priorities, and there's not enough money to give them the help they need.

The people who signed up for the reserves knew what they were getting into – and were happy to get the extra cash before they were called to active duty. The rest of San Francisco already pays much toward the war effort in terms of federal taxes, cuts to education, health care, and other basic social services, and more.

This measure was sponsored by then-supervisor Newsom and Sup. Tony Hall, and none of the other supervisors are opposing it. We're sympathetic to the plight of reservists, and they ought to get paid a decent wage – but San Francisco shouldn't be footing the bill for the Pentagon. Vote no.

Proposition H

Public education fund

YES With a gaping budget hole and little local evidence of the economic "recovery," now is not the ideal time to ask San Franciscans to commit city money to a new area. And we're generally nervous about ballot measures that set aside funding for specific programs. But Proposition H, which would send a chunk of city money to the San Francisco Unified School District each year, is absolutely necessary, and it contains enough safeguards to quiet even the most vociferous critics of set-asides.

The way the federal and state governments have let public education deteriorate is nothing short of tragic. And it's tempting to wait for others to step up to the plate – to argue that school funding is a state and federal issue. But with Bush in the White House and Schwarzenegger in the governor's mansion, that's not likely to go very far.

Prop. H, which was drafted by Sup. Tom Ammiano, offers San Francisco a way to mitigate some of the damage to local schools. The 10-year measure would direct $10 million to the schools in fiscal year 2005-2006, steadily increasing the amount to reach $60 million in 2009-10. One-third of the money would go to early childhood education – guaranteeing that every single four-year-old in San Francisco receives free preschool, which has proved to be one of the absolute best ways to ensure academic success. Another third would go arts, music, library, and athletic programs. The remaining third would go to other support services, such as putting nurses back in SFUSD schools (only a fraction have them today), hiring additional counselors, and buying books and supplies. Even at its peak, Prop. H will influence less than 3 percent of the discretionary city budget – and if the city faces a deficit in any particular year, the contribution will be reduced.

Vote yes.

Proposition I

Replacement of diesel buses

YES Proposition I is backed by the environmental, public health, and social justice communities, as well as a majority of the Board of Supervisors. It would require Muni to replace about 150 old diesel buses with less-polluting models.

The only real opponents are Rescue Muni and the Republican Party. They argue that the measure will be an expensive, largely symbolic mandate that could hurt service levels. The old buses work, they say, and the cleaner ones are untested, so why risk service problems?

A more important question to ask is why such a progressive city is still using dirty diesel buses made before 1991, when other cities around the world have long since made the transition to cleaner-burning fuels for their bus fleets. Anyone who has stood next to one of these buses as it begins to move knows firsthand how much stinky, carcinogenic pollution and particulate matter these things spew. And they're used the most in poor neighborhoods like the Bayview and Potrero Hill, which don't have as many overhead electric-trolley lines.

We agree it's generally a bad idea to micromanage city departments through the ballot box. But environmentalists have been trying to get Muni to scrap its dirty diesels for more than 15 years, and nothing has happened. Muni simply isn't going to respond unless the voters force the issue.

There's already bond money available to foot most of the $20 million bill, and plenty of mechanisms to delay implementation if Muni makes a good faith effort but misses deadlines. Vote yes on I.

Proposition J

Incentives to build below-market-rate housing

NO, NO, NO Proposition J proponents have a few good arguments: yes, it's generally a good idea to put denser housing near transit corridors, and yes, the central waterfront is an area where possibly thousands of new homes could be built. But the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which paid for the signature campaign to put this measure on the ballot, is going about the planning process the wrong way – and selling Prop. J with lies.

The sponsors have packaged this as a panacea for the working class, a way to keep the city's middle-income workers from fleeing to the suburbs by providing affordable housing for teachers, firefighters, and office workers. But in fact Prop. J is a cleverly designed plan to create lots of new housing for the rich, with only modest cost reductions for a few, relatively well-off families.

