VOTE Jan 8 to reform the Democratic Party!

The Democratic Party controls California – and yet, this deep-blue state still suffers under Prop 13, still allows landlords to control the political agenda (at the cost of thousands of evictions and a homeless epidemic), and is going to struggle to create an effective response to Donald Trump.

That’s because the California Democratic Party is still a corporate-run operation, dominated by the Clinton wing, not the Sanders wing. And as we saw in November, that’s not a recipe for success.


Moving the state party is a slow process, but it needs to start now. And one of the ways it can begin is with cities like San Francisco sending reformers to the state convention.

The delegates aren’t selected on the ballot. It’s a much more old-fashioned process that involves showing up on Sunday, waiting in line, and casting a ballot. But it’s worth the effort.

We strongly support the Reform Slate that is pushing to move the party to the left. There are seven men and seven women running in D 17, which is the East side of town. We endorse Alysabeth Alexander, Angeles Roy, Davi Lang, Deepa Varma, Lila Carrillo, Mia Satya, Yayne Abeba Wondaferow, Ben Becker, Christopher Vasquez, Peter Gallotta, Rafael Trujillo, Reid Chalker, Tom Gallagher, and Wade Woods.

In D19, the West side of town, we support Amy Erb, Kelly Groth, Li Lovett, Maureen Dugan, Brandon Harami, Ian Fregosi, Gabriel Medina, Xavier Aubuchon-Mendoza, Brigitte Davila, Chelsea Swall, Wendy Aragon, Alan Wong, Jonathan Lyens, and William Walker.

There’s a competing pro-landlord slate in D17, and the decision will be made by a small number of voters – the ones who show up. You have to be a registered Democrat, and you have to turn out on Sunday/8.

AD 17 meets at the Laborer’s Hall, 3271 18th St., starting at 10am. AD 19 meets at the Doelger Café, 101 Lake Merced Blvd, starting at 1pm.


Endorsements: Kim and Leno for mayor. Mandelman for supervisor. Eastin for governor. Yes on F, No on H


It’s odd, considering the critical importance to the future of the city, that the news media haven’t been that fixated on the mayor’s race. Debates and forums take place several times a week. Key endorsements happen regularly. The city—this deeply wounded city, under attack from speculators and greed—desperately needs change. And yet the narrative is not one of crisis.

It should be. This election matters—so much so that the ability of San Francisco to survive as a diverse city is literally on the line. Another two, six, 10 years of the same policies we’ve seen for the past seven years and there may be nothing left of the San Francisco so many of us love and call home.

So pay attention, tell everyone you know, drag people to the polls—and vote, as if your city depended on it. Because it does.

Our recommendations follow.

Jane Kim and Mark Leno

Nobody expected that the next mayor of San Francisco, and the future of the city, would be decided in what’s normally a fairly quiet off-year primary. But the tragic death of Ed Lee forced candidates who expected to be able to organize, raise money, and put together a platform for November, 2019 to scramble for a race that has become a sprint.
It will be the first election since 2003 where there is no incumbent running – and the first real test of ranked-choice voting in a mayoral race.

If any of the candidates who are generally considered in the top three win, they will make history. London Breed would be the first African American woman to serve as mayor; Jane Kim would be the first Asian American woman. Mark Leno would be the city’s first gay mayor.

We recognize that—and we also recognize that the city is facing an existential crisis. The tech boom encouraged by the Lee Administration has devastated communities, forced tens of thousands of San Franciscans out of town, driven small businesses to close their doors, and enriched a few at the expense of everyone else.

The next mayor needs to be able to admit the mistakes of the past, begin to repair the damage, and find a way to again make San Francisco a city for everyone, not just the wealthy.

We begin with a few basic positions: We believe that the next mayor needs to promote a tax, spend, and regulate agenda. We don’t believe that the private market can solve the housing crisis. We need solutions that start with the concept that too much wealth is controlled by too few, and that equity in this city requires that the mayor use all the powers of their office to redistribute that wealth.

None of the candidates are perfect. We have had many occasions to disagree with all of them. But the only hope for San Francisco is a mayor who will offer a dramatic change from the policies of the past.

Sup. London Breed is not that candidate; she has been a part of the majority on the board that helped the Lee Administration with the failed policies that got us into this mess, and shows no signs of wanting to change the direction of the city. Because of her record on the board, and her stand on the issues, we can’t support her. Sup. Jane Kim and former State Sen. Mark Leno offer hope for change, and we are endorsing them, jointly.

Breed has a compelling life story. Raised by her grandmother in decrepit public housing, she graduated from the public schools, from UC Davis, and a masters’ program at USF. She is smart and charismatic.

But as supervisor, she’s been part of the conservative majority that, among other things, allowed Airbnb to devastate the local housing stock (she was the swing vote to block real regulation). She refused to support the anti-speculator law, Prop. G, in 2014. She also tried to derail a bill by Sup. David Campos mandating more tenant protections for people facing Ellis Act evictions. She was on the side of the Google Bus operators. As board president, she appointed the most conservative supervisors to head the key committees. Her policies have been part of the problem for so long that it’s hard to see her becoming part of the solution.

Her campaign did not respond to our requests for an interview.

We have not always agreed with Jane Kim. She was the sponsor of the Twitter tax break, which helped create the nightmare that is housing in San Francisco—and when we talked to her, she defended that position and said that she would have done it again. But Kim told us that the results of the past seven years of policy at City Hall have not been overall positive. She has been a reliable progressive vote for most of her tenure, and she’s not afraid to tax the wealthy to fund free city college and universal child care. She’s proposing a $1 billion bond act for affordable housing. She’s strongly against SB 827, the Wiener real-estate bill that would upzone practically the entire city.

We haven’t always agreed with Leno, either—although most of our disputes in recent years have been about politics, not policy. Leno has a record of endorsing candidates like Scott Wiener, who was often a terrible vote at the Board of Supervisors and has been even worse as a state senator. He did not endorse David Campos in his race against David Chiu for State Assembly. He endorsed Breed over tenant advocate Dean Preston in District 5 in 2016.

But in the state Senate, he has been a leader on affordable housing and tenant issues. He tried mightily to amend the Ellis Act to prevent some of the worst evictions in the city. He told us he would sue the speculators who are abusing that law. He is more cautious about criticizing the policies of the Lee Administration, but he is not part of the crowd that has been running SF for decades and would bring some desperately needed new blood into the Mayor’s Office.

The Guardian has never done a joint endorsement for mayor—or for anything else. But this race will be decided by ranked-choice voting, and unless the polls and our analysis of the race is seriously wrong, Breed, Leno, and Kim will be in the top three when the votes are counted. It’s critical that Leno and Kim and their allies work together, because the second place votes of the person who finishes third will determine the next mayor of San Francisco.

There are two other candidates in the race who we considered. Former Sup. Angela Alioto was often a progressive in her time on the board, and was a stalwart supporter of public power and a foe of PG&E. She told us that she thinks the policies of the Lee Administration were a disaster, she wants more regulations on Uber and Lyft and the Google buses, and she has shown both tremendous compassion for homeless people and the willingness to put her considerable energy into getting people off the streets. If it weren’t for her ties to the Police Officers Association, we might have given her our number three nod.

But Alioto has gone all-in with the POA, which supports racist, homophobic cops and is the number one obstacle to reform in the department. She is proud of the POA endorsement and is backing the organization’s ballot measure that would overrule civilian authority and force the city to give Tasers to all the cops. That would pretty much disqualify any candidate from our endorsement.

Amy Farrah Weiss ran against Ed Lee in 2015 in a hopeless symbolic race when nobody else would, and she has some valid and creative ideas. But this is the political big time; the next mayor will need a depth of experience and seasoning to take on the crisis we’re facing. Our message to Weiss is the same that we have sent to many candidates in the past: Please, stay involved. Serve on a commission. Run for district supervisor. Shows us a track record. You need to spend some time earning your chops in the minor leagues before you ask us to put you in as a starting pitcher in the world series.

We’re going with Kim and Leno—and urging everyone to rank at least one and two on your ballots.

Supervisor, District 8
Rafael Mandelman
Once upon a time, Jeff Sheehy was a left-leaning president of the Harvey Milk Club, a campaigner for open government, and one of the earliest advocates for equal benefits for LGBT couples. Then he got involved in a campaign to make it easier to turn apartments into condos, and was the later Mayor Ed Lee’s choice to replace Scott Wiener as D8 supervisor.

We give Sheehy credit for defying the Lee Administration’s allies, including Ron Conway, and voting to name Mark Farrell interim mayor, ensuring that Sup. London Breed couldn’t run as an incumbent. But he’s not opposing SB 827, he’s been a part of the moderate camp, and frankly, his heart doesn’t seem to be in the job.

Mandelman is an energetic progressive who has served with distinction on the Community College Board. We haven’t always agreed with him, but he has a strong grasp of the issues and showed his ability to be tough when he was the lone vote opposing the appointment of a new chancellor who has a horrible labor record. Mandelman’s election could shift the balance of power on the board from the moderate-conservative majority to the progressives. He is eminently qualified for the job, would be an independent voice for his district, and works hard. We’re happy to endorse him.

l Seat 4: Phoenix Streets
l Seat 7: Maria Evangelista
l Seat 9: Kwixuan Maloof
l Seat 11: Niki Solis

Judges don’t like elections, which is why you so rarely see a seat on the San Francisco bench come up on the ballot. Under the state Constitution, Superior Court judges are elected officials, but the law has a loophole: If a judge steps down in the middle of their term, the governor appoints the replacement. And unless someone comes forward to challenge that incumbent, the race never even appears on the ballot.

