The ‘Deep Slate: November 2016 Edition

DeepSlateMainLogo.png

UPDATED 11/14/16 WITH RESULTS as of now ūüėĪ (still subject to change)

ED NOTE: After 7 days of writing, this post is finally finished.  welcome to my voter guidezzzz.zzzz….zzz.zzzz   OWWW!

Ugh-oh-matic. 42 ballot measures. I hate ballot measures Рthey fly in the face of the value of a representative democracy. 42? GACK.

If you’re wondering why this happens, it’s because everyone knows that presidential election years are when the most voters turn out. That means everyone who thinks high voter turnout will help them get something through, or is just looking to make a name for themselves, jumps on board.

Anyway, I’d whine and moan more, but I have a ridiculous amount of writing to do, and better get cracking. You, dear reader, should go use the bathroom, put on your comfy pants, and settle in for a long read.

Here we go…

Regardless, GO VOTE!

‘deep

.ps:¬†Let’s start a new tradition: #votingstickerselfie¬†AFTER YOU VOTE: Take a pic with your voting sticker on your nose & hashtag it as #votingstickerselfie!

.pps If you…

  • like what you read, please do let me know! Also questions, criticisms, comments welcome!
  • want to know where to vote, jump to the Extras below
  • want to get an email when I post the next ‘Deep Slate, just email me!

WHAT IS THIS?:

Every San Francisco election cycle since sometime in the ‚Äė90s, I write up one of these posts, my voting guide, which I megalomaniacally call the ¬†‚Äú‚ÄėDeep Slate.‚ÄĚ

The format of this post is as follows:

  1. The LIST: the simple list of my endorsements for this election. 
  2. The DETAILS: the whys and wherefores of each endorsement. This is how I arrived at each position.
  3. My VALUES: a brief explanation of my values and sources, to help make sense of my opinions.
  4. Sources: a collection of my sources and a tiny bit about how I arrive at my endorsements.
  5. Extras: If you want to know where to vote, or want to find older ‘Deep Slates‚Ķ.

Also note that a few days after the election, you can come back & check the RESULTS by clicking here.

THANKS:

Thanks, as always, to the number of folks who have asked me for my opinions. I know I say it every time but it is quite true: I really am honored by your interest.

And big props to my lovely wife, for proofreading this and also for being so supportive of all my meetings & involvements!

So without further preamble, let’s dive in!

THE LIST:

Note: If you just want this list as a handy, printable text version, just click here.

FEDERAL:

President: Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine LOST (Donald Trump / Mike Pence)
U.S. Senate: Kamala Harris WON
U.S. Representative: Nancy Pelosi WON

STATE:

C.A. Senate: Scott Wiener WON
C.A. Assembly, D17: David Chiu WON
C.A. Assembly, D19: Phil Ting WON

Prop 51: School Bonds: no PASSED
Prop 52: Medi-Cal Hospital Fee: Yes PASSED
Prop 53: Revenue Bond Vote: NO NO NO DID NOT PASS
Prop 54: Legislative Transparency: Yes PASSED
Prop 55: Upper Income Tax Extension for Education & Healthcare: YES PASSED
Prop 56: Cigarette Tax Increase: YES PASSED
Prop 57: Criminal Sentencing Reform: YES PASSED
Prop 58: English Language Learning: YES PASSED
Prop 59:¬†Anti-Citizen’s United Statement: Yes¬†PASSED
Prop 60: Condoms in Porn: No DID NOT PASS
Prop 61: Prescription Drug Purchasing: No DID NOT PASS
Prop 62: Repeal the Death Penalty: YES DID NOT PASS
Prop 63: Gun Control (Ammunition) improvements: YES PASSED
Prop 64: Marijuana Legalization: YES PASSED
Prop 65: Carry Out Bags: NO DID NOT PASS
Prop 66: Death Penalty Enforcement: NO PASSED
Prop 67: Plastic Bag Ban: YES YES YES PASSED

JUDICIAL:

Judge: Paul Henderson LOST (Victor Hwang)

SAN FRANCISCO:

School Board: Matt Haney (YES!), Jill Wynns, Stevon Cook, Mark Sanchez (Haney, Cook, Sanchez & Rachel Norton WON, Wynns LOST)
Community College Board: Rafael Mandelman (YES!), Tom Temprano, Shannell Williams, Amy Bacharach (Williams, Mandelman, Temprano & Alex Randolph WON, Bacharach LOST)
BART Director: Gwyneth Borden LOST (Bevan Dufty)
BART Director: Lateefah Simon WON
Supervisor D1: Andy Thornley LOST (Sandra Lee Fewer)
Supervisor D3: Aaron Peskin WON
Supervisor D5: London Breed WON
Supervisor D7: Norman Yee WON
Supervisor D9: Hillary Ronen WON
Supervisor D11: Kim Alvarenga LOST (Asha Safai Рcould change)

Prop A: School Bonds: YES PASSED
Prop B: City College Parcel Tax: Yes PASSED
Prop C: Repurpose Unused Funds for Affordable Housing: YES PASSED
Prop D: Force immediate elections for elected vacancies : No DID NOT PASS
Prop E: Budget Set-aside for Street Trees: YES PASSED
Prop F: Allow 16yr olds to vote in local elections: Yes DID NOT PASS
Prop G: Improve Police Oversight: YES PASSED
Prop H: Create Public Advocate Position: NO DID NOT PASS
Prop I: Budget Set-aside for Seniors: No PASSED
Prop J: Increase Sales Tax for Transportation & Homeless Services (Pt.I): YES YES YES PASSED
Prop K: Increase Sales Tax for Transportation & Homeless Services (Pt.II): YES YES YES DID NOT PASS
Prop L: Change Appointments & Budgeting for the Municipal Transportation Agency: NO DID NOT PASS
Prop M:¬†Restructure the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development & Mayor’s Office of Housing: NO¬†DID NOT PASS
Prop N: Non-Citizen Voting for School Board: Yes PASSED
Prop O: Exemptions for Candlestick Point Office Development: No PASSED
Prop P: Require At Least 3 Bids for Affordable Housing Projects: NO NO NO DID NOT PASS
Prop Q: Prohibit Homeless Sidewalk Tent Encampments: No PASSED
Prop R: Neighborhood Crime Unit: no DID NOT PASS
Prop S: Hotel Tax Allocation for Homeless & Arts: no PASSED
Prop T: Prohibiting Lobbyist Contributions: Yes PASSED
Prop U: Change the Income Eligibility for Affordable Housing Designation : NO NO DID NOT PASS
Prop V: Soda Tax: YES YES YES PASSED
Prop W: Real Estate Transfer Tax: YES PASSED
Prop X: PDR Building Protection : NO PASSED
Prop RR: BART Safety & Reliability Bond: YES YES YES PASSED

Again, if you want these as a handy, printable list, just click here.

THE DETAILS:

FEDERAL:

President: Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine
Wow. There is so much I could say here. I could write a bunch of paragraphs on why I really admire Hillary Clinton & what I make of her various faults as well. I could write a bunch of paragraphs about serious policy points I disagree with Donald Trump on. I could also write about what a VAST NUT JOB / THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY / SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS AUTHORITARIAN Donald Trump is. Instead, I’ll just give you some of my favorite links:

The New York Times endorsement:

“Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.”

 

A great Slate article on my biggest knock on HRC Рher Iraq vote:

“In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. …. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word‚ÄĒhe invaded before giving the inspectors enough time. Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth…. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth”

I really think we SHOULD talk about why she is so unpopular.:

The sexism is less virulent now than it was in 2008, she said, but still she encounters people on rope lines who tell her, “‚ÄÖ’I really admire you, I really like you, I just don’t know if I can vote for a woman to be president.’ I mean,¬†they come to my events¬†and then they say that to me.‚ÄĚ

This video from Joss Whedon (my master!) NAILS IT!

And we’ll just end with something from President Obama:

There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody, more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America… I hope you don’t mind, Bill, but I was just telling the truth, man.

 

DeepHilI volunteered a LOT with Clinton/Gore in ’92 here in SF, and so in ’93 a bunch of us got to go meet the new First Lady ūüôā )

 

U.S. Senate: Kamala Harris
Here is what I wrote back in June for the primary & it covers it nicely:

Kamala Harris is a major California politican who I honestly haven’t followed too closely, but many people I respect hold her in really high regard. She’s much smarter and more capable than the her best Democratic challenger, Loretta Sanchez, and she has my vote.