Prop. J was put on the ballot without a single public hearing, and if it passes, it would override a four-year-old public planning process for the central waterfront – a process neighbors have been closely involved in – and could overrule years of careful preservation work in part of Chinatown. The measure is cleverly written to potentially allow so-called workforce condos – which would be for sale, not for rent – to be constructed in nearly every residential neighborhood in the city. To qualify to buy one, you'd have to earn 120 percent of the area median income; the vast majority of San Franciscans earn far less and won't benefit.

A few two-income families would be able to buy one- or two-bedroom apartments, but families with kids – a group that planners say is most in need of housing – wouldn't be able to afford it. That's because Prop. J would force residents to spend 40 percent of their income on mortgage payments. For families with children (and the child care, health care, and other costs that come with them) that just won't work.

There's a much better alternative. The Board of Supervisors is already working on a plan to provide denser housing while forcing developers to give significant cash back to the community for parks, community meeting spaces, local retail, and the other things that make a neighborhood work. Public hearings have already begun, and there will be lots of time to participate. In the meantime, vote no on J.

Alameda County

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

District Four

Nate Miley

Nate Miley represents a district stretching from East Oakland out to Dublin and unincorporated areas of Alameda County. In his first term on the Board of Supervisors, Miley steered clear of the controversy he occasionally stirred up as an Oakland City Council member from District Six. Instead, he concentrated on youth and senior services for east Alameda County communities. Miley is running unopposed for a second term, which may be his last: he is rumored to be mulling a run for mayor once Jerry Brown leaves office.

District Five

Keith Carson

Keith Carson has managed to push forward a progressive agenda on the Board of Supervisors despite the dirty work involved in having to balance a budget with heavy deficits. One example: he helped win initial funding for a school bus-pass program that will provide free rides on public transit for students who qualify for free school lunches. We never like uncontested elections, but Carson has earned another term, and we don't see him growing complacent.

BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Two

Wandra J. Boyd

For the first time since Gay Plair Cobb joined the Alameda County Board of Education in 1981, she's running in a contested election. And in Wandra J. Boyd, Cobb has an opponent with an enormous wealth of experience in public schools. Boyd, who holds bachelor's and master's degrees in education, began her teaching career in 1975. She has volunteered extensively in the Alameda County and Oakland schools to improve developmental-disabilities planning and other critical youth services. From 2001 to 2003, Boyd served as cochair of the African American Education Task Force, a watchdog group of parents and students that works to foster equal treatment for African American students in the Oakland Unified School District. Each candidate in this race is pledging similar goals: putting students first and maintaining fiscal responsibility given the limited resources coming from the state and federal governments. The difference is Cobb, who is chief executive of the Oakland Private Industry Council, approaches the Board of Education from a private-sector background. Boyd joined the race because of her experiences as an educator and a parent of four students in the Oakland schools. We're supporting Boyd.

District Three

Enrique E. Palacios

Dennis Chaconas's entrance into this race brought an extraordinary level of interest to what was shaping up to be a routinely dull county school board election. The incumbent, Board of Education president Enrique E. Palacios, had already attracted support from the Alameda County Teachers Association and the Central Labor Council, who cited his steady leadership on the board. Palacios increased parent involvement in juvenile hall, oversaw new special education services, and contributed to the increased public interest in the Board of Education by moving its meetings out to local districts.

Still, all eyes are on Chaconas, the former Oakland Unified School District superintendent whose candidacy is perceived as payback to Sheila Jordan, the county superintendent of schools who encouraged a state takeover of the OUSD last year. The move cost Chaconas his job, and it snatched away local control over the schools until a $100 million debt is repaid. Chaconas is popular (and much more recognizable than Palacios), but he has no business running for the Board of Education until investigations into his role in the OUSD bankruptcy reach a clear conclusion. He was at the helm of a school system that went into receivership – and while he claims he bears little responsibility for that, the jury's still out. We'll go with Palacios.

