As a newly minted US citizen, I’m very excited to vote in the November 8 election, and have been diligently studying the voter materials for the last couple of weeks. Here is a list of the races on the ballot and how I’m planning to vote on them. I will not be presumptuous to call it a “voter guide” or an “endorsement” since I really don’t think anyone should be voting based on what I recommend. Why post this, then? Mostly to start a conversation and broaden my worldview. I am more than willing to have my mind changed! Please shoot me a text/email/message and I’ll be happy to buy you a beer or coffee and talk about any of these.
Ballot Measures: State
In general, I think it is better for laws to be passed by the legislature than by ballot measure. There is more flexibility — a law passed by ballot measure can’t be repealed by the legislature, and ballot measures are fairly cumbersome and expensive to do over. There is also less nuance possible — while there’s debate and discussion, and the law goes through several revisions as it passes through committee, state assembly, and state senate, ballot propositions need a yes/no vote and are passed as written.
Thus, when deciding how to vote on a ballot measure, I try to answer two questions: (1) is it good policy, and (2) does it meet the bar for a ballot measure to pass a law.The answer to both should be in the affirmative for me to vote yes.
-
Prop 1: Reproductive Freedom — YES: Women having access to abortion and contraception is good policy, and making it hard to repeal by enshrining it in the state constitution also seems like a good idea in the current political climate. I’m voting Yes.
-
Prop 26/27: Sports Betting — NO to both: Allowing sports betting appears to be a good policy, but the nuances of how to allow it, tax it, and use the tax revenue appear to be something that the state legislature should debate and negotiate. The tax rate on sports betting, as one example, today ranges from 6.75% in Nevada all the way to 51% in Rhode Island. The 10% rate on Prop 27 would put California on the lower end. Maybe that’s okay, but let the legislature decide.
-
Prop 28: Public school arts funding — NO: How they choose to spend their funding seems like something individual school districts should decide. A mandate from Sacramento that a particular school must spend money on Arts, while they might actually need a new Chemistry lab (or vice versa) does not seem right. Prop 28 does not secure any new source of funding either, so this funding would necessarily be at the expense of other state programs. I’m voting No.
-
Prop 29: Dialysis Clinics — NO: This one seems to actively harm patients by making dialysis more expensive. But irrespective of whether this is good or bad public policy, it is far too technical to be voted on by average voters — let the legislature consult with experts, and let them decide.
-
Prop 30: Millionaire Tax for EV rebates — NO: I like to think of Electric Vehicles as a harm reduction strategy — better than status quo, but only a stopgap while we move towards true sustainability, and build places where everyone is not forced to drive a car to get anywhere. Increasingly, though, they are being seen as panacea for the climate crisis. Raising the tax on high income seems okay, but I’d rather see the money fund public transit than towards EV rebates, especially EV rebates going to large corporations like Lyft. I’m voting No.
-
Prop 31: Flavoured Tobacco Ban — YES: This is a tricky one, and have gone back and forth a few times on how to vote. In general, I am not a fan of the government restricting tobacco use by adults. However, the state legislature has already passed this law, with the belief that it will curb underage tobacco use — a fine goal. Big tobacco companies being able to spend a bunch of money and override legislation does not sit right with me. If this were a ballot initiative to get a new law passed, I’d be voting no, but since it is a referendum on a law that was already passed, I’m voting Yes.
Ballot Measures: City
While my overall thinking around city ballot measures is similar to how I think of the state-level ones, I lower my bar to vote Yes for a measure at the city level somewhat, compared to state level ones (if I think it is sound policy) for a few reasons. One is that I think the San Francisco board of supervisors is a particularly dysfunctional government body, and so some direct oversight is good. The second is that city elections happen more frequently than state-wide ones, so these are slightly easier to amend. They are still incredibly expensive and wasteful, though, so I might vote no for what I think is good policy, if I think it should pass legislatively instead.
-
Prop A: Retirement Benefits — YES: This prop is quite confusing. My understanding is that it undoes a ballot prop from 2011, and provides retirement benefits to city employees who retired before 1996 that other retired employees already get. Seems reasonable, and it cannot be passed legislatively since it overrides a previous ballot measure. Voting Yes.
-
Prop B: Reunify two city departments — YES : Similar to Prop A, undoes a previous ballot measure, hence can’t be passed legislatively. Less bureaucracy in the city government seems like a good thing, so voting Yes.