The vast majority of judges in the state who retire or otherwise leave the bench do so in the middle of their terms. So it’s rare that an open seat comes up.

There are good arguments that judicial seats shouldn’t be subject to the electoral process. Federal judges don’t have to stand for election; that gives them the ability to make decisions without fearing political backlash. (The unanimous decision desegregating the schools in Brown v. Board of Education would never have survived a plebiscite in 1954, nor would the judges who signed it.) California appellate and Supreme Court judges aren’t elected, and only have to face the voters every 12 years for confirmation.

But the California Constitution gives voters the say over local judges—except that voters typically don’t pick local judges. The vast majority are appointed by the governor.
And governors of California, for the most part, don’t appoint San Francisco public defenders to the bench. In the past 30 years, only one person has gone directly from the job of defending indigents charged with crimes to the judgeship. Yes, former PDs can become judges, but typically only after they have gone to work in the private sector.

Those are some of the facts that define the four judicial races on the June ballot.
In an unusual move, four deputy public defenders, frustrated with the direction of the courts on issues like bail reform, decided to challenge incumbent judges. We think this is a good thing; while we don’t want to over-politicize the judiciary, we live in San Francisco, and in this progressive city, judges from time to time should have to come into the community, explain what they are doing, and be held accountable.

While the Superior Court judges do hold occasional community meetings and do outreach—more, we are told, than almost any other county bench in the state—there’s nothing like an election to force a debate over the issues involved in running the courts.

Besides, everyone knows the process of becoming a judge is highly political: It just takes place in the Governor’s Office, behind closed doors. So while we agree that there are places in the country where powerful interests are trying to use elections to control the judiciary, the concept of an occasional election for Superior Court judge does not alarm us.

All four of the challengers have been public defenders for many years. They’ve done hundreds of trials. They are eminently qualified for the job. They would also bring a different perspective to the bench; spending a career defending poor people, most of them people of color, against allegations by the police (who, every PD knows, often lie) changes your outlook on the legal system.

Our endorsement of the four challengers isn’t an indictment of the incumbent judges. The challengers say the incumbents were all appointed by Republicans, which is true – but that doesn’t mean they are bad judges. And we are wary of challenging a judge because we disagree with their opinions or rulings.

But we think there should be more diversity of backgrounds on the bench—which means there ought to be public defenders. And we like the idea of challenging incumbents and forcing some discussion—not about rulings or opinions, but about issues like bail reform, cameras in the courtrooms, the fact that judicial operations (like the selection of the presiding judge) are almost entirely secret – and the overall question of whether local judges ought to be elected, not appointed.

To the critics on the bench and their supporters who say this is politicizing the judiciary, or that incumbent judges should not be challenged, we have a solution: Retire at the end of your term, not in the middle, so the votes can choose your replacement. The members of every other branch of government seem to be able to serve out the term they were elected to; judges can do the same. Because the judiciary is already highly politicized, through the appointment process – it’s just that the public never gets a role.

Proposition A
Public Utilities Revenue Bonds
This is a sleeper, a measure by Sup. Aaron Peskin that would allow the Public Utilities Commission, with approval by the supervisors, to issue revenue bonds for clean power projects. It’s attracted very little attention or opposition—but it could be a huge step toward public power in San Francisco.
This city has its own hydropower dam, and by federal law is supposed to run a public-power system. The reason that PG&E still controls the local electric grid is that for more than 100 years, the city hasn’t been able to approve a bond act to build its own delivery system. We generate power; we can’t sell it to retail customers because PG&E owns the lines and polls and meters.
But if the PUC can issue revenue bonds to build out a renewable-energy infrastructure, potentially including a smart grid, we could transform the way we generate, sell, and distribute power in this town. The benefit to the city: Hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, lower power bills, and an end to PG&E’s dirty power. This is a big deal; vote yes.

Proposition B
Prohibiting appointed commissioners from running for office
Prop. B is a pretty basic good-government plan. If you’re holding an appointment to a city commission, and you want to run for office, you should step down. Vote yes.

Proposition C
Taxes on Commercial Rents to Fund Child Care
Prop. C, sponsored by Sups. Jane Kim and Norman Yee, would increase the city’s business tax on commercial rents, raising between $100 million and $150 million a year that would pay for universal child care for low-income and middle-class San Franciscans. The need is radical: Families can pay as much as $20,000 a year for child care—and still, the workers who may be the most important teachers a kid will every have typically earn less than any other educators.

There are more than 2,400 children on the wait list for affordable child care. Prop. C would clear that list, provide subsidies for families earning up to 200 percent of median income, and raise wages for childcare workers.

The measure includes an exemption for small businesses.

Commercial landlords in the city are among the biggest beneficiaries of the tech boom, and can well afford a tax hike. And providing quality child care to San Francisco families is a profoundly important goal. Vote yes.

Proposition D
Tax on Commercial Rents to Fund Housing and Homeless Services
We’re all in favor of raising rents on big commercial property owners—to fund childcare, to fund housing, to fund Muni… and a lot of other things. We would have no problem supporting Prop D—except for the nasty politics. This is a measure backed by Sup. Ahsha Safai and endorsed by Sup. London Breed, and it includes (for no good reason) a poison pill that would invalidate Prop. C if D gets more votes.

Oh, and Prop. D’s taxes are lower.

Why not work together, raise taxes to pay for both childcare and housing? Because Safai and Breed want to undermine Kim. That’s bogus and petty politics. Vote No.

Proposition E
Prohibiting Flavored Tobacco Products
Sup. Malia Cohen pushed for, and passed, a law banning the sorts of flavored tobacco products that are designed to hook kids on nicotine—and the tobacco industry has forced this referendum. The tobacco consultants are buying ads talking about how prohibition doesn’t work, which is true. But prohibiting kids from buying sweets that will turn them into cigarette consumers does work—and that’s why Big Tobacco wants to overturn this. Vote Yes to preserve the ban.

Proposition F
City Funded Legal Representation for Tenants Facing Eviction
San Francisco keeps spending money on housing homeless people—and the number of people on the streets doesn’t decrease. One major reason: Eviction is a major cause of homelessness. Data show that 70 percent of the people living on the streets of San Francisco used to have a home in San Francisco.

So we can’t address the homeless crisis without address the eviction crisis. And Prop. F is a huge step forward.

Most tenants who face eviction don’t have a lawyer. Most tenants who do have a lawyer have a much greater chance of remaining in their homes.

Prop. F would guarantee city funding to provide qualified legal counsel to any tenant facing an eviction. It’s “full scope” funding, meaning the tenant would have representation at every stage of the eviction proceeding.

The cost of this would be fairly minimal, at most about $5 million a year. That’s far less that the city currently spends, and will continue to spend, providing services for tenants who become homeless because of evictions.

Prop. F is a critical step toward slowing the eviction epidemic and preventing homelessness. Vote yes.

Proposition G
Parcel Tax for SF Schools
Prop. G would levy a $298 annual tax on every parcel of land in San Francisco (exempting seniors who live in their homes). The $50 million the tax would raise would go to raising teacher salaries and increasing staffing, particularly at high-needs schools.

SFUSD is having trouble recruiting teachers; many leave the profession after only a few years, and since the city doesn’t pay enough to afford to live here, many teachers look for jobs in other districts. It’s a crisis, and Prop. G is a step toward addressing the problem.
Like any parcel tax, it’s imperfect: A homeowner with a small lot pays the same $298 as the owner of a downtown commercial building (although a lot of the really big buildings include multiple lots). But under Prop. 13, the city can’t raise property taxes, so this is the next best option. Vote yes.

Proposition H
Tasers for police
There’s so much wrong with this measure it’s hard to know where to start.
The Police Officers Association, which is the biggest single obstacle to reform in the department, put this on the ballot. It would force the Police Commission and the chief to implement a policy they oppose (Chief Scott has come out against Prop. G). It would undermine the entire concept of civilian oversight of law enforcement.

The POA is selling a totally misleading line – that Tasers would be an alternative to firearms, and would lead to fewer police shootings. That’s just wrong: A Taser can’t be an alternative to lethal force. By law, the cops can only pull a gun when they believe that their life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger—and, again by law and policy, a Taser can’t be used in that situation, since a good percentage of the time the stun guns don’t work.

No: The cops will use Tasers instead of de-escalation, in cases where suspects are not an imminent threat to anyone. The devices have a long history of failure, and in many cases, have led to the death of suspects who were not threatening anyone.
This is a terrible idea. Vote no.

Proposition I
Relocation of Sports Teams
This one hasn’t gotten much political attention or support (the League of Pissed Off Voters may be the only other progressive group endorsing it). But we like Prop. I. It’s a policy statement saying that San Francisco should not attempt to woo sports teams here from other cities.

The measure is aimed, of course, at the Warriors, and while it’s almost certainly too late to stop that particular move, the measure makes a good point. The Oakland fans were loyal Warriors supporters through a lot of down years, and now that the team is hugely successful, Mayor Lee helped encourage the owners to move to more glamorous digs across the Bay. Ticket prices will be so high that a lot of the longtime fans will be left out; Oakland, which needs sports-team money more than San Francisco does, gets left behind.
The Warriors should have stayed in their old home. San Francisco officials shouldn’t have tried to take the team away. It’s not clear that Prop. I will actually change anything, but we like the sentiment. Vote yes.