U.S. Representative: Nancy Pelosi
The good thing about Nancy Pelosi’s longevity in Congress is that I can keep recycling stuff I’ve written before about her (this from back in 2014):

Nancy Pelosi is practically unopposed and she does really pretty well at the Federal level. No, she doesn’t completely represent my values, but if you spend twenty minutes considering how much CRAY CRAY is in Congress these days, you’ll thank your yoga mat that someone who thinks even vaguely similar to San Francisco has any power in our nation’s capital. Done, move along.

STATE:

C.A. Senate: Scott Wiener
Ugh. I hate races between two great candidates. And what do I hate more than that? Races between two great candidates that devolve into mud-slinging smear fests. This whole thing makes me sad. But, how to vote?¬†Here’s what I said in June:

This is the other race that I’m dreading being pilloried for, but at least I’m not torn. I really have a great deal of respect and admiration for both of these politicians, and Jane Kim is a personal friend. Either of them will be excellent legislators at the state level.

That being said, both of their politics are a bit cagey: Jane Kim has been more classically progressive, and while on housing she’s done great work, on other issues she’s been more centrist (Twitter tax break, Soda Tax). Scott Wiener is often attacked by the left as being a moderate/conservative (for San Francisco), or worse (due to his stand on homeless encampments for example) but has also been a real champion for transportation and sound city planning. Neither are perfect; they are also capable of taking politically expedient stands that I find horrible: Jane’s scapegoating “Google Buses” or her opposition to the Soda Tax or Scott’s vote against increasing public access to police disciplinary records or his championing of dog-walking in ecologically sensitive natural areas like Fort Funston. Nonetheless, they are also both super smart and super capable, so in the end, I think we really can’t lose with either of them in the State Senate.

For me, personally, it has been a difficult choice, because Jane is a friend and someone who I think the world of, but in the end, I’m going with Scott because as President of the SF League of Conservation Voters, I’ve worked with him a lot more on environmental and transportation issues that are near and dear to my heart, and I’m constantly impressed with his intelligence and his detailed, thoughtful and thorough approach to issues in the City (whether I agree with him or not.)

As several enviro friends have said to me ‚ÄúThere is a clear choice: Scott.‚ÄĚ I’m all in (see my editorial in the Examiner).

(The good news is we can‚Äôt lose – we’re going to have a great State Senator either way.)

ScottWiener

C.A. Assembly, D17: David Chiu
David is running largely unopposed and is a solid legislator. Done.

C.A. Assembly, D19: Phil Ting
Phil is also running largely unopposed, and was just awarded a Golden Wheel Award by the Bike Coalition for some of his excellent legislation. Done.

Prop 51: School Bonds: No
I read the voter guide and was all prepared to say “HELL YES” to school bonds, as I would for almost anything that supports education, but then I noticed that Governor Brown, who I generally like, was against it & thought “What the hell?” So as I did more research, it became pretty obvious that this is one of those things that points out why ballot measures suck. If you position it as,

SCHOOL BONDS. FUNDING FOR K-12 SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K-12 public school facilities;…

who else but a Republidiot would oppose it? It’s misleadingly phrased so decent-minded folks will say “Sure!” But digging into the details, you learn that this bond was put together by and for developers of school buildings like the California Building Industry Association. I like the San Jose Mercury’s takedown & this article from the LA Times because they touch on the environmental argument against Prop 51:

Unlike all the other school-bond measures placed on the ballot since the State Facilities Grant Program began in 1998, this one wasn’t put there by the Legislature with the governor’s approval. In fact, Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t had anything good to say about Proposition 51. “I am opposed to the developers’ $9-billion bond,” he told The Times in February, referring archly to the construction industry’s role as the proposition’s main financier. Brown also argued that it would promote sprawl and continue an inequitable system based on which school districts get to the application line fastest, not which ones need it the most.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office had an even more critical view of the current approach to funding school construction in its 2015-16 budget report. “Notably,” it said, “the existing program fails to treat school facility costs as an ongoing expense despite the recurring nature of facility needs, allows disparities based on school district property wealth, fails to target funding according to greatest need, results in excessive administrative complexity, and lacks adequate accountability mechanisms.” Ouch. But that was just the start. The report went on to point out that as long as there is money in the state fund, developers of big new housing projects don’t pay more than half the cost of building the schools necessary to serve those homes. That extra subsidy for new construction at a time when many existing schools are underutilized only encourages the sprawl that has been an environmental and resources drain on the state.

