archival recommendation for a previous election. formatting might be weird. guides may not reflect my current views.
California State Ballot Measures
Proposition 1: New Mental Health Bond, Fund Reallocation Towards Housing.
Vote: Yes.
You know whenever a school shooting happens, Republicans jumps at the bit to say that it’s not a gun control problem, it’s a mental health problem? Mental health is usually not a mental health problem, but instead a housing problem. Data from various policy groups have consistently shown that one of the most important thing to reducing the effects of mental health issues and homelessness are rapid rehousing programs, or programs that aim to give the homeless homes, both on temporary and permanent bases.
While this proposition isn’t perfect, and while there are serious concerns about increasing the rate of involuntary commitment, this legislation moves substantial amounts of money into housing-first approaches to mental health and homelessness while also allocating more money to address an increasingly toxic mental health issue across the state.
What the proposal does:
The proposal would allocate $6.38 billion in new bonds that would go towards funding more mental health treatment beds and supportive housing programs, which are programs that aim to house additional people while also providing them with nearby government services and mental health programs on-site. Of the money, about 2 billion (30%) would go towards creating new housing through the retrofitting of existing hotels, motels, and other buildings, with about 1 billion earmarked specifically for veterans. The majority of the bond would go towards creating new intensive mental health treatment centers (4.4b, or about 70%). There are some concerns that this will result in more involuntary psychiatric commitments, as such facilities will actually have capacity to commit said people.
The measure would also reallocate money from an existing tax that funds mental health services. Currently, the Mental Health Services Act, or MHSA, levies about a 1% tax on income over 1 million dollars. About 95% of this money goes to each of California’s 58 counties, with 5% controlled by state programs. This proposal would not increase this tax, but redistribute the income from said tax so about 10% would be controlled by state programs. This would amount to about $140 million reallocated.
Additionally, the proposal would also dictate that counties spend 30% of MHSA dollars on housing programs. This is likely the largest point of contention for the bill, as this would reduce staffing for community-based programs not related to said housing, such as some preventative services.
Why you should vote for it:
First, and ideologically, the biggest benefit is that this is a budget allocation proposition that passed with high support in both the Senate and the Assembly. Due to the unusual nature of the California constitution, any additional tax or bond allocation that the legislature wants to get passed has to go to the voters. While this isn’t the only way for new funding to get approved, it is mandatory, and so both I and outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle have consistently advocated to defer to the legislature when new funding is proposed, as legislators inherently have more time to analyze the details of measures like this one. That means, ideologically, approving what the legislature approves and rejecting what the legislature disapproves of. The legislature, unusually, is almost unanimous on this issue. with a 40-0 vote in the Senate and a 68-7 vote in the Assembly.
Second, this proposal would increase funding for rapid rehousing programs like Project Homekey while also helping to address some of the major issues of inconsistent oversight in the program by creating new annual audits for the effects of the proposals. This could cheaply and efficiently add 4350 new units, and while that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated 180,000 homeless in California, it’s also coming with additionally supportive resources for the mentally ill to help people get on their feet.
There is, however, a serious concern about the increase in availability for compelled mental health services. An increase in involuntary commitments was not in an earlier draft of the legislation and was added late in the process, leading to some questions as to if it’s necessary. Governor Gavin Newsom has also made it easier to place people into conservative ships, and this proposition would likely make it easier to follow through on abuses in the conservative system by making involuntary commitment beds more available. Ultimately, however, I believe the risks here are worth the gain, and this would be a massive move towards addressing homelessness in California.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-prop-1-funding-18678699.php
https://laist.com/news/politics/2024-election-california-primary-proposition-1-mental-health-care
“UCSF did their massive study of the state’s homeless population. They found 27% of people living without shelter have been hospitalized for a mental health issue. They also found 65% of those people who are living without shelter have reported heavy substance abuse. These are the kinds of people who are prop one is aimed at helping.”
“Supporters of prop one say by spending this bond money, they’re going to be able to create 4350 housing units, another 6800 treatment slots. Obviously, this is all a drop in the bucket for the overall homeless population in California, which is estimated to be more than 180,000 people.”
“The reforms that took place in the late 50s, in the 60s and the 70s, that bipartisan endeavor around deinstitutionalization. We had a peak 37,000, beds in the state of California in the 60s, 37,000 beds. Today, it’s about 5500.”
“And then there’s another piece of this, which is about what kind of housing can be built with this bond money, because prop one actually allows the money to be spent on locked facilities. These are, you know, places where people might get placed as a result of a conservatorship, where treatment is not voluntary. And this is pretty controversial. You get opposition not from conservatives on this, but you get opposition from groups like Disability Rights California, for example, who say these kind of lock facilities violate civil liberties and don’t have proven outcomes. Now, supporters of prop one say this is not going to be a huge piece of all the new facilities that get built, but that’s really an open question going forward.”
https://www.kqed.org/news/11974991/transcript-proposition-1-behavioral-health-funding
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Proposition A: $300 Million in Affordable Housing Bonds
Vote: Yes
This isn’t going to solve the problem; we need a lot more than $300m, and the only reason we’re not getting more is because of a 2006 agreement that SF not issue more debt than it retires. This is extremely straightforward and would help to develop more housing. Housing good, durr durr hurr
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/endorsement-sf-prop-a-housing-18637463.php
Proposition B: More funding to the police
Vote: No
First of all, San Francisco needs more police officers. This is uncontroversial, even for me, who generally does not approve of how police operate in the majority of American cities. I can say this with high confidence in San Francisco because San Francisco police officers occasionally make hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime pay. Money is not the problem to recruitment, bureaucracy in the hiring process is, as according to the San Francisco Chronicle, it can take close to a year to finish the hiring process for a new police officer.
But even if funding was the problem, which it is not, this proposition to solve a non-existent funding problem is fucking insane. I can’t even efficiently summarize how convoluted the scheme. It sets legal minimums for how many police officers need to be hired per year, mandates that SF create a fund to help in the hiring of new police officers to the tune of 16.8 million dollars, then gives the SFPD an incentive to fail to meet minimum targets by pre-emptively allocating salaries for the deficit in the recommendation and reality to the fund. This would increase the SFPD’s already enormous budget of 761 million dollars by another 200 million dollars over the next four years. This would also allow the SFPD to introduce amendments to its own budget.
Supervisor Matt Dorsey and Ahsha Safaí should be fired.
Proposition C: Tax Break on Conversions of Office Space to Residential Housing
Vote: Yes
There are something like 15 to 30 office buildings in the downtown area that are just empty and are good candidates for conversion to residential housing, but the process is expensive. Lowering taxes on this kind of conversion makes sense to help increase housing supply, with some chance that this increases revenue, as the empty office buildings don’t really do much for local businesses.
The most cogent argument against this is that Prop C doesn’t have any affordable housing requirements, but said requirements are already baked into SF laws requiring new housing have between 18 to 30% marked as affordable.
housing good
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/prop-c-san-francisco-18651380.php
Proposition D: Changes to Local Ethics Laws
Vote: Yes
It just clarifies specific gift reporting rules and restrictions. 4-0 recommendation by the city’s Ethics commission. SF Chronicle’s recommendations have more detail on previous bribery scandals.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/endorsement-measure-d-sf-nuru-18640471.php
Proposition E: Relaxed Police Reporting Standards, Increased Police Leeway
Vote: No
This proposal would expand SFPD’s ability to use cameras in public spaces, including facial recognition and drones. It would also relax rules regarding reporting after the use of force and the rules regarding when police could engage in car chases. Mayor Breed is a coward for entertaining this. Again, the problem with the SFPD is staffing levels, which money cannot fix, and if allowing police to engage in further sanctioned violence is how we would increase recruitment, we shouldn’t have higher recruitment.
Proposition F: Requirements for Drug Screening To Use City Benefits
Vote: No
Ghoulish. This is an attempt to look strong in the face of an actual homelessness crisis by mayor London Breed to add further hurdles to receive like 700 bucks a month, an already tiny amount of money claimed by a laughable 5200 people in the city. It doesn’t even include any provisions to help push people towards addiction treatment, not that that matters since it’s overwhelmingly a housing problem to begin with. What’s even the point?
Proposition G: Offer Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders
Vote: No recommendation, voting yes
Currently, Algebra 1 is first offered in 9th Grade. This moves it up a year, back to where it was. I’m not an education expert and don’t pretend to be one.
Federal Primary Elections (Democrat Registration)
President
Vote: Biden
The majority of the candidates on the primary for President are unserious candidates, with the exception of US representative Dean Philips, who said he was willing to be Nikki Haley’s vice president.
Stephen Lyons is a plumber, woefully unprepared for the office, Eban Cambridge wants universal gun registration (???), Gabriel Cornejo with good policies but no real momentum, President R. Boddie advertises himself as a conservative, Marianne Williamson has already suspended her campaign, and Armando Perez-Serrato has pushed a lab conspiracy for the Coronavirus.
Better luck next time, I guess.
United States Senator for California, Both Contests
Vote: Katie Porter, both slots, strategic vote.
In the vote to replace the late Dianne Feinstein, this is one of the most important elections on the ballot.
Three major Democratic representatives have come to the forefront of the race, all currently serving in the House: Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee, with one Republican, former baseball first baseman Steve Garvey.
Primaries in California work in an… unusual way. The top two vote-getters in the primary move on to the general, meaning protest votes have serious and usually negative consequences. Because California has a mostly left-leaning constituency, many different left-wing candidates end up running at the same time, splitting vote share and competing for mostly the same voter base, while the few Republicans who run have an easier time, as they are less likely to split their own vote. This can lead to results where suboptimal Democratic candidates face off against Republican candidates in the general election, or, in extremely unusual cases, two Republicans can end up moving onto the general. That means if you’re interested in the most leftist or progressive policy like I am, you have to be strategic to vote for someone more likely to get to the general election. Thus, three realistic choices.
Ultimately, Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee are all extremely similar in voting record and are all further left than most establishment Democrats, which means that we are required to look at polling data to choose our vote here. Currently, Schiff is a clear frontrunner, with Porter and Garvey are neck and neck for a second place slot, while Lee is trailing at 10%. While I would honestly prefer to vote for Lee as a political strategy to push the Democrats further left, Schiff is, in my mind, a poor candidate, and the only realistic way to push someone further left in the general election is to ensure Porter wins in the primary.
Coming to this conclusion required looking specifically at their voting differences, so here’s a short-ish breakdown on how they differ in various issues.
Israel Palestine: Disqualifying for Schiff
Lee has actively called for a permanent ceasefire with no conditions, while Schiff has firmly supported Israel, claiming Israel “has a right to defend itself.” Porter has also called for a ceasefire, but has called for specific conditions to be met for said ceasefire, including a release of hostages and specific commitments to rebuilding Gaza. Schiff’s full throated support for a nation widely considered to be committing a genocide at worst and guilty of substantial war crimes at best is instantly disqualifying for me. As a result, I will not be considering him further.
Foreign Policy: No firm preference
Lee has consistently been an anti-interventionist in foreign affairs, notably being one of the only votes against the use of force in Afghanistan after 9/11 (long before Porter was in office). She’s also consistently voted against US intervention in China and Taiwan, voted against sanctions to Hamas, voted against a resolution that a nuclear Iran is not US policy, and has consistently voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. Porter, by contrast, has been much more aligned with the Democratic mainstream when it comes to US intervention, voting for all of those bills.
Whether you consider US intervention to be a good or a bad thing is contentious, and I’m not going to argue one way or another. While I’ve highlighted contrasting differences between Lee and Porter, Porter is by no means a hawk; she’s made repeated audits and reduced military spending a core part of her campaign, especially when it comes to:
Earmarks/Pork Barrel Allocation: Katie Porter
Earmarks, or Pork Barrel Spending as it is occasionally called, is a political technique in which local senators and representatives will hold the passage of certain legislation hostage until certain provisions that benefit their local constituency are passed. These amendments are often tied to legislation that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, using the political necessity to get a bill addressing a major topic passed to put money back to local communities. Legislators tend to use these as campaign material heavily, as they use them to prove that they are fighting for local communities.
Porter has made local earmarks in legislation a core feature of her campaign, railing against it as a major source of political corruption. She’s advocated for stopping the practice and argued that local fund allocations should be handled by individual, neutral parties, likely in larger federal agencies in the executive branch. To her, this would make the political process less corrupt.
By contrast, both Schiff and Lee have supported it. As a representative of Oakland, Lee has specifically noted that earmarks are a way for underrepresented minorities to ensure money for their causes.
It’s worth noting that when it comes to the military, a massive amount of financial inefficiency is directly the result of riders. Congress has repeatedly mandated that the Pentagon spend money on various fighter jets that the Pentagon itself says it does not need because they would put local construction jobs in certain districts. For example, the F-35 engine program has been plagued by issues for decades. Various other fighter jets also have similar issues. Katie Porter’s position would coherently and specifically reduce wasteful military spending, and for that reason I support it.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/13/pentagon-rethinks-f-35-engine-program-will-upgrade-f135/
Minimum Wage
It’s worth noting here that Barbara Lee has called for a 50 dollar an hour minimum wage. This is psychotic and has no realistic chance of passing, but it might be worth noting as a starting point for further negotiations and to push the senate further left.
United States House of Representative for California District 11
Vote: No recommendation, voting for Bianca Von Krieg, you should probably vote for Nacy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi is basically running unopposed.
Nancy Pelosi is 83.
Nancy Pelosi should have retired by now and has been one of the most staunch establishment Democrats.
Bruce Lou is a pretty firm republican, Jason Boyce is unrealistic and does not appear to have put any thought into policies, I’m not even sure if Larry Nichelson is alive, Jason Chuyuan Zheng wants cops to have more flexibility in the war on drugs, Eve Del Castello is a ghost, and so is Marjorie Mikels.
Bianca Von Krieg is…
Well, her campaign website is this. And you know what? That’s more progressive than anything else I’ve seen.
California State Elections (Democrat Registration)
State Senator, District 11
Vote: Scott Weiner
Most of the candidates are unelectable, save Weiner, the current incumbent. Jing Chao Xiong doesn’t seem to speak English, Cynthia Cravens is a terf, and Yvette Corkrean was against covid restrictions.
State Assembly Member, District 17
Vote: Matt Haney
Matt Haney is also functionally running unopposed. Manuel Noris-Barrera is functionally a ghost and Otto Duke spends a notable amount of his website railing about marxism and… Kim Kardashian?
Justice of the Superior Court, Seat 1
Vote: Michael Isaku Begert
The current incumbent has the endorsement of an enormous amount of the law community, while challenger Chip Zecher is primarily funded by tech billionaires looking to paint his work helping those with mental disorders as weak on crime. A lot of money has gone into this race to give that impression that Begert has released repeat offenders he never even tried, and as a matter of principle I refuse to reward that kind of behavior in a supposedly non-partisan office.
https://sfstandard.com/2024/02/12/san-francisco-judicial-race-michael-begert-chip-zecher/
Justice of the Superior Court, Seat 13
Vote: Patrick S. Thompson
This race is functionally an echo of the race for Seat 1. It is worth noting that both incumbents went through rigorous vetting processes by the state bar before their appointments by Gavin Newsom. Their challengers have not, and Jean Myungjin Roland specifically has failed to undergo said review. Thompson has also been attacked for being soft on detentions, despite also having little to do with them.
https://sfstandard.com/2024/02/05/san-francisco-judge-race-jean-roland-patrick-thompson/
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Federal Primary Elections
President: Joe Biden
United States Senator, Both Contests: Katie Porter
United States House of Representatives: No recommendation, voting Bianca Von Krieg.
California State Elections
State Senator, District 11: Scott Weiner
State Assembly Member, District 17: Matt Haney
Justice of the Superior Court, Seat 1: Michael Isaku Begert
Justice of the Superior Court, Seat 13: Patrick S. Thompson
California Ballot Measures
Proposition 1: New Mental Health Funding, Fund Reallocation Towards Housing: Yes
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Proposition A: $300 Million in Affordable Housing Bonds: Yes
Proposition B: More Funding to Police: No
Proposition C: Tax Breaks on Office to Residential Conversions: Yes
Proposition D: Ethics Enforcements: Yes
Proposition E: Relaxed Police Reporting Standards, Surveilance Rules: No
Proposition F: Drug Screening for Benefits: No
Proposition G: Algebra 1 in 9th Grade: No recommendation, voting yes
permalink: https://viviansvoterguide.com/2024-03-05-Primary-Election/