United States Senate
Kevin De Leon
There’s absolutely no reason why an 84-year-old can’t run for, and serve in, the US Senate. If Diane Feinstein is healthy and retains her formidable intellect, she can be a senator until she’s 90. Although some argue that she’s unlikely to serve a full term, giving the next governor (gasp: Gavin Newsom?) the ability to appoint a replacement, that’s not our concern.

We just don’t like her politics, and we never have.

If she represented someplace other than San Francisco, and a state that wasn’t California, Feinstein could well be a Republican. We admire her stand against assault weapons and she’s always been pro-choice, but on economic issues, military and intelligence issues, and so much else, she is not in touch with her constituents.

We give state Sen. Kevin De Leon credit for challenging Feinstein in the Democratic primary. He was an imperfect Senate President Pro Tem, but he has strong community roots, and would be a far more progressive senator than Feinstein. He’s got an uphill battle, but we are happy to endorse him.

Congress, District 12
Shahid Buttar
Let’s be honest: This is a protest vote. Rep. Nancy Pelosi will be re-elected, and if—as we hope—the Democrats retake the House, she will once again be speaker. That’s an outcome we could applaud. That said, Pelosi has never represented San Francisco values; she never pushed single-payer health care under Obama, she has taken impeachment “off the table,” she is all about big money—and oh, she privatized the Presidio National Park.

Buttar has never held any elected office, and we don’t like when people run for high positions with no record. He’s only been in the city a few years. But he’s an accomplished lawyer and privacy advocate with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and might add a needed voice on tech regulation.

Might—because we don’t know. He’s never had to take a tough vote, in public, under heavy pressure from his own leadership and other interests. We endorse him only to send a message that San Francisco deserves a member of Congress who represents a real progressive agenda. And that’s not our incumbent.

Delaine Eastin
It’s astonishing that in an age clamoring for more female representation, the only credible woman running for governor of California has gotten so little attention. The race has been dominated by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was a terrible mayor of San Francisco, a worthless Lite Guv who sued his own city to allow more development on the waterfront, and a candidate who makes promises that we—who have watched him for many years—know he won’t keep.

It’s also a bit surprising that Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles, isn’t doing better in the polls, when Latino voters are among the fastest-growing demographic in the state (and immigration is a dominant issue).

Newsom has always been a corporate Democrat. Villaraigosa has a lot of offer, but it’s hard to back someone who was at war with the teachers union in his home town.

Eastin is the only candidate who is (really) committed to reforming Prop. 13, to single-payer health care, and to radically changing the state’s priorities. We are proud to endorse her.

Lieutenant Governor
Gayle McLaughlin
We now know what a bad lieutenant governor looks like. We have a chance to see what a truly progressive, engaged, organizer can do in the job. McLaughlin was part of the movement that created the Richmond Progressive Alliance and was an excellent mayor of that town, fighting back against Chevron and pushing for rent control and worker rights. She’s the obvious choice.

Attorney General
Dave Jones
The incumbent, Xavier Beccera, was appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown to fill the term of Kamala Harris, who left to become a US Senator. Beccera has become the face of the legal resistance to the Trump Administration’s attacks on immigrants, and he deserves immense support for that. Jones was an excellent insurance commissioner who is strong on single-payer. But the issue that decided this for us is the death penalty: Jones is against it, and Beccera has accused him of being unwilling to enforce the law. We’re with Jones.

Secretary of State
Alex Padilla
This office has a lot more power and influence than it seems; the secretary of state not only runs California elections but oversees the registration of corporations and a vast database of information. Padilla has done a credible job and is pushing the Trump Administration on issues like the effort to discourage immigrants from answering the census. We’d still like to see a more active effort by his office on voter registration (why not send a representative to speak at every high school in the state and get every student to pre-register or register?) But we’ll endorse him for another term.

State Controller
Betty Yee
Yee has always been a solid progressive, from her time on the state Board of Equalization (which she helped overhaul) to her role as state controller. She clearly deserves another term.

State Treasurer
No endorsement
Fiona Ma, who will almost certainly win this office, was a bad SF supervisor, a bad state Legislator, and will be a state treasurer who caters to the rich and powerful. We can’t back her, and there’s nobody else remotely qualified who is running. The League of Pissed-Off Voters went with Kevin Akin, who is running on a platform of creating a public bank, but he has no experience in finance and no chance of winning. Register your protest if you want.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tony Thurmond
Thurmond was a member of the Richmond City Council when the progressives held control, but he never got the Richmond Progressive Alliance nod because he refused to pledge not to take corporate money. He moved on to the state Assembly, and is now running for the school’s chief job. He’s by far the best candidate and has consistent progressive support.

State Board of Equalization District Two
No endorsement
First of all: This board, thanks to a history of screw-ups and corruption, now has almost no real power. It’s just a high-paid sinecure for politicians who have statewide ambitions. San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen is running; based on her record, we can’t support her. Catherine Gagliani, A San Joaquin County state senator, isn’t much better. This office ought to be abolished anyway.

State Assembly, District 17
State Assembly, District 19
No endorsement
We were never big fans of Assemblymember David Chiu, who cost hundreds, maybe thousands of San Franciscans their homes by pushing a bill through the Board of Supervisors written and backed by Airbnb that legalized the practice of turning apartments into hotel rooms with very few restrictions. The city has since realized that policy was a failure and tightened it up—which does no good for the people who were evicted while Chiu’s law was in effect.

We’ve found Assemblymember Phil Ting a bit better—he’s more accountable and willing to listen to the community.

But Ting is a co-sponsor of SB 827, the bill by State Sen. Scott Wiener that would upzone practically the entire city, and which amounts to a massive transfer of wealth to property owners and developers. That’s a deal-breaker for us.

So we can’t back either incumbent (and we have to wonder: Why do incumbent state legislators get a free ride in SF?)

Regional Measure 3
Ick. Ugh. We are not at all happy with the process that got us to Regional Measure Three, a $4.45 billion program that will fund a wide range of transit improvements by raising taxes on all of the region’s bridges by $1 immediately and $3 by 2025.
For starters, this is a Metropolitan Transportation Commission project, and the MTC remains an out-of-control agency that promotes growth at all costs. It’s also a regressive tax, hitting the commuters who are forced to drive across bridges because housing costs have forced them farther and farther away from jobs in the central Bay Area. It includes a bunch of highway projects that aren’t needed (the whole idea is to get people out of their cars, right?) and looks like the project list was put together not in the name of regional planning but to mollify various constituencies.
It’s not the way this should be done.
Still: Charging higher tolls for cars is not bad if the money goes for projects that will really allow people to commute without cars. Bringing Caltrain into downtown SF, expanding BART to San Jose, increasing ferry routes across the Bay, spending $240 million on new buses for Muni and AC Transit … these are things that need to be done.
We would prefer a tax on the tech industry that created this gridlock. We would prefer a better planning process. But the needs are so real that we are willing to hold our noses and say Yes.


Proposition 68
Drought, water, and parks bond
This modest $4 billion bond, out on the ballot by the Legislature, would go to natural-resources projects including parks, flood protection, and river and waterway improvements. Vote yes.

Proposition 69
Requires transportation spending to go for transportation projects
Prop. 69 is an attempt by the Democrats in the state Legislature to defend the $5 billion increase in gas taxes and vehicle license fees against a likely referendum in the fall. It guarantees that all the new tax money will go to transportation projects and won’t be diverted for other state needs. This is a solution in search of a problem, since that money hasn’t been diverted, but it’s harmless and may convince some voters not to overturn the gas tax. Vote yes.

Proposition 70
Supermajority vote for cap-and-trade fund
This measure, backed by Gov. Brown, would make it harder to spend money collected from the cap-and-trade pollution-control program. Almost every legitimate environmental group in the state opposes it. So do we; vote No.

Proposition 71
Effective date for ballot measures
This is a simple clean-up bill that makes sure all ballot measures take effect at the same time, five days after the election is certified. It has little opposition.

Proposition 72
Rain-capture systems and property taxes
Should people who install rain-capture systems as a drought-prevention and water-preservation program have to pay higher property taxes as a result? Probably not. This is another carve out to the insane Prop. 13, but sure. Vote yes.


Bay Guardian endorsements for the Democratic County Central Committee

Cindy Wu is running for DCCC, 17th Assembly District.

Here are the Bay Guardian endorsements for Democratic County Central Committee, 2016.

The race for Democratic County Central Committee, often a second thought on the June ballot, is now a big deal, a proxy for the defining struggle to save what’s left of San Francisco from corporate power and real-estate greed.

Cindy Wu is running for DCCC, 17th Assembly District.
Cindy Wu is running for DCCC, 17th Assembly District.

The DCCC sets policy for the local party. A lot of times that means passing resolutions that don’t have immediate policy impacts. In the best of times, it means registering voters, building a more progressive party structure.

But right now, what’s at stake is the party’s endorsement in the November supervisorial races. Control of the city is up for grabs – the six seats on the board that are on the ballot will determine whether the mayor and the tech moguls can dominate city politics for the next two years, or whether the rest of us have a fighting chance.

There are, to be blunt, two sides in this race. We know that some candidates want to appeal to everyone, to say they are “independent” or “moderate” or somewhere in the middle of the battleground.

But at a time of crisis – and anyone who thinks this city isn’t in crisis isn’t paying attention – there is, for better or for worse, no room in the middle. Either you are on the side of the evictors, the developers, the landlords, Airbnb, and the one percent – or you think that it’s unacceptable for the chair of the Democratic Party of San Francisco to be a lobbyist for the Board of Realtors.