BALLOT MEASURES

Measure A

Medical sales tax

YES Alameda County is counting on this special half-cent sales tax simply to keep the doors open at the County Medical Center and other East Bay health clinics. Revenues raised by the tax would go to basic medical services for low-income children, families, and seniors. We don't love sales taxes, which are among the most regressive ways to raise money, but at this point the situation is pretty desperate: the county needs the cash for an absolutely essential service. Vote yes.

Measure B

Bonds: Chabot-Las Positas Community College District

YES Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget proposal anticipates an enormous cutback in enrollment in the UC system, which means overcrowded community colleges are about to become even more overcrowded. The Chabot-Las Positas Community College District, which will take on a lot of additional East Bay students, needs to repair leaky roofs and remove asbestos from its aging facilities. It has to upgrade fire-safety measures, improve plumbing and ventilation systems, and build new classrooms. Measure B would finance a $498 million bond for much-needed capital improvements in the district. Vote yes.

Berkeley

BALLOT MEASURES

Measure H

Runoff-elections charter amendment

NO Berkeley has to change the way it handles runoff elections: Under the current system, if the leading candidate for mayor, auditor, or city council fails to win 45 percent of the vote, a runoff is scheduled just four weeks after the general election. It's expensive to hold a runoff election on such short notice, and generally it leads to a lower turnout. Measure H would delay a runoff until the February following a fall election, and it would lower the standard for winning an election to 40 percent.

But 40 percent is a little low for a no-runoff victory: if that were the case in San Francisco last November, Sup. Gavin Newsom would have won the mayor's race outright, and the runoff election with Sup. Matt Gonzalez would have never happened. And there's a better alternative – instant-runoff voting – on the ballot as Measure I. Vote no on H.

Measure I

Election-consolidation charter amendment

YES, YES, YES Measure I would adopt instant-runoff voting in Berkeley if it proves feasible and wouldn't increase the cost of running elections. Berkeley has spent more than $1 million on runoff elections in the past 18 years, and IRV proponents argue the instant-runoff system – adopted but not yet implemented in San Francisco – would bring more savings than delaying a runoff election until February (see Measure H). The system allows voters to rank candidates in an election; if nobody emerges with a majority on the first round, the second- and third-place votes are reallocated until there's a winner. IRV (also known as ranked-choice voting) opens up the political process: voters aren't stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils because their favorite candidate is not perceived to be "electable." Vote yes on I.

Measure J

Election nominations/filing charter amendment

NO Measure J would institute a $150 filing fee for candidates in major Berkeley elections, making it more difficult for political unknowns to get their name on the ballot. In lieu of raising the money, a candidate could also gather 150 signatures, but for City Council races, the measure would require nominations to be from a candidate's own district. Measure J was placed on the ballot because some elected officials in Berkeley believe that the ballot is too cluttered and that people who register for an election but don't campaign cheapen the process of running for office. In reality, the filing fee is hardly enough to keep people from getting their name on the ballot, but it sends the wrong message by discouraging people from getting involved in a campaign.

The problem with elections in Berkeley and around the country is that it's too expensive to run a campaign, not that it's too easy to get your name on the ballot. We don't see any evidence that the current relatively open system of democracy has done any damage to Berkeley. Vote no on J.

Oakland

CITY COUNCIL

At large

Melanie M. Shelby

We were hoping for strong challengers in three of the Oakland City Council races, particularly this one. Incumbent Henry Chang narrowly defeated public interest lawyer Rebecca Kaplan four years ago after a campaign in which he famously said bringing a Chinese panda bear to the Oakland Zoo was his top goal for the city. Since then Chang has consistently voted against tenants and smart growth, has been weak on environmental protection, and is inaccessible to the public. Challenger Melanie M. Shelby, who has compiled an extensive list of endorsements from community leaders throughout Oakland, is running a grassroots campaign that differs from Chang's in style and substance. She's focusing on key citywide issues: affordable housing, neighborhood business, community policing, and government accountability. Shelby's one obvious drawback is her employer: until recently she worked as a public affairs manager for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Shelby has taken leave from her job to campaign full-time, and she told us she wouldn't go back if she wins the election. We're concerned about a PG&E flack taking a seat on the City Council – but it's hard to imagine how she could be worse than Chang.