In looking at all the ‚Äúyes‚ÄĚ endorsements this measure has gotten, I‚Äôm thinking it is a measure that‚Äôs hard to oppose because ‚Äúbeing against schools‚ÄĚ is politically toxic, which leads us back to why I hate bond measures. Don’t believe the hype. Vote No.

Prop 52: Medi-Cal Hospital Fee: Yes
This is a fairly straightforward (though terribly wonky) fee that private hospitals pay to help support Medi-Cal. It is expiring and needs to be extended, which it has been done several times before. Important. Uninteresting. Yes.  

UPDATE on 52: David Glasser (in the comments section below) and Matthew Bain on Facebook  both point out that this measure is changing the State Constitution to make this fee set up structural and thus requiring a 2/3 vote of the public to change it.  My position stands, but it is an interesting take.  Read more here & here if you are interested.

Prop 53: Revenue Bond Vote: NO NO NO
The heinous Prop 13 was one grand example of CA shooting itself in the head, and this would be another. However, this is nowhere near as far reaching, in that it only really effects LARGE projects (like High Speed Rail…. MUST. GET. TRAINS.). Nonetheless, it is a similar attempt to be our own worst enemy. Simply put, this will make it harder to create large, revenue-producing projects by requiring a very high electoral bar, a 2/3 statewide vote, for revenue-generating bonds. So, say if we in the Bay Area wanted to float a large bond, perhaps to build a BART tunnel or something, voters in Orange County would have a say, even though it is practically irrelevant to them. Why is this a good idea? This measure is only on the ballot because a single Central Valley farmer spent $4.5 million dollars to get it here. This is not how public policy should be made.

“The problems with initiatives like this one are almost too many to list. Instead of a real seasoning before legislators and state officials, there’s only one author. Clearer language and attempts at compromise are ignored. If it proves disastrous, it can’t be amended or repealed without another public vote,”

No53

Prop 54: Legislative Transparency: Yes

This bill mostly does two things:

  • Requires the text of legislation to be voted on be published 72hrs in advance
  • Requires the Legislature to record all its public meetings & post them within 24 hours

These seem to be good things. Evidently, many bills get rushed through and voted on with very little reading by our legislators because amendments and riders get tacked on hastily at the last minute (from the SF Chronicle):

Examples abound of the legislative leadership bypassing the normal public process to do the bidding of a special interest. There was that budget measure that limited the amount of reserves local school districts could maintain as a cushion against lean times (a gift to the teachers union, which wanted to make those dollars available for immediate spending); the 2009 waiver of environmental rules for a downtown Los Angeles football stadium (on the argument that time was of the essence to secure an NFL team … the project never broke ground); or the 2011 bill that Democrats rushed through to force all voter initiatives on the November ballot, thus breaking a deal with Republicans to put spending reform on the June 2012 ballot.

A varied coalition of folks, including the League of Women Voters and all the major newspapers in CA support this, while a smaller group of folks, including the Democratic Party, oppose, mostly on the ground that this could have the consequence of giving more time to special interests to lobby laws. But frankly, that argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and even if they are right, protecting us from lobbyists by making legislation more obscure to vote on is just kinda insane. I agree with all the newspapers… Yes.

Prop 55: Upper Income Tax Extension for Education & Healthcare: YES
In 2012, during the big fiscal meltdown, we approved a small tax on folks with incomes over $250K, to help with the budget. It is expiring. This measure would extend it for another 12 years. If it is extended, in good years it is expected to raise $9 billion, and in bad $4 billion. Half of this money would go to schools & community colleges, a bunch to Medi-Cal and the rest to the rainy day fund & debt payments. This is a BIG YES.

Yes55

Prop 56: Cigarette Tax Increase: YES
The current tax on cigarettes is $0.87 a pack, and does not cover the latest noxious cancer-vector: e-cigs. This knocks the tax up to $2.87, and includes e-cigs. If that seems like a lot, remember that California taxpayers spend $3.58 BILLION every year‚ÄĒ $413 per family, whether they smoke or not‚ÄĒpaying medical costs of smokers. The funds will go primarily to state health programs. DONE. YES.