So there are, in essence, two slates for the DCCC. One is made up of the supporters of Mary Jung, the landlord lobbyist who is the current chair. The other includes people who have promised two things: They will vote to replace Jung with a progressive (Sup. David Campos is our first choice) – and they will support the progressive candidates for supervisor this fall. The candidates on the Reform Slate have vowed that they will not back the candidates of the mayor, Ron Conway, and the power structure under any circumstances.

There are people on the Reform Slate who might not be our first choices. Bevan Dufty was the supervisor who swung to vote to put Mayor Lee in office, and the city has been terribly damaged by that decision. But he has seen that damage first-hand as the city’s homeless coordinator, and is now standing with the left in this race. We were not always in agreement with Sophie Maxwell when she was on the board.

And there’s a strange twist – after the progressives spent months finding a broad-based diverse slate, John Burton, the former state Senate president and chair of the state Party, decided to run. That might be good news if he is part of the progressive slate, since he will almost certainly win, and Burton has been a liberal legend in Sacramento, but on local issues, he has a much more mixed record.

This race is so important that both sides have scrambled to get high-profile candidates. Name recognition is critical when the voters look at choosing 14 people on the East Side and 10 on the West Side, and nine of the 11 members of the Board of Supes have filed to run. Two School Board members are on the ballot, and one Community College Board member.

Angela Alioto, former supe and daughter of a mayor, is running. Tom Hsieh, Sr., who was one of the most conservative people to serve on the Board of Supes in the past 30 years, is on the ballot.

There are arguments for lots of different candidates, but in the end, this is a classic battle of Us Against Them. The Reform slate will kick the Board of Realtors out of the chair of the Democratic Party and ensure that the DCCC helps progressives win in the fall. The Real Estate Slate will keep things the way they are – which is, frankly, unacceptable.

So here are the Bay Guardian endorsements. Everyone on this slate has promised to replace Jung as chair and to support the progressives for supervisor. We expect that most of the progressive groups in town will be offering a similar slate. It’s our best hope for the first round in the next fight for the soul of the city.

17th Assembly District (East Side)
Alysabeth Alexander
Tom Ammiano
David Campos
Petra DeJesus
Bevan Dufty
Jon Golinger
Prathima Gupta
Frances Hsieh
Jane Kim
Rafael Mandelman
Sophie Maxwell
Aaron Peskin
Leroy Wade Woods
Cindy Wu

19th Assembly District (West Side)
There are 10 seats up in this part of town. So far, only seven have met our criteria. If others decide to commit to supporting the Reform agenda, we will add them in for our final endorsements in late May, before the absentee ballots drop.
Brigitte Davila
Sandra Lee Fewer
Hene Kelly
Leah LaCroix
Eric Mar
Myrna Melgar
Norman Yee

Stay tuned for the 2018 Clean Slate Election Endorsements Guide—in print and online

** Sign up for our newsletter and get the Endorsements in April.
** Support us so we can do this.
** Get news updates from daily site 48hills
** Snag a retro Bay Guardian T-shirt or tote!

We’ve lived through a lot of bad mayors. Nine years of Dianne Feinstein, who created a downtown-development gold rush that began the gentrification crisis we see today. Eight years of Willie Brown, who made insider-dealing an art form. Eight years of Gavin Newsom, who (while legalizing same-sex marriage) governed by press release and built a career on attacking homeless people. Seven years of Ed Lee, who encouraged a tech boom that has devastated vulnerable communities in San Francisco.

It’s time for a change in direction—and the June election will be a rare chance for voters to elect a candidate who is not already an incumbent (and thus a prohibitive favorite).

The Bay Guardian will be doing an endorsement issue in April. We will be conducting interviews with the major candidates, and will post the audio unedited here for you to review. We’ll also be printing copies of our endorsements and distributing them throughout the city for you to read and the to the polls.

We are looking for a candidate who is willing to admit that the policy direction of the city over the past seven years has been a failure, that the negative impacts of the City-Hall-driven tech boom (massive displacement, soaring housing costs, horrible traffic, and a culture that celebrates free-market, out-of-control capitalist disruption at the expense of the stability of vulnerable communities far outstrip the benefits (mostly jobs for new arrivals, not existing residents, and spin-off jobs that don’t pay enough to pay for housing).

We want to see a clear, effective agenda for rebuilding San Francisco values—starting with economic justice and equality.

We also recognize that, as Rebecca Solnit notes, a vote is a chess move, not a Valentine; none of the candidates in the race are perfect, and with ranked-choice voting, realistic political strategy comes into play.

We will also be endorsing in the race for governor, in the hotly-contested contest for D8 supervisor – and for everything else on the state and local ballot.

To the candidates, we say: Soaring rhetoric and promises aren’t enough. We want to see a record of accomplishment—and an agenda that we can believe in. To the voters, we say: The Guardian endorsements are entirely independent. We decide our recommendations based on what we think is best for the city that we have been a part of for more than 50 years.

Stay tuned—the ballot is confusing, the choices aren’t clear, but we are here to help.

Our print-out guide to take to the polls

Here’s a simple guide to all of our endorsements:


Jane Kim and Mark Leno (you can vote for them both)


Seat 4: Phoenix Streets
Seat 7: Maria Evangelista
Seat 9: Kwixuan Maloof
Seat 11: Niki Solis




GOVERNOR Delaine Eastin





STATE TREASURER No endorsement

Tony Thurmond

No endorsement




















THE GUARDIAN CLEAN SLATE GUIDE: Take this to the polls!

Hillary Ronen, Sandra Lee Fewer,Dean Preston, Aaron Peskin, and Kimberly Alvarenga, along with Norman Yee (not pictured) are out choices to keep the progressives in control at City Hall





Guardian endorsements: A quick guide

Jane Kim is the progressive candidate for state Senate

For a full explanation of Guardian endorsements, see here. For an easily printable, PDF version of this guide, click here.

President: Bernie Sanders

US Senate: Kamala Harris

Congress, D 12: Nancy Pelosi

State Senate, D 11: Jane Kim

Superior Court Judge: Victor Hwang

State Assembly, District 17: No endorsement

State Assembly, District 19: Phil Ting

Prop. 50: Yes

Prop. AA: No

Prop. A: Yes

Prop. B: No

Prop C: Yes, yes, yes

Prop. D: Yes

Prop. E: Yes

Democratic County Central Committee District 17 (Remember you can vote for ONLY 14 or your ballot will be spoiled):

Wade Woods

Cindy Wu

Petra DeJesus

Bevan Dufty

David Campos

Jane Kim

Frances Hsieh

Rafael Mandelman

Sophie Maxwell

Alysabeth Alexander

Tom Ammiano

Jon Golinger

Pratima Gupta

Aaron Peskin

Democratic County Central Committee, District 19 (You can vote for ONLY 10):

Norman Yee

Leah LaCroix

Sandra Lee Fewer

Brigitte Davila

Hene Kelly

Myrna Melgar

Eric Mar



Opinion: The progressive case for Measure AA

Editor’s note: The Bay Guardian endorsed against Measure AA. You can read our argument here.

This is a response by Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, and Aaron Peskin

San Francisco progressives stand united in our commitment to protect and restore San Francisco Bay, the Bay Area’s defining feature and greatest natural treasure. That’s why we strongly support Measure AA, our region’s response to the critical challenge of restoring the Bay’s wetlands over the next 20 years, before sea level rise due to climate change makes doing so impossible or prohibitively expensive.

A consortium of scientists has found that the Bay needs 100,000 acres of wetlands to keep it clean and healthy, but the Bay has only 44,000 acres of wetlands today. Another 36,000 shoreline acres are under public protection and awaiting restoration, but until now, there has been no funding to do the work.


Measure AA, a parcel tax of $12 per year throughout the Bay Area, would raise $500 million over 20 years for wetlands restoration to reduce trash and toxic pollution; improve water quality; expand habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife; increase public access to shoreline parks and recreation; and provide a cost-effective, green solution to protect Bayfront communities – including low income areas of San Jose, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Richmond, Bay Point and Marin City – from flooding due to sea level rise.

San Francisco wetlands restoration sites that have been identified as potential recipients of Measure AA funds include Yosemite Slough at Candlestick Point, China Basin, Heron’s Head Park, Islais Creek, Slipways Park and Crane Cove Park on Pier 70, Tennessee Hollow, and Warm Water Cover Park.

Fittingly, San Francisco’s leading progressive officials and organizations, including Sen. Mark Leno and Asm. Phil Ting; Supervisors Eric Mar, Aaron Peskin, Jane Kim, David Campos, and John Avalos; the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, the San Francisco Tenants Union, and Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council; UNITE HERE Local 2 and SEIU Local 1021 all have endorsed Measure AA.

How is it, then, that our friend Tim Redmond can oppose Measure AA? Because he ignores the specific purpose and powers of the public agency that is proposing Measure AA, and the details of how it works.

The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was established by the California State Legislature in 2008 for only one purpose: “to raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitats in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline.”

It has no regulatory authority over San Francisco Bay or its shoreline. It has no say in local government land use entitlement and project permitting decisions. It is even legally prohibited from owning any real property. It can only raise resources by a two-thirds vote of the electorate under its jurisdiction, and it can only allocate resources for wetlands restoration under a specific set of criteria set forth in state statute – a set of criteria that under Measure AA would become even more specific and restrictive.

