Keep an eye out for our March 2024 Voter Guide, coming January 2024!
NOVEMBER 8, 2022
VOTER GUIDE
In the past year alone, San Franciscans have voted in three elections. While voting is crucial to democracy, there is no denying it is time-consuming and at times, overwhelming. That’s why our team of policy experts, community organizers and former City Hall-ers designed this roadmap to the ballot measures, propositions and candidate races that San Francisco is voting on in the November midterm election.
San Francisco currently faces multiple overlapping challenges, making this a pivotal moment in our city’s history. We believe that our local government, together with the city’s voters, has the power to turn this city around. Let’s vote together.
What Makes Us Different
TogetherSF Action prioritizes two things when it comes to local government: results and accountability. San Francisco’s government is failing its residents in major issue areas: housing, transit, public education, social services and bureaucratic efficiency. Our ballot system, one of the most effective tools of change, is notoriously difficult to interpret. We believe voters deserve clear, concise information that empowers them to make informed decisions. That’s why we created this guide.
San Francisco is unique. Nearly all of our candidates are Democrats who share an ideology aligned on national issues like bodily autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, gun control, and immigration. These are all important, and so is the way our city functions – or rather, isn’t functioning. Housing, transit, public education, social services and bureaucratic efficiency are crucial to any city’s success. We must hold our elected leaders responsible for ensuring the city works for our families, businesses, and communities.
When considering every ballot measure, we asked ourselves, “Does this proposition directly address a pressing problem, and does it actually have the ability to impact that problem?”
This guide provides you with the research you need to demand accountability and question the backstory behind your ballot.
Share Your Voice on Social Media
Our shareable social media graphics are like “I Voted” stickers for your social feed. Download ready-made images and captions let your friends know you voted.
-
Board of Supervisors
Catherine Stefani | District 2
Joel Engardio | District 4
Matt Dorsey | District 6
Rafael Mandelman | District 8
No Endorsement | District 10
-
Board of Education
Ann Hsu
Lainie Motamedi
Lisa Weissman-Ward
-
City College of SF Board
Dr. Murrell Green
Jill Yee
-
BART Board
Janice Li
-
Assessor-Recorder
Joaquin Torres
-
Public Defender
Manohar Raju
-
District Attorney
Brooke Jenkins
-
Proposition A would increase access to the Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment, a payment that helps retired City workers keep up with rising inflation, for about 4,500 retirees. The increased payment is expected to cost the City a reasonable $5.9 million every year for the next 10 years, and includes guardrails that ensure the lowest-income retirees will benefit the most. We support this charter amendment to help get seniors the retirement benefits they deserve.
-
Proposition B walks back a decision by voters in 2020 to split the Department of Public Works (DPW) into two departments as a response to a highly-publicized corruption scandal within DPW. The 2020 decision created two departments, each with their own commission to oversee them. 2022’s Prop B will eliminate one of the departments, the Department of Sanitation and Streets, but keeps the commission that would have overseen it to provide extra oversight for DPW. While we aren’t a fan of commissions (there are far too many of them), we’re even less interested in duplicate departments. We support this measure, which will prevent the City from spending millions of dollars (and thousands of employee hours) on creating a redundant department.
-
Proposition C would create the Homelessness Oversight Commission to oversee the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (DHSH). We will again reiterate our belief that commissions do not lead to sufficient oversight. If that were true, every City department would be incredibly well-run and efficient, as there are over 100 commissions, citizen advisory committees, and other governing bodies in San Francisco. Too often, commissions are used to appease politically connected individuals who want to add to their résumés. While we are horrified by the state of homelessness in our city, we cannot support the addition of a new government body and its associated red tape to provide the oversight that the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors are responsible for. That’s why we’re voting no on C.
-
Propositions D and E sound alike on the surface, but only one will actually make building affordable housing easier. Proposition D seeks to shorten the permitting and approvals timeline by implementing a “Yes/No” process if a housing project qualifies under Prop D’s guidelines. Qualified projects can get approved in just four to six months, which means more housing for more people, faster. On the other hand, Prop E has so many restrictions for projects to qualify that it would not actually speed up any projects. Prop E’s sole purpose is to be a counterfeit version of Prop D to confuse voters.
-
Proposition F would renew funding of the Library Preservation Fund for another 25 years—it does not raise taxes. The San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) is customer service-focused, well-run, and community-centered. It has been responsive to the evolving needs of residents and played an integral role in providing education during the pandemic. It deserves to be consistently well-funded, so we support Prop F.
-
This proposition creates a special, $60 million-per-year fund and a grant application process for schools in the San Francisco Unified School District system, where certain schools can apply for $1 million grants, which would last 15 years. We know many students are in dire need of services, but we cannot support the bureaucratic barriers, including more reliance on external nonprofits, that this proposition will require in order for certain schools to get money they deserve. Additionally, we believe that the money this fund sets aside could be better spent to directly address the district’s critical issues: a dropoff in enrollment, poor literacy rates, and a massive $125 million budgetary hole. We’re not going to vote no on G because it is, ultimately, money for kids—but we don’t support it structurally.
-
For about 50 years, the City charter has dictated that positions like the Mayor, District Attorney, Sheriff, Treasurer and City Attorney be held during odd-numbered years. (For example, the next Mayoral election is scheduled for November 2023, and the winner will serve a four-year term that ends in 2027). Proposition H would consolidate the elections so that they are all held in even-numbered years. Those are the same years Presidential elections happen—therefore those years tend to see much higher voter turnout. It’s been proven that moving elections to even years increases voter participation. We support Proposition H because we believe in increasing voter accessibility and decreasing opportunities for politicians to spend their time campaigning instead of governing.
-
Propositions I, J, and N all relate to Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway, and our ability to enjoy them as public spaces. Unfortunately, this massive citywide fight over a 1.5-mile stretch of road is taking time and resources away from other more important issues. We support Prop J, which maintains the status quo, because the current closure conditions are balanced: there’s car access to the museums, improved shuttle access, increased ADA parking, and bike and pedestrian safety has improved. Separately, Prop N will allow the City to make the parking garage beneath the de Young cheaper to use for everyone. However, the de Young Museum is capitalizing on anti-closure sentiments and is trying to reopen both JFK Drive and the Great Highway. Voting yes on J and N and no on I most fairly balances the needs of all parties—let’s cast our votes and move on to more important topics.
-
So, what happened to Prop K? It’s actually been removed from your ballot. Intended as a tax on Amazon to fund universal basic income programs for select people, Prop K’s poor wording meant it would have taxed small businesses, not Amazon. Its own authors petitioned to remove it from the ballot. The failure of Prop K is the perfect example of why special interests should not be putting complex tax measures before voters.
-
Prop L is not a new tax, but a continuation of an existing half-cent sales tax that is a critical funding source for our City’s transportation infrastructure. This nominal tax has helped create projects like the Presidio Parkway, the electrification of Caltrain, and the Van Ness improvement project. These funds also support ongoing smaller projects like pedestrian improvements and general maintenance. This funding source is vital for our City’s transportation infrastructure and it is imperative that it passes.
-
This measure would place a creeping tax on landlords who don’t rent out the (alleged) 40,000 empty units in San Francisco. We’re voting no because this measure is entirely based on fuzzy math, and doesn’t do anything to actually solve our city’s housing problem, despite supporters’ claims that it would.
-
Prop O is a brand-new parcel tax on residential and commercial properties in San Francisco that will fund City College of San Francisco (CCSF). Voters passed a parcel tax in 2012 and a transfer tax in 2016 to fund CCSF, but enrollment continues to decline and the college is still plagued by fiscal issues. CCSF has deep structural issues, and these funds will not address them. Plus, San Francisco homeowners already pay $700 annually in direct charges and special assessments for SFUSD and Community College District. We cannot support increasing taxes to pay for an institution that is unable to exercise sound fiscal oversight and governance.
-
Governor
Gavin Newsom
-
Lieutenant Governor
Eleni Kounalakis
-
Secretary of State
Shirley Weber
-
Controller
Malia Cohen
-
Treasurer
Fiona Ma
-
Attorney General
Rob Bonta
-
Insurance Commissioner
No endorsement
-
US Senator
Alex Padilla
-
Board of Equalization
No endorsement | D2
-
US Representative
Nancy Pelosi | CA-12
Kevin Mullin | CA-14
-
State Assembly
Matt Haney | D17
No endorsement | D19
-
Superintendent of Public Instruction
No endorsement
-
This proposed constitutional amendment would protect rights to reproductive healthcare by prohibiting the state from interfering with or denying an individual’s reproductive freedom. This includes access to both abortions and contraception. We are in full support of this initiative.
-
These two measures are competing over billions of dollars in revenue from sports betting. One is supported by Native American tribes, and the other is supported by gaming corporations like DraftKings and FanDuel. Though both campaigns are billing these props as solutions for solving the homelessness crisis, neither one will actually move the needle. The state’s sports betting industry is projected to be worth $3 billion, and while the extra money from both propositions’ tax revenues sounds nice for the state, the spending “plans” for how those revenues would be allocated are vague. We’re not endorsing either one because we’d like to see more nuanced plans for addressing homelessness at the state level.
-
This measure would require the state to set aside money from the general fund (meaning it doesn’t raise or create new taxes) for arts in public schools. That sounds great, and the measure has a lot of support. But an LA Times editorial about it makes some good points, like the fact that there are no accountability measures to ensure the money is actually spent on the arts, and that its dependence on the general fund being healthy is tenuous. Don’t get us wrong: the extra money to schools would be great. But the ambiguity of those tax dollars gives us reason to pause, and the fact that other more general areas of public education are lacking (we’re thinking special ed, facilities upgrades, food, social and emotional health, and aftercare) makes us think that the money could be better spent elsewhere. Overall, we just have too many questions about Prop 28 to endorse it.
-
This measure would place a series of regulations on dialysis clinics throughout the state. If it sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) has tried and failed to persuade voters to support new dialysis center regulations twice before, in 2018 and 2020, over vehement and very costly industry opposition. SEIU-UHW’s argument in 2022 is that dialysis corporations are making too much money. That’s about it. This is an example of a union, which is supposed to protect industry workers, trying to manipulate voters for its own political gain. Dave Regan (the union’s president) and his “aggressive” strategy have been criticized by Sal Rosselli, head of the National Union of Healthcare Workers. We’re voting no because this measure relies on weak logic and will not solve a real problem that the state faces.
-
This is a proposed tax on people who make more than $2 million annually to fund electric vehicle infrastructure. We love electric vehicles and think there should be more of them. What we don’t love is when corporations make California taxpayers—even wealthy taxpayers—foot the bill for things they should take responsibility for. Lyft is trying to get the taxpayers to pay for their charging infrastructure and vehicles for their drivers. Even Governor Gavin Newsom thinks this is gross. We’re voting no.
-
This measure would affirm that Californians want to ban flavored tobacco products from being sold here. Big Tobacco is on its deathbed in California, and without creating new generations of addicts, they lose out. This is a cynical attempt by the industry responsible for marketing tobacco to kids and for the vaping crisis to keep their profit margins afloat. Let’s prove that California voters are smarter than the tobacco industry and vote yes to uphold the ban.
Download a Printable Version
Paid for by TogetherSF Action. Not authorized by any candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.