District One

Jane Brunner

In the context of Oakland city politics, it's hard to find fault with Jane Brunner. She's considered one of the most responsive City Council members and has worked hard to improve public access to Oakland's waterfront and park space along city waterways. She fought for branch libraries when the mayor and city manager suggested closing nearly half of them last year, and she's been a solid vote for tenants' rights.

We'd like to see Brunner take more of a principled stand even when she knows she's going to lose: she criticized a recent move to rescind permits for all but four of Oakland's medical marijuana clubs, for instance, but she still voted for the measure. And she's been too quiet about problems with the Oakland Police Department. But she's unopposed, and we see no reason not to endorse her for another term.

District Three

Nancy J. Nadel

Nancy J. Nadel stands out on the City Council as somebody who not only votes consistently in the public interest but also champions progressive causes. Nadel defended tenants at the Alice Arts Center while they faced eviction, she has aligned herself with proponents of local control of Oakland's public schools, and she wrote Measure R, the violence-prevention policy on the ballot that emphasizes education and employment instead of simply putting more police on the streets. She's not afraid to take on Mayor Jerry Brown or the political establishment and is an effective representative for West Oakland and the city. She's unopposed and deserves another term.

District Five

No endorsement

Why isn't anybody running against Ignacio De La Fuente? He is, without question, the most unpopular politician in Oakland, and as City Council president he's been a disaster. De La Fuente came to power with some progressive support, but his allegiance is now firmly with the political machine controlled by state senator Don Perata and Mayor Brown. He never speaks out against police misconduct, and he cast the lone vote against an investigation of police response to the antiwar protest at the Port of Oakland last April. Three years ago he closed the Oakland City Hall pressroom at all times except during City Council and committee meetings. He needs a strong challenger next time around.

District Seven

Michael B. Hudson

Like De La Fuente, incumbent Larry Reid came up a liberal activist from a working-class background – but judging by his performance on the City Council you might never know it. On key issues Reid votes for whatever De La Fuente and Brown support. When their interests collide with those of Reid's own community, he tends to remain loyal to the powers that be – witness his unwavering support for the troubled police department. After two terms in office, Reid hasn't done nearly enough to address employment in the community and toxic sites in the Elmhurst District that need to be cleaned up. Challenger Michael B. Hudson, a Democratic activist seeking elected office for the first time, is a bus driver for A.C. Transit and a union representative. He faces an uphill battle against an entrenched politician, but he has the support of the Alameda County Greens, and a surprise victory for Hudson would be a huge win for District Seven. Vote for Hudson.

City attorney

John Russo

We don't envy John Russo. He has to defend Oakland in court amid a tidal wave of sleaze. Russo has had to represent Jacques Barzaghi, an advisor to Brown who cost Oakland $50,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. He negotiated a $10.9 million settlement stemming from charges against Oakland's renegade cops known as the Riders. And he's had to defend the city in lawsuits filed by the Raiders' greedy, opportunistic owner, Al Davis.

Russo's record as Oakland's first elected city attorney is mixed. He's taken some criticism for putting his former position as League of California Cities president ahead of his job as city attorney. But during Russo's time with the league, he secured the organization's support for an open-government amendment to the California charter. SCA1, as the amendment is known, will be on the November 2004 ballot. Russo's running unopposed, and we'll back him for another term.

Unified School District

Kerry Hamill, Gregory Hodge, Noel Gallo, and Alice Adrienne Spearman

All of these candidates are running unopposed for seats on the governing board of the Oakland Unified School District. The board was reduced to an advisory role as part of the state takeover of Oakland schools last June, so none of the representatives elected to the board will have any real decision-making authority. Nevertheless, it's important the board monitor State Administrator Randy Ward while he controls the district. School board representatives may have lost their voting powers, but they still have the ability to keep the public informed and to mobilize large groups of people against Ward's worst decisions, such as closing small community schools. We're supporting Kerry Hamill, Gregory Hodge, Noel Gallo, and Alice Adrienne Spearman in the hope they can keep at least the appearance of democracy alive in the disaster that is the OUSD.

BALLOT MEASURES

Measure E

Parcel-tax increase

YES If Measure E were about State Administrator Ward's leadership of the Oakland Unified School District, we'd probably oppose it. The students, teachers, and parents affiliated with any of the five Oakland public schools Ward proposes to close certainly would. But Measure E isn't about Ward; it's about the schools. The initiative would increase the Oakland parcel tax – a flat tax on every parcel of real estate – set three years ago at $123 a year, to $195. The tax alone probably wouldn't stop Ward from shutting public schools, but it would help avoiding drastic cuts in student programs. Vote yes on E – then tell state legislators and the governor not to let Ward shut any of Oakland's schools.

Measure O

Utility user's tax municipal-code amendment

YES This one's a no-brainer. Oakland assesses a 7.5 percent utility tax on cell-phone users – but currently the city only collects it on calls made from within the city. The cell-phone tax was approved before the Federal Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act took effect; it says those taxes should go to the city where a cell phone user lives, not where he or she uses the phone the most. So the city auditor believes Measure O would bring Oakland about $1.4 million in annual revenue. Vote yes.

Measure P

City elections charter amendment

YES Most of the problems with having a "strong mayor" – as opposed to a city council-city manager system – in Oakland have less to do with the structure of government and more to do with the current mayor, Jerry Brown. The 1998 ballot initiative that created a strong mayor in Oakland was in may ways a power grab orchestrated by Brown, but it also reflected the fact that the city was getting too big, and the problems facing it too complex, for a city-manager system, which is more appropriate for small cities. Running Oakland is a full-time job, and it will continue to be once Brown leaves office.

Measure P would make the 1998 changes permanent. We agree the balance of power in city hall these days is tilted far too much in Brown's favor. But that's more the fault of the City Council, which hasn't been aggressive enough about challenging Brown (and it's too bad that so many of the councilmembers are unopposed this time around). And at least this measure would require the mayor to consult with the council before firing the city administrator – a modest but needed check on the executive's power. In the end, though, Oakland is a big city, like San Francisco and San Jose, and needs the direct accountability of a big-city, strong-mayor system. Vote yes on P.

Measure Q

Library parcel-tax extension

YES Brown and then-city manager Robert Bobb received a huge wake-up call last year when a broad coalition of neighborhood activists organized against Bobb's suggestion to close nearly half of the city's 15 branch libraries. Activists in a group called Save Oakland Libraries demanded city officials keep every single library open, and once the budget was approved, the activists had won. It appears city hall got the message: the mayor and the City Council are supporting Measure Q, which would increase and extend a parcel tax to raise $9 million a year more for libraries. The tax would make sure no branch libraries are closed in the next 10 years, and it would preserve essential services for the next decade as well. Vote yes.

Measure R

Special parcel tax

YES You can't attack violence in a city like Oakland – which has extensive poverty, bad schools, and a wide range of other urban social problems – just by putting more cops on the streets. Oakland has already tried that, and it's been an utter failure. Renegade cops in the Oakland Police Department are often as big a problem as the street criminals they're supposed to control.

Measure R offers another, more progressive approach that's likely to be far more effective. Sponsored by councilmember Nancy Nadel, the special parcel tax would fund mentoring for at-risk youth, after-school programming, and job training and employment opportunities to keep young people out of trouble in the first place. It's what a lot of community-based organizations have been advocating for a long time. Measure R also includes some money for existing police programs (increasing walking patrols and expanding the Drug Task Force) and some for community policing.

This is a significant change of direction for Oakland and could be a model for other cities. Vote yes on R.