Yeson56

Prop 57: Criminal Sentencing Reform: YES
One of the most shameful things about California is our prison-industrial complex. In 2009 & 2011, the US government ordered us to reduce our prison population. The Supreme Court ruled that California prisons were overcrowded and violated the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment! This is a thoughtful measure designed to reduce that load by allowing possible parole for thousands of nonviolent felons. It would also help keep the problem from happening by giving judges, not prosecutors, the authority to decide whether juveniles should be tried as adults. And it allows prisoners to earn increased parole time for good behavior. Done and DONE. YES.

Yes57

Prop 58: English Language Learning: YES
This measure allows schools, teachers & parents decide the best way to teach English to non-English speakers, rather than a statewide mandate to force most students to learn in English-only classes (which was created by Prop 227 in 1998). Different kids have different needs. YES.

Prop 59:¬†Anti-Citizen’s United Statement: Yes
This is a “statement” vote in that it doesn’t do anything other than tell the world how California feels about the horrible Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision of 2010. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights to free political speech as individuals do. And since donating money to campaigns is considered “free speech”, CU opened the floodgates of corporate money influencing today’s elections – can you say SuperPACs? It is long since time to stop this madness, and though this is only the tiniest step in that direction, it is still worth a Yes. (Also, if it fails, it might be a significant setback for the real work of getting a Constitutional Amendment overturning CU.)

Prop 60: Condoms in Porn: No
I <3 California. :-/ There is no reason this should be on the ballot. If there were a real workplace safety issue this was addressing (there isn't - the industry already has well functioning testing regimes) it would come in the form of safety regulations form Cal-OSHA. This is just stupid. Vote No. (There is much more that can be said about this, and if you care, the SF Chronicle does it well here as does Ballot.fyi.)

Prop 61: Prescription Drug Purchasing: No
Wow, this one makes my head hurt. This is evidently a well meaning attempt to rein in the outrageous cost of prescription drugs by forcing the state to only buy drugs at the heavily discounted rate the Veteran’s Administration gets (by federal law). Presumably this would apply market pressure on drug makers to lower their prices. Or…. it could do a host of other things that would be bad like incentivizing drug companies to stop offering some drugs to the VA, or to charge the VA more. No one really knows. Here’s a great quote from the LA Times:

As much as Proposition 61’s sponsors rail about drugmakers’ greed, however, they assume that the very same avaricious, monopolistic companies will do nothing in response to the squeeze on the industry’s profits if the measure passes ‚ÄĒ that somehow, scruples or lack of market power will stop them from compensating by raising the prices they charge private insurers, consumers and the VA itself. That’s either naive or magical thinking, and it’s why Proposition 61 deserves a no vote.

The excellent Ballotpedia article on 61 presents some other useful tidbits:

  1. The state’s legal analysts can’t predict how much it will save the state on drug costs, if any
  2. Millions and millions are pouring in on both sides, making this one of (if not the) most expensive ballot initiative campaign in California history
  3. The mix of people for and against this is dizzying, with groups & people I trust and distrust on both sides. (Though it must be said, more groups I trust are “Yes”, and more groups I distrust on the “No” side – with me! Like the drug companies – eeek.)

So what to do? Look, the problem of out of control drug prices is as near as your nearest kid with an EpiPen, so this is a problem that desperately needs to be solved. I get that the drug companies’ big bucks have made this really difficult to solve at the legislature, but with this many unknowns and this big of a deal, I think we should vote no until a better proposal gets hammered out. First do no harm. Vote no.

(Ed. note: I’d like to give a shout out to the League of Pissed of Voters voting guide for their thoughtful write up, which got me to change my mind about this one.  Nice work!)

Prop 62: Repeal the Death Penalty: YES
If you believe that our court system and government are infallible, you should vote NO on 62. If you feel otherwise, you should vote YES.

Yes62

Prop 63: Gun Control (Ammunition) improvements: YES
EASY. Requires background checks for purchasing ammunition and creates a process to remove guns from felons and people convicted of domestic violence. Honestly, this measure shouldn’t need to be on the ballot – it could be done at by the legislature. But since this is an attempt to do an end run around the massive lobbying might of the NRA, I get why we have to vote for simple sanity. DO IT. YES.