-
Prop C: Homelessness oversight commission — NO : Less bureaucracy in the city government seems like a good thing, so voting No on adding more of it.
-
Prop D: Affordable Housing — YES: On housing, I believe that we need more of it, and at all price points. More so in cities like San Francisco where sustainable car-free and car-light living is possible today. Furthermore, I think the discretionary approval process for building seems distinctly unamerican — if someone owns a piece of land, they should be able to do with it as they please, provided they meet all the codes and zoning, and should not have to beg the board of supervisors for approval. Prop D takes away the discretionary power to reject certain types of housing development from the board of supervisors. It is unlikely to be passed legislatively, since who likes to give up power? Voting yes.
-
Prop E: Affordable Housing — NO: This one seeks to build more housing without taking away discretionary power from the board of supervisors. This does not look like it will change much from status quo. Since I’m voting Yes on D, I’ll vote No on E.
-
Prop F: Library Preservation — YES: The SF Public Library, along with the SF Parks department seem like two of the better run city departments, and which I have used and enjoyed tremendously. This proposition seeks to extend an existing tax that funds the library. The library seems well run, so extending the status quo sounds good. Voting yes.
-
Prop G: Student Success Fund — NO: Similarly to Prop 28 at the state level, this prop mandates how education funds should be spent, without allocating new sources of funding. How the funding gets allocated seems pretty bureaucratic, and how the funding is to be used seems fairly vague. I think schools and school boards should have the flexibility to decide how to spend their funds. Voting No.
-
Prop H: Rescheduling Election — YES: This seems like a good change, and one that cannot be done legislatively. Fewer elections saves the city money, and having important offices be voted on together would ensure higher turnout, again a good thing for a robust democracy. The mayor is opposed to this, but I haven’t heard a coherent argument against it, so voting yes.
-
Prop I: Cars on JFK & Great Highway — NO: I’ve loved biking down car-free JFK and great highway. I dream of one day Valencia street being car-free as well. I support policy that makes walking, biking, and transit use easier even if that comes at the expense of making it harder to drive in the city. Even if I supported the change, there is no reason to pass it via ballot measure rather than legislatively. Prop I is a clear No.
-
Prop J: Car-Free JFK — YES: I think this is good policy, but I’d normally be on the side of letting the legislature take care of it. Similar to the state level Prop 31, though, the legislature has already passed this law, and is being challenged via the ballot process in prop I. Since it is a referendum on an existing law, and not a new law, I’m voting Yes.
-
Prop L: Sales tax for Muni — YES: Muni is one of the more extensive public transit networks in the US, and I quite enjoy living in a city where I have the option of making most of my trips on transit. Cutting Muni funding would be a bad idea, and this prop seeks to continue an existing sales tax for 30 years. Seems reasonable, voting yes.
-
Prop M: Empty Apartment Tax — NO: Within reason, I think the person who owns a piece of land should be able to do with it as they please. Leaving an apartment empty wouldn’t generally be profitable for landlords anyway, so I’m in favour of letting the markets take care of this. Furthermore, the added cost of the new tax would likely get passed on to existing renters in other units, driving up rents. Seems like bad policy all around. Voting No.
-
Prop N: GGP Underground Parking — YES: I’d generally not support building new parking structures using public money — street parking, for example, seems like a massive misuse of public space. If I decide to buy a buffalo, the city isn’t obliged to give me a space to store it, why should it for cars? This is a bit of hyperbole, and I do recognize transportation as a responsibility of the city, but we need to move away from cars as the primary way to do it. This particular parking garage, though, has already been built and seems to be underutilized in its current state, so I’m willing to let the city take over. My understanding is that this one can not be passed legislatively. Voting yes.
-
Prop O: New Tax for CCSF — NO: I have taken advantage of the Free City program and have enjoyed taking free Spanish classes at CCSF for the last few semesters. Reading through some of the recent history, though, it looks like CCSF has gotten funding through new taxes in 2012 and 2016, and that it is struggling not because of lack of funding, but due to general mismanagement. Voting No.
Federal, State, and City level candidates
In addition to these ballot measures, there are 21 elected posts that I will get to vote on. This post has already gotten pretty long, though. I might cover the candidates in a Part 2 of this blog post.
If you made it this far, I commend you! Again, if you want to discuss or debate or change my mind about any of these, please shoot me a message.