Like the San Francisco projects listed above, other wetlands restoration projects throughout the Bay Area that are anticipated to be eligible for Measure AA funding are already known and have already been scoped in detail by their various public agency and public trust sponsors. The list of these projects is published on the Restoration Authority’s website at

The Restoration Authority’s actions are also subject to checks and balances by both a statutory stakeholder Advisory Committee with an ongoing voice in its policies and grant making and an Independent Citizens Oversight Committee that will review its performance under Measure AA.

Finally, the Restoration Authority’s Governing Board is composed entirely of local elected officials, who surely would face serious consequences from their own constituents if they were to act unwisely. That these officials are appointed by ABAG, a regional planning agency itself composed of local elected officials from cities and counties throughout the Bay Area, is solely a function of the reality that neither state nor local officials supported creating a region-wide elected body for this agency’s limited purpose.

All in all, there is every reason to think we can hold the Restoration Authority’s spending accountable, and that Measure AA is a positive step toward regional collaboration beneficial to the public interest.

Measure AA is a tiny tax of a dollar per parcel per month that will generate huge benefits for San Francisco Bay, for its wildlife, and for all Bay Area residents. It is our best chance to protect and restore our beautiful Bay as a legacy for future generations. Please join us in voting Yes on Measure AA.

ENDORSEMENTS: Kim for state Senate, Sanders for President, Yes on C …

Jane Kim is the progressive candidate for state Senate


The Democratic primary season is almost over. It’s almost certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee (and, for the sake of the nation, we hope she will be the next president). But it’s critical that people still go to the polls June 7.

On the national level, it’s about sending Bernie Sanders to the convention with as much clout as possible to shape the debate and the party platform.

Jane Kim is the progressive candidate for state Senate
Jane Kim is the progressive candidate for state Senate. Photo by Luke Thomas

On the local level, it’s a political war for the soul of the city.

It’s too bad that Mayor Ed Lee has created one of the most economically and politically divided cities in years. Just a few months into his final term, the mayor is so unpopular that he can hardly go out in public anymore; the police scandals, the homeless problems, the housing crisis … everywhere he goes, he is hit with questions he can’t answer.

And he has put San Francisco politics in a position where there is no middle ground left.

We have always appreciated and looked for independent voices in elective office, people who weren’t part of one party or slate or another. We are always wary of political machines, not matter who is in charge.

But in Ed Lee’s San Francisco, 2016, there is no room for a middle ground. The developers, the real-estate industry, the tech companies, Ron Conway and his folks are so close to controlling this town and driving the rest of us out that we have to fight back as a united front. There are young men of color dying in the streets, shot dead by the police, and the mayor is saying that the chief is doing a great job. There are too many evictions to count, day after day, and the mayor is missing in action. People who won’t choose sides under these conditions have already made a decision that the current situation is tolerable.

That’s very, very wrong.

The left in SF has always been a bit fractious, as it should be: Progressives don’t follow leaders very well, and the best of us are brought up to question authority. There has never been any form of serious party unity on the left, and that’s a good thing.

There are disagreements in this election, over some endorsements and some ballot measures, and we are among those who are not supporting the elected progressive leadership on some issues, like the Rec-Park set-aside (No on B!)

But overall, this is an election that is defined by two sides, by two approaches to public policy, by two distinct visions of San Francisco. And for the most part, we are urging our readers to look at the election in those terms. If you think the displacement, the evictions, the police killings, the housing crisis, the destruction of entire communities is okay, that a few moderate changes around the edges are all we need, then you are with the mayor. If you think this situation is radically unacceptable, then you are against him, and his allies, and the people he and his big-money backers support.

The June election is a precursor to the more important election in November, when six seats are up on the Board of Supervisors. The people elected to the Democratic County Central Committee will decide who the party endorses in those races – and the balance of power at City Hall will be up for grabs.

When it comes to the key races – state Senate and DCCC – there is no middle ground. Those days ended with Ed Lee cast his lot with the Conways of the world and put the city under siege. In that (unfortunate) spirit, our selections follow.





President (Democrat)

Bernie Sanders

The most remarkable thing about this nominating contest is that it’s happening at all, and that California is playing at least some role. By the time June rolls around every four years, the decisions of the major parties are mostly pretty well done; California doesn’t matter. That not only hurts the state’s voters, who are denied a role (other than giving money) in choosing a presidential nominee; it hurts all of the down-ticket races, where turnout is lower than it should be.

It’s pretty much impossible at this point for Sanders to head into the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination; even an overwhelming win in California won’t change the math, and Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. But the battle is close enough, and public interest high enough, that the Sanders campaign will be bringing tens of thousands of voters, many of them new voters, to the polls June 7.

We don’t know how far down the ballot those voters will go – in fact, the Sanders campaign has largely failed so far to make the point that electing a president isn’t nearly enough: His agenda, and the Clinton agenda, will go nowhere if the Democrats don’t also take back the Senate and the House, and the House will continue to be dominated by right-wing Republicans unless Democrats take back state Legislatures and governor’s offices … and San Francisco will continue to be dominated by the real-estate industry and tech companies unless local voters put progressives in office at every level.

That said, the Sanders Movement has made huge strides nationally, energizing a new generation of voters and activists – and if he’s serious about his political “revolution,” he needs to make sure that those supporters don’t fade away when the election is over.

Sanders has his flaws, as a candidate and a potential president. He comes from an overwhelmingly white state, and has had trouble reaching out to and working with communities of color. He often comes across more as angry than charismatic.

But he’s the only major candidate for president in decades who has made income and wealth inequality and the failure of our political system the centerpiece of his campaign. He is talking about single-payer health care. He’s talking about raising taxes on the highest earners (even Obama didn’t go that far). He’s talking about breaking up the big banks and cracking down on Wall Street.

He’s both inspiring and refreshing – and the popularity of his message has put the notion of class conflict, of the 1 percent, of the collapse of the middle class on the national agenda in a way we haven’t seen since the heyday of Occupy.

We are not among those short-sighted people with no sense of history who say that there is no difference between Clinton and the Republicans, and that if Sanders loses they won’t come out to vote for her. If Clinton is, as expected, the Democratic nominee, we will support her and urge everyone else to do the same.

But for now, vote for Bernie Sanders, to let Clinton and the rest of the corporate leaders in the Democratic Party know that there is a strong constituency for economic change (which could influence her choice of VP). And let’s hope Sanders can keep his message alive.


United States Senator (Democratic)

Kamala Harris

We all might as well face facts: The day she announced she would not challenge Gavin Newsom for governor and would instead seek to replace longtime Sen. Barbara Boxer, Kamala Harris was the prohibitive front-runner. She will win the primary, and she will win the general election this fall.

We could do worse. The US Senate is not a bastion of progressive thought, and Boxer was one of its most reliable left-leaning members. Harris comes from a more moderate tradition; she was at best a cautious district attorney in San Francisco, who did nothing to take on political corruption. She has been a bit more aggressive in Sacramento, particularly on issues like same-sex marriage and immigration. She is smart, politically savvy, and incredibly ambitious.

Her opponent, Loretta Sanchez, has had a hard time getting much traction, and isn’t raising any important issues that could force Harris to debate (like, for example, the death penalty, which Harris didn’t promote as SF district attorney but has aggressively defended as AG).


Congress, District 12

Nancy Pelosi

Allow us to wallow for a moment in historical fantasy.

In 1987, after Sala Burton died of cancer, San Francisco had a rare contested race for Congress. Nancy Pelosi, who had never held any elective office and whose experience in politics was largely as a fundraiser, was the pick of the Burton Machine. Harry Britt, a supervisor and heir to Harvey Milk’s legacy, was the progressive community candidate. On Election Day, Britt came in first – but Pelosi’s campaign, using a new tactic of organizing absentee ballots, narrowly emerged as the victor. She quickly decided that San Francisco didn’t matter anymore – she wanted to be a national leader, so stepped adroitly away from the issues of her district (she was very, very late to endorse same-sex marriage) and became the first woman to serve as speaker of the House.

She also used her clout to support conservative politicians and causes at almost every level in San Francisco. She most famously turned the Presidio into a corporate park, allowing George Lucas to build an office building in what was supposed to be a national park, saving him $60 million in taxes, and setting the standard for the privatization of national parks everywhere.

A few thousand votes, and Britt might have had that seat – and while he would never have been speaker, he would have paid much more attention to his district and would have used his clout to promote a progressive agenda at home. San Francisco would be a different city today.

But that was then and this is now, and Pelosi is the best hope the Democrats have for taking back the House. If that doesn’t happen in the next two election cycles, she should probably step down and retire and give someone else a chance.

We’re glad to see Green Party candidate Barry Hermanson in the race, and it would be nice if he could get more votes than the Republican candidate and face Pelosi in the November election. That might force her to debate some critical local and national issues with a real progressive. Pelosi’s going to win anyway, so voting for Hermanson is a perfectly legitimate way to register a protest against the direction of the Democratic Party.


State Senator, District 11

Jane Kim

The race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is leaving Sacramento after a distinguished career because of term limits, is one of the defining elements of San Francisco politics in 2016. The June election is only Round One – thanks to the odd “top two” primary system in place in California, both Democrats will advance to the November election. So, like David Campos and David Chiu two years ago, Kim and Sup. Scott Wiener will face off twice.

The two candidates represent the two sides of San Francisco politics today. Kim is part of the progressives on the Board of Supes, and Wiener is in the moderate (by SF standards, conservative) camp. They have taken dramatically different positions on issues, and it shows in their support.

Pretty much every left-leaning group in the city is with Kim. Wiener has the conservative unions, including the Police Officers Association, and it’s unclear to us why any San Francisco politician would want to be associated with that organization right now.

In fact, there’s no way to explain Wiener’s bizarre vote in April to oppose a bill sponsored by his ally and mentor Leno that would increase public access to police disciplinary records except for his wooing of law-enforcement groups.

Wiener is a hard-working supervisor and likes to say that by any standard, he would be a progressive in Sacramento (the state Senate is not by any stretch a bastion of liberal thought). He’s accessible and thoughtful. He’s been supportive of nightlife and entertainment in the city.

It’s just that on economic issues, he’s a conservative – that is, he believes in market-based solutions to issues like housing, he didn’t support the anti-speculation tax, he doesn’t support higher mandates for affordable housing, he was on Airbnb’s side in the critical vote on saving housing from conversion into hotels … he’s just wrong on most of the issues we care about.

Kim isn’t perfect, and she’s not by any stretch a left-wing radical. She supported the Twitter tax break (which turned out to be a big mistake). She works with developers to figure out how projects can get approved (yes, with additional affordable housing.) There have been times when she has clashed with her progressive allies.

But she presents a very different vision than Wiener. Kim has been on the right side of nearly every contested vote at the Board of Supes, from affordable housing to police accountability to Airbnb. There are plenty of moderate Democrats in Sacramento; the person representing San Francisco should be pushing the economic and political limits from the left.

And there’s a way better chance of that with Jane Kim.

Both candidates are smart, qualified, and ambitious, and both could play a role in the city’s future. The winner of this race could wind up as a candidate for Congress, or mayor; if that’s Wiener, the conservative element in the city would be empowered.

Wiener would be a state Senator who used his local influence to promote candidates and policies that favor the moderate side Kim; would be a part of a progressive coalition.

So this is about more than a state Senate seat, about more than how either of the candidates would vote in Sacramento. It’s about the city’s future and which side will control it.

That’s an easy choice. Vote for Jane Kim.


State Assembly, District 17

No endorsement

There will be a time, no doubt, when we will come around, and accept that David Chiu is the state Assembly member from the east side of San Francisco, and he will do some valid things in the future. But he was the author, with the help of Airbnb lobbyists, of the bill that legalized that company’s lucrative enterprise, which has taken thousands of housing units off the rental market in San Francisco, and he resisted mightily any efforts to make the law enforceable. He has endorsed Scott Wiener for state Senate (over his old friend and one-time ally Jane Kim).

When he first ran for public office, Chiu positioned himself as a progressive. He has sold out that constituency, and in the process, won higher office. He’s going to get re-elected, but this time around, he won’t have our endorsement.


State Assembly, District 19

Phil Ting

Ting represents the more conservative side of the city, but he’s been a remarkably progressive member of the Assembly. As a former Assessor, he’s introduced legislation to close one of the critical loopholes in Prop 13, a scam that allows businesses to cheat the state when their property changes hands. He’s now the chair of the powerful Budget Committee, and we’d love to see him use that position to talk about more progressive taxes (like an oil-severance tax).

Ting, unlike Chiu, has aligned himself to a significant extent with the progressives. He’s endorsing Jane Kim for Senate. And we’re happy to endorse him for another term.

Superior Court Judge

Victor Hwang

Judicial elections are rare in San Francisco. In theory, judicial office is an elected position, but in practice, judges hate elections and avoid them whenever possible. Most judges retire mid-term, which allows the governor to appoint a replacement; sitting judges don’t even appear on the ballot when they are up for re-election unless someone challenges them, which hardly ever happens.

But in this case, incumbent Ernest Goldsmith decided to step down at the end of his term. So this is an unusual opportunity for the local legal profession – there’s an open seat, and any qualified lawyer can run.

Frankly, we’re surprised there aren’t more contenders: Lots of people who ought to be judges and who will never get appointed by any governor (Matt Gonzalez comes to mind, as does his former law partner Whitney Leigh) could be running. And it’s not as if the San Francisco Superior Court is doing just fine; there are some pretty bad judges on the bench, and it needs a nice shakeup.

In this case, there are three candidates, all of whom have some solid credentials, and some drawbacks.

Most of the political attention has focused on Victor Hwang, a civil rights lawyer, former public defender, and former prosecutor, and Paul Henderson, a long time deputy district attorney who for the past five years has worked for Mayor Ed Lee. A third candidate, Sigrid Irias, who has spent most of her career in corporate law, has won the endorsement of the Tenants Union and the Harvey Milk Club.

In terms of the geopolitics of the election, the race is something of a subset of the state Senate battle: Jane Kim is a strong backer of Hwang, and most of her allies are endorsing him. Scott Wiener and almost everyone in his camp backs Henderson.

But Irias, who has worked successfully as a pro-tem judge (including in eviction cases) and is former president of the La Raza Lawyers Association, is very much a contender.

Frankly, this is not an easy call for us.

Henderson is a smart, accomplished lawyer with a successful career as a prosecutor. He was the odds-on pick to replace Kamala Harris when she was elected attorney general, but at the last minute then-Mayor Gavin Newsom shocked everyone by appointing the police chief, George Gascon.

He gets good marks from everyone who worked with him, on both sides; the defense bar considers him ethical and reasonable, and as a gay African American man, he understands the reality of discrimination (and police abuse).

He is the only candidate who strongly and unequivocally supports more openness in the courts, who told us the judges should hold public meetings, and who would support televising most trials and court hearings.

But Henderson is part of the Ed Lee operation. For five years – while the local cops shot men of color with impunity, while the tech industry took over the city, while thousands were evicted – he was sitting there as a deputy chief of staff and criminal justice advisor. He told us that he “wasn’t the one making the decisions,” but he was part of that team. (And it’s not as if he was forced to take that job – law firms all over town would have lined up to hire him if he didn’t want to be part of the Lee Administration.) In the battle for San Francisco, he chose his side.

Irias is a credible candidate who could turn out to be a fine judge. She has a good understanding of the role of justice in administering the courts, and has done well as a pro tem. But her entire career has been in corporate law; she’s done very few trials, and has no background at all in criminal law. The Tenants Union likes the way she’s handled herself as a pro tem judge in landlord-tenant cases, and that’s a strong plus.

On paper, Hwang is by far the best candidate. He’s been a public defender (in LA), a civil rights lawyer, and a prosecutor. He’s had plenty of trial experience and has a strong background in public interest law (at the Asian Law Caucus and Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach). He’s on the Police Commission.

As managing attorney with the ALC, Hwang helped to get false charges dismissed against Wen Ho Lee, a scientist who the government claimed was giving nuclear secrets to China. The case turned out to be a horrible example of racial profiling, and Lee was cleared. Hwang was a Bay Guardian Local Hero in 2004.

We are still unhappy that Jane Kim engineered the move to have Hwang to replace Police Commissioner Angela Chan; Hwang has been a decent member of a generally bad panel, but Chan was better, and should have kept her seat. Still, it’s hard to hold that against a candidate for judge.

The bigger issue is that the defense bar, and in particular members of the Public Defender’s Office, have serious problems with Hwang. As a prosecutor, they say, he’s been unreasonable, pushing for harsher sentences and refusing to drop charges that don’t make sense. Public Defender Jeff Adachi, despite a long history with Hwang, has not endorsed him.

Hwang told us that as a prosecutor in the Hate Crimes Unit, he may have been “too aggressive” in pushing criminal enhancements that some of his predecessors bargained away. He made it clear when he arrived in that job that he would not dismiss hate-crime allegations under almost any circumstances – which is fine in theory, but in practice, the cops and DA’s Office often file charges that turn out to be bogus, and most line prosecutors in this city work with the defense to avoid trying cases that aren’t justified.

We understand the need to prosecute hate crimes, and prosecutors and defense lawyers often clash. But the folks in the PD’s Office and the DA’s Office typically treat each other with respect and maintain a professional relationship, and the concern we are hearing in this case is unusual.

Hwang got a harsh lesson in political reality when the Democratic County Central Committee, led by the allies of the city’s first Chinese mayor, whom Hwang helped elect, refused to endorse him (because the DCCC is run by the Wiener side of the party, which favors Henderson).

Given the options, and his long history of progressive public service (and the fact that nearly every progressive leader in the city is backing him) we will go with Hwang. But this is just the first round in the election; the two top finishers will face the voters again in November. And Hwang needs to convince the larger community that he can work with all sides with respect.


State ballot measures

Proposition 50

Suspension of Legislators



It’s dangerous to allow anyone to suspend from office an elected official. The voters have an excellent way to remove people who violate public trust; it’s called the recall. But recall elections are tricky and expensive, and Prop. 50 would deal with the situation we’ve seen on too many occasions recently: State legislators like Leland Yee have been accused (and later convicted) of serious felonies. Colleagues were able to suspend them – but they still got paid. This just stops their paychecks. Not a solution to corruption. Not always fair (there is such a thing as due process, even for someone accused of a serious crime). It’s kind of a feel-good measure that will have no real impact on the serious problem of pay-to-play politics in Sacramento. But good-government types like the League of Women Voters are supporting it, and we see no reason not to go along.


Regional measure

Prop. AA

Regional wetlands tax


This measure ties an urgent cause, the restoration and protection of the San Francisco Bay’s wetlands, to a dangerous policy, a regional tax levied by appointed officials. It also starts to expand regional government in the Bay Area – before anyone has had a chance to discuss what that ought to look like.

Long before sea level rise was recognized as a threat, environmental groups were working to save The Bay’s shrinking tidal marshes. The wetlands cleanse and retain the Bay’s waters, help prevent flooding, and provide habitat for wild plants and creatures. Climate change has made their value even more apparent. To borrow the Sierra Club’s apt phrase, tidal marshes offer “a natural and growing levee” that slows storm surges and lowers the height of waves and encroaching waters.

And the Bay wetlands are in dire need of help. A regional approach makes sense; everyone in the nine Bay Area counties has a stake in the wetlands’ health. Measure AA would raise $500 million over 20 years for projects that reduce trash and pollution, restore wildlife habitat, improve water quality, and more.

But the measure has problems. While an annual $12 parcel tax seems like a small price to pay for ensuring the wetlands’ health, it’s unfair: Google and other corporations whose big new campuses are threatened by rising water would pay the same $12 as individual homeowners. A tax on the assessed value of property would be much more equitable.

And Measure AA has a much bigger problem.

The tax would be levied and administered by the San Francisco Bay Authority, a public agency created by the California Legislature. The Authority is governed by a five-member board of appointees who are chosen by yet another appointee, the president of the Association of Bay Area Governments, which is itself on the verge of a hostile takeover by an autocratic state agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

So who would decide how to spend the money? Nobody who was elected to that job. Whom do you complain to if you think the decisions are wrong? Good luck with that; SF’s current representative is Scott Wiener, and it’s entirely possible in the future that nobody ever elected by a San Francisco voter (and thus not accountable to any of us) will be doling out our tax dollars.

Measure AA also furthers the creeping privatization of government, stating that “[t]he Authority shall give priority to projects that,” among other things, “[m]eet the selection criteria” of the Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and San Francisco Bay Joint Venture.

San Francisco Bay Joint Venture is a public-private entity whose members include the Bay Planning Coalition, a private organization that last year backed MTC’s efforts to remove key anti-displacement policy from the forthcoming update of our region’s official land use and transportation blueprint, Plan Bay Area.

The measure’s supporters note that it would be the first regional tax in the Bay Area. If it passes, it would set an somewhat disturbing precedent at a time when local business and political elites are clamoring for the expansion of regional government– without any discussion of how that government should be run.

We’d gladly support an equitable proposal to restore and protect the Bay wetlands that mandated democratically accountable governance. We’d also gladly welcome a much larger discussion of how regional government should work – how much power it should have, and how the people who wield that power should be chosen.

Regional government may very well be part of the Bay Area’s future, and there are good arguments in favor of it (should someone be able to tell Cupertino not to approve a huge new Apple headquarters without providing any housing at all)? But it involves really complex issues of local land-use authority, local spending authority, and how the members of a regional agency are chosen.

We’re already worried about how the regional bodies, the Association of Bay Area Government and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, operate with little oversight (which means, in the end, in the interest of developers, not the public). Measure AA takes us a long way further down a path that we haven’t even begun to map.

Paying taxes for wetlands restoration is a fine idea. We can even live with the unfair parcel tax. But first let’s decide who ought to handle the money. Vote No on AA


San Francisco ballot measures

 Proposition A

Public Health and Safety Bonds


This is a $350 million bond act to improve seismic safety at critical facilities like SF General and the city’s ambulance deployment facility. There’s $20 million (nowhere near enough) for homeless shelters and other related programs.

There’s no reason to oppose this. We wish the mayor would put more effort into raising money for housing and back off from his pledge never to put new bonds on the ballot until old ones are paid off (which amounts to a “no new taxes” position.

But sure, vote Yes on A


Proposition B

Recreation, Park, and Open Space Fund

No. Seriously, No

It’s hard to oppose something that sounds like more money for parks and open space, which we all love. But Prop. B doesn’t bring in a single penny in revenue; it’s another in a long string of “set-asides,” which would guarantee a percentage of the city budget for one particular department.

We’re dubious about set-asides anyway — we supported the Children’s Fund, which is a set-aside for programs for people who can’t vote, but at a certain point, all this does is tie the hands of the supervisors during budget season. Parks are important; are they more important than housing, homeless services, or public health? Is it more important to have money for open space than for critical psych emergency beds at SF General?

Those aren’t easy questions, and there are reasons that the supes and the mayor, with public input, vote on a budget that balances lots of needs. So this thing starts off with a high threshold to get our support.

Now let’s look at where the money would go.

We’re big supporters of parks, recreation, and open space – but we are not fans of the current management of the Rec Park Department. General Manager Phil Ginsburg seems to think that privatization and “monetizing” the parks is a great idea, and we don’t. He kicked the venerable nonprofit Haight Asbury Recycling Center out of a tiny corner of Golden Gate Park because rich neighbors didn’t want to see poor people coming by with empty bottles. It took a ballot measure to keep him from turning Coit Tower into a corporate party center.

We can’t support the current direction of the department. We can’t support this set-aside. It’s a bad idea on every level. Vote no. Seriously – vote no.


Proposition C

Affordable Housing Requirements


The most important part of Prop. C is not the numbers. The measure would increase to 25 percent the amount of affordable housing required in many private projects – but it would also take that number out of the City Charter and allow the supes to change it by ordinance.

The developers demanded, as part of the deal for their support of the mayor’s affordable housing trust fund a couple of years ago, that the city limit – in the charter, the city’s Constitution – the amount of affordable housing that city officials could demand. That number was set at 12 percent.

It was a mistake: Not only is that number way too low, but it’s inflexible, and the housing situation in San Francisco changes all the time.

Developers have testified at public hearings that 25 percent is too high, that the numbers don’t add up. That’s something that ought to be discussed – and the developers should come forward with the figures to prove their case. But the city’s own studies show that market-rate housing creates a demand for low-income housing, since all the rich people who move into the new luxury condos need people to serve their coffee and clean their homes. If the affordability level is below 30 percent, the city actually loses ground. So if the developers of luxury housing can’t meet reasonable levels, then their projects don’t make sense for anyone.

Prop. C is a critical part of the progressive housing agenda, pitting Sups. Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin against the mayor and the developers. By all means, vote Yes.


Proposition D

Investigations of Officer-Involved Shootings


San Francisco has an unusual procedure for investigating police misconduct. In most places, the cops investigate themselves. In this city, thanks to legislation by former Sup. Harry Britt in the early 1980s, an independent civilian agency takes complaints.

It’s not a perfect system, since the mayor appoints the head of the Office of Citizen Complaints, and the agency is often limited by the lack of aggressive leadership. But it’s better than the alternative, and has tremendous potential.

Right now, the OCC only acts on complaints; if nobody files one, the agency can’t do anything. Sup. Malia Cohen has put forward this measure, which would mandate civilian review of all office-involved shootings.

In practice, it might not make much difference – somebody almost always files a complaint about police shootings. But it would enshrine in policy the idea that an outside civilian agency should always investigate when the cops shoot someone.

Vote Yes, and hope that the Police Commission and future mayors appoint stronger independent leadership at the OCC.


Proposition E

Paid Sick Leave


The language of this measure is pretty complicated, but the bottom line is simple: Prop. E would make the city’s sick-leave law consistent with state law, without in any way limiting or reducing the benefits that San Franciscans get. There’s no opposition. Vote yes.



San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

The race for Democratic County Central Committee, often a second thought on the June ballot, is now a big deal, a proxy for the defining struggle to save what’s left of San Francisco from corporate power and real-estate greed.

The DCCC sets policy for the local party. A lot of times that means passing resolutions that don’t have immediate policy impacts. In the best of times, it means registering voters, building a more progressive party structure.

But right now, what’s at stake is the party’s endorsement in the November supervisorial races. Control of the city is up for grabs – the six seats on the board that are on the ballot will determine whether the mayor and the tech moguls can dominate city politics for the next two years, or whether the rest of us have a fighting chance.

There are, to be blunt, two sides in this race. We know that some candidates want to appeal to everyone, to say they are “independent” or “moderate” or somewhere in the middle of the battleground.

But at a time of crisis – and anyone who thinks this city isn’t in crisis isn’t paying attention – there is, for better or for worse, no room in the middle. Either you are on the side of the evictors, the developers, the landlords, Airbnb, and the one percent – or you think that it’s unacceptable for the chair of the Democratic Party of San Francisco to be a lobbyist for the Board of Realtors.

So there are, in essence, two slates for the DCCC. One is made up of the supporters of Mary Jung, the landlord lobbyist who is the current chair. The other includes people who have promised two things: They will vote to replace Jung with a progressive (Sup. David Campos is our first choice) – and they will support the progressive candidates for supervisor this fall. The candidates on the Reform Slate have vowed that they will not back the candidates of the mayor, Ron Conway, and the power structure under any circumstances.

There are people on the Reform Slate who might not be our first choices. Bevan Dufty was the supervisor who swung to vote to put Mayor Lee in office, and the city has been terribly damaged by that decision. But he has seen that damage first-hand as the city’s homeless coordinator, and is now standing with the left in this race. We were not always in agreement with Sophie Maxwell when she was on the board.

And there’s a strange twist – after the progressives spent months finding a broad-based diverse slate, John Burton, the former state Senate president and chair of the state Party, decided to run. That might be good news if he is part of the progressive slate, since he will almost certainly win, and Burton has been a liberal legend in Sacramento, but on local issues he has a much more mixed record.

This race is so important that both sides have scrambled to get high-profile candidates. Name recognition is critical when the voters look at choosing 14 people on the East Side and 10 on the West Side, and nine of the 11 members of the Board of Supes have filed to run. Two School Board members are on the ballot, and one Community College Board member.

Angela Alioto, former supe and daughter of a mayor, is running. Tom Hsieh, Sr., who was one of the most conservative people to serve on the Board of Supes in the past 30 years, is on the ballot.

There are arguments for lots of different candidates, but in the end, this is a classic battle of Us Against Them. (Alito, for example, was a strong supporter of public power and defied PG&E on the Board of Supes, and we would love to support her – but she’s endorsing some of the pro-real-estate supervisor candidates and is allied with the real-estate slate. She may agree with us on some issues, but she’s missing the larger politics of Ed Lee’s city, where there is no middle ground.)

The Reform Slate will kick the Board of Realtors out of the chair of the Democratic Party and ensure that the DCCC helps progressives win in the fall. The Real Estate Slate will keep things the way they are – which is, frankly, unacceptable.

So here are the Bay Guardian endorsements. Everyone on this slate has promised to replace Jung as chair and to support the progressives for supervisor. We expect that most of the progressive groups in town will be offering a similar slate. It’s our best hope for the first round in the next fight for the soul of the city.


17th Assembly District (East Side)

Alysabeth Alexander

Tom Ammiano

David Campos

Petra DeJesus

Bevan Dufty

Jon Golinger

Pratima Gupta

Frances Hsieh

Jane Kim

Rafael Mandelman

Sophie Maxwell

Aaron Peskin

Leroy Wade Woods

Cindy Wu


19th Assembly District (West Side)

There are 10 seats up in this part of town. So far, only seven have met our criteria. If others decide to commit to supporting the Reform agenda, we will add them in for our final endorsements in late May, before the absentee ballots drop.

Brigitte Davila

Sandra Lee Fewer

Hene Kelly

Leah LaCroix

Eric Mar

Myrna Melgar

Norman Yee


How to vote

A simplified guide to the June 7 ballot

The June primary ballot is a bit confusing, so we’re going to try to clear up what
your choices are and how to be sure you get to vote in the races that matter to you.

First of all, everyone who is registered to vote gets to vote in the primaries for US
Senate, US Congress, and state Legislature, and in the SF judicial race.

In the unlikely event that you want to vote in the Republican presidential primary,
you have to be a registered Republican, and good luck with your party, which is
imploding as we watch.

If you want to vote in the Democratic presidential primary, you have to be either a
registered Democrat or a No Party Preference voter. According to the SF Elections
Director John Arntz: “When voting by mail, NPP voters must request a party ballot
be mailed to them. If the NPP voters do not request a party ballot, the Department
will mail ‘NPP’ ballots which will not list any candidates for president.”

There are lots of NPPs, who used to be known as Decline to State. Democrats
allow those voters into the party’s presidential primary; Republicans don’t.

If you want to vote for Democratic County Central Committee, YOU MUST BE A
REGISTERED DEMOCRAT. Voters with No Party Preference don’t get a ballot
for DCCC.

If you want to vote for DCCC and are not registered as a Democrat, you have to re-
register by May 23. You can go down to City Hall and do it at the Department of
Elections, or online at

If you’re not sure what your registration status is, please don’t wait until Election
Day; double check it now. It’s easy; just go here. Takes two minutes.

If you can’t follow this and need more help, go to, where you can
find an easy-to- follow flowchart.

Early voting at City Hall opens May 9. You can contact the Department of
Elections at 415-554- 4375.

East Bay Endorsements

Jesse Arreguin calls himself "Berkeley's kind of mayor." We agree

We don’t have the bandwidth to do for our friends across the Bay the detailed work we did in San Francisco, so we aren’t going to weigh in on every single race and every single ballot measure. That wouldn’t be fair to anyone.

But we want to make a few key endorsements – and they reflect our longstanding efforts to help the progressive movement on both sides of the Bay (and in this case, we want to do all we can to help some candidates who are under attack for standing in favor of police accountability).

If you want detailed explanations and endorsements that you can take to the polls, check out the East Bay Express, which has done a fantastic job. Except for a couple of modest quibbles, we are in agreement with the Express on everything.

Our (selected) recommendations follow.

Alameda County Measure A1


This $580 million affordable housing bond is critical to the East Bay’s ability to build housing (and deal with a regional crisis that has been caused in part by San Francisco and Peninsula cities attracting big tech companies without building enough housing to handle the new workers). It needs a two-thirds vote, and that will be tough in the conservative parts of the county, so every vote in the more progressive areas is critical.

Jesse Arreguin calls himself "Berkeley's kind of mayor." We agree
Jesse Arreguin calls himself “Berkeley’s kind of mayor.” We agree


Berkeley Mayor

  1. Jesse Arreguin
  2. Kriss Worthington

These two longtime progressive councilmembers are running a strategic ranked-choice voting campaign with the aim of putting a real activist back in charge of the city. We will quote the Express: “The truth is, for too long, Berkeley has been run by cautious moderates.”

Arreguin has the experience and the political drive to put the city back where it ought to be – in the forefront of progressive change. Once upon a time, Berkeley led the state on issues like rent control and tenant protection, social and economic justice, and police accountability. Arreguin is the best candidate to restore that vision. He’s been solid on tenant and affordable housing issues, understands that the solution of every problem is not more developer giveways, and has long been a supporter of higher minimum wages. He’s endorsed by Bernie Sanders. Worthington has been the voice of the left on the council for many years, and we’ve always endorsed him in the past. At this point, Arreguin is the strongest candidate with the most hope of winning. Vote Arreguin 1 and Worthington  2.


Berkeley Rent Board

Christina Murphy, Alejandro Soto-Vigil, Leah Simon-Weisberg, Igor Tregub

This is the pro-tenant slate. Every renter group and rent-control advocate is with these four. So are we.


Measure U1 YES

Measure DD NO


Berkeley landlords are generally doing just fine, and the big landlords are doing even better. Measure U1 is a modest per-unit tax on property owners with more than five units, and it will bring in $3.5 million a year for affordable housing. Measure DD is a landlord trick designed to counter U1.



Oakland City Council, District 1

Dan Kalb

Kalb, who represents this North Oakland district, has been a progressive and a voice of reason on the council – and now he’s under attack by the Oakland police union. Kalb and Council Member Noel Gallo authored a measure (LL) that would create an independent Police Commission; the cops don’t like it, and have just dropped more than $12,000 into an independent expenditure committee attacking him. Kalb deserves re-election – and we don’t like this kind of payback.

Oakland City Council District 3

Noni Session

The incumbent in this district simply has to go. As the Express notes,

Lynette Gibson McElhaney isn’t just “ethically challenged,” as the East Bay Times wrote in its endorsement. She has demonstrated repeatedly that she’s willing to use both her public office and also position as a nonprofit operator to benefit herself and her family members.

Sessions is a far better alternative who would bring more progressive (and ethical) politics to the council.


Oakland City Council, District 5

Noel Gallo

Gallo was the driving force behind Measure LL, and the cops are now funding his opponent. The mayor is after him. He has been a strong voice on the council, and deserves support for standing up for police accountability.


City Council, At-Large

Rebecca Kaplan

Always one of our favorite Bay Area politicians, Kaplan is a solid progressive vote on the council, a regional leader, and full of creative ideas. Her leading opponent, Peggy Moore, works for the mayor and has been engaged in some misleading (to say the least) campaign activities. We’re happy to endorse her for another term.


Oakland School Board, District 7

Chris Jackson

Jackson was a solid member of the San Francisco Community College Board, a voice against the state takeover and a friend of labor. He’s since moved to Oakland, and is running for School Board. He’s got a great political future and we’re happy to endorse him for this seat.


Oakland Measure JJ


Rent control in Oakland has never been terribly strong, and JJ is an effort to improve it. The measure would add just-cause eviction protections to thousands of units and make it harder for landlords to raise rents about the legal limit.


Oakland Measure LL


A first step in bringing real police accountability to Oakland, Measure LL would create a Police Commission and start the process toward establishing a civilian-oversight body that could investigate misconduct. Vote yes

Richmond City Council

Melvin Willis

Ben Choi

Willis and Choi are the candidates of the Richmond Progressive Alliance and have strong labor support. Choi is a member of the Planning Commission; Willis is a community organizer with ACCE. Both support rent control and are great choices.

Richmond Measure L


This is the latest step in a long battle to bring rent control to Richmond, where housing prices have been soaring. An attempt by the City Council to enact a reasonable law was shot down by the California Apartment Association. Now the battle has gone to the ballot. Measure L would not only create a rent control system in the city, but would undo a recent rash of huge rent hikes by setting the base rent as the amount charged in July 2015. It’s a huge deal; vote yes.

BART Board District 7

Lateefa Simon

We already endorsed Simon for this district that spans both San Francisco and the East Bay. As we noted:

This one’s as easy as it gets. The incumbent, Zachary Mallett, has been a disaster. He bungled the BART strike, he showed no respect for the workers, he has shown no evidence that he is capable of continue in office, and he needs to be replaced. Lateefah Simon is about the best candidate for BART Board that we have ever seen, a longtime community activist, former director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Macarthur Genius Award winner, and someone who understands that transit is a social justice issue.

This district covers Southeast San Francisco and much of the near East Bay. She is supported by the BART workers’ unions – and by pretty much everyone else with any sense in San Francisco and the East Bay. We could not be happier to endorse her.