Prop 64: Marijuana Legalization: YES
I’ve said this about marijuana legalization for years: either make pot legal, or make alcohol illegal, but do one or the other because they seem to be similar on the harm/benefit scale. Since alcohol isn’t going anywhere, I say legalize pot & let’s be done with it. Two simple reasons: tax revenue & environmental protection. By making pot legal & thus taxable, the state stands to eventually start making somewhere around $1 billion a year in taxes, and reap millions of more in savings on enforcement. WIN. For me, the bigger win is environmental: growing illicit marijuana damages state and national parks in California, as the SF Chronicle¬†puts it:

[Marijuana farming] has wreaked significant environmental damage from clandestine operations that divert water from streams, use chemicals and otherwise tamper with the ecosystem away from regulators’ scrutiny.

In fact, the California League of Conservation Voters has come out big for it, especially since 20% of the funds raised by Prop 64 will go to environmental cleanup & remediation of public lands effected. This is just good, sane policy. HELL YES.

Prop 65: Carry Out Bags: NO NO NO
This is a DEEPLY CYNICAL attempt to dismantle California’s AWESOME plastic bag ban… Details below in the Prop 67 section, but just know that the San Jose Mercury News¬†nails it:

And vote no on Proposition 65, one of the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history ‚ÄĒ and that’s saying something.

Vote HELL NO on Prop 65.

Prop 66: Death Penalty Enforcement: NO
One of the standard (and true) arguments against the death penalty is the cost. It goes like this: when you factor in the costs of all the trials and legal processes needed to make sure we are not executing innocent people with the death penalty, you eventually realize it is cheaper to just give them life sentences. This measure attempts to “fix” this problem by “streamlining” and essentially reducing the legal processing of these cases to reduce expense. This is folly, you’re really just making it easier to execute innocent people (which already happens). I like what the SF Chronicle said in their opposing editorial:

Prop. 66… proposes a highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme for streamlining the appeals process in hopes of shaving years off the timeline between conviction and execution.

Vote NO.

Prop 67: Plastic Bag Ban: YES YES YES
These measures are so deceptive, it is SO FUCKED UP. 65 in particular, which reads like a pro-environment law, is SUPER CYNICAL and EVIL. Honestly the best write up I‚Äôve seen of this is from Ballot.fyi, and they do a better job of explaining it than me (and pointing out how it is even worse than I’m saying) so really you should read that, but I’ll attempt a shorter version here:

Ban the bag logo

Back in 2014, California became the first state to pass a landmark sea-critter-saving plastic bag ban, SB270, which should have gone into effect last summer. Part of the deal made with merchants (who opposed 270) was that they could instead sell paper & reusable bags at least $0.10 or more & they would get to keep the money. All was well, except that the plastic bag companies are PISSED and SCARED. So they have cynically put both 65 & 67 on the ballot (@#%$^*&), in hopes that the voters dismantle the plastic ban in one of a few ways. The most obvious two are: if 65 passes (& gets more votes than 67), it will send the money raised from the bags into an environmental cleanup fund, but it will bleed away the support of the grocers, whose support is critical to make all this work. THAT is why 65 uses all the pro-environment language. With 67, the plastic bag companies have another shot at killing the plastic bag ban – if 67 fails to pass, the statewide ban doesn’t go into effect (local ones, like SF’s would still apply though – whew). Tell the plastic bag manufacturers WE SEE THROUGH YOUR BS: VOTE NO on 65 and YES on 67.

YesOn67

JUDICIAL:

Judge: Paul Henderson
Here is what I wrote in June for the primary:

From what I’ve read we have two largely competent and progressive candidates for judge, Hwang and Henderson. I’m leaning Henderson, because the opportunity to put a black, gay man behind the bench, given all that our justice system struggles with is an opportunity too good to pass up.

And that all still stands. It is perhaps remarkable that most of the progressive community supports Hwang, while more of the City’s moderates support Henderson. I could lean that way, but honestly, I didn’t like what the Guardian said about Hwang, even though they endorsed him, and so I’ll stand pat.

 

Holy Jeebus.  That was just the State stuff.  Now we dive into SF.  You’ll need something to cleanse your head: