Proposition A – the progressive choice

By Steven Hill

This week's Bay Guardian, as well as other recent developments, make it very clear that Proposition A is the PROGRESSIVE choice for San Francisco. Why? Three reasons. Please read on.

1. December runoff elections HURT progressive voters.

The Bay Guardian quotes from a recent study by Professor Rich DeLeon, author of the prize-winning "Left Coast City" about San Francisco politics, which shows that "December runoffs have hurt progressive voters, candidates and causes in the past and will continue to do so in the future, even under district elections." Proposition A uses an "instant" runoff on election day in November to get rid of the low-turnout December runoff which has always hurt progressives (See below for Prof. DeLeon's full analysis, called "Do December runoffs help or hurt progressives?").

2. "No on Proposition A" campaign FUNDED BY CORPORATIONS AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESS INTERESTS.

Given that progressives are hurt (and conservatives helped) by December runoffs, it's not surprising that, as it turns out, the "NO on Prop A" campaign is being funded by a notorious downtown business group known as the Committee on JOBS, as some investigative sleuthing by the Bay Guardian's Savannah Blackwell has revealed. The Committee on JOBS and their accomplices at the Chamber of Commerce and Republican Party have opposed numerous progressive issues and candidates, including Tom Ammiano, public power, pro-tenant legislation, and more. They know that conservative and Republican voters turn out more reliably in the low-turnout December runoffs, amplifying the strength of the conservative vote. Reportedly, the Committee on JOBS has run "instant runoff" simulations that have led them to believe that if Prop A passes, Tom Ammiano will be elected the next mayor.

And they are determined to stop that.

3. SLEAZY CAMPAIGN TACTICS used by the "No on Proposition A" campaign.

The "No on A" campaign is being orchestrated by various political consultants, both Republican and Democratic, who have resorted to mudslinging and low-ball tactics, like using the photo of a state senator on their anti-Prop A mailings WITHOUT the senator's permission – AND refusing to withdraw the use of the photo, even after being told to do so by the senator!

Also, the bogus campaign committee created by the Committee on JOBS is now under investigation by the Ethics Commission because to date they have not filed proper disclosures for money raised or spent as required by law.

Read below for more details:

(1) DECEMBER RUNOFFS HURT PROGRESSIVES: THE EVIDENCE.

The Bay Guardian's Savannah Blackwell's column called "Election Desk" cites a recent study by Professor Rich DeLeon at San Francisco State University. That study revealed that "conservatives still turn out in much larger numbers in runoffs," wrote Blackwell. The ratio of conservative voters to progressive voters INCREASED in the December runoff, not decreased, as some had assumed since Dennis Herrera beat Jim Lazarus.

Specifically, progressive voter turnout declined by about twenty percent more than conservative turnout, DeLeon wrote in an analysis submitted to the Bay Guardian (see below for DeLeon's full analysis). Concluded Prof. DeLeon, "If San Francisco had used [Proposition A's] same-day runoff in November, Herrera most likely would have won by an even greater margin."

What about the December 2000 runoff elections that produced such a progressive Board of Supervisors? Wasn't that the result of a surge in progressive voters? Not so, says DeLeon. "Many powerful forces converged in that election, not least the anti-Willie Brown backlash, the cresting of the dot-com invasion, and the return to district elections, which forced despised incumbents to stand trial before angry neighborhood electorates. Progressive success that year was not due solely to a one-time surge in turnout among progressive voters. Clearly the December 2000 district runoffs were a spectacular exception to well-established historical trends."

Translation: we won't always have such a powerful tide of anti-Willie backlash to count on for the success of progressive politics. In fact, now with a progressive Board of Supervisors, likely the next election will see a bit of a backlash against them. And with conservatives turning out more reliably in December runoffs, that will hurt progressives' chances.

Based on the evidence, Prof. DeLeon concluded, "December runoffs have hurt progressive voters, candidates and causes in the past and (absent "same-day" runoffs) will continue to do so in the future, even under district elections."

(2) DOWNTOWN CORPORATIONS FUNDING THE "NO ON A" CAMPAIGN.

Blackwell's column also said, "Corporations against Prop. A – Here's another reason to believe Prop. A will help progressives: the Committee on Jobs is against it. Campaign mailers describing instant runoff voting as a ‘risky experiment,’ paid for in part with a $25,000 donation from the committee, which represents the city's biggest corporations, have started hitting voters' mailboxes." Blackwell uncovered this information by talking with one of the "No on A" political consultants. Concluded Blackwell: "The consultants who work for the committee aren't sure how to manipulate an instant-runoff voting system. So they'd rather stick to what we have now."

According to one pro-Prop A insider from the downtown business community, the Committee on JOBS has run "instant runoff" simulations that have led them to believe that if Prop A passes, Tom Ammiano will be elected the next mayor. And they are determined to stop that. Business interests reportedly are pulling out the stops in the waning days, even finding printers who are printing full color "hit" pieces at-cost for the "No on A" campaign.

3) Sleazy campaign tactics of the "No on A" campaign.

According to documents filed with the Ethics Commission, a campaign committee called San Franciscans for Voter Rights claims to have raised and/or spent under $1,000 against Prop A. Yet recently they mailed a "No on A" mail piece, four color, 11 x 17, to tens of thousands of households. The cost of designing, printing and mailing such a piece is estimated to be at least $50,000, depending on the quantity. If so, that's illegal.

Not only that, but the shadowy "San Franciscans for Voting Rights" committee sent out a mail piece with a picture of State Senator Jackie Speier on it, invoking her image for the opposition. While Speier has taken a position opposed to A, she never gave her permission for them to use her photo or likeness. When she found out about the use of her photo, she directed the "No on A" committee to cease immediately using her photo for future mailings. I called up one of the "No on A" campaign consultants and asked if he would honor the senator's request. Using a convoluted line of Clintonesque reasoning, this consultant said, "It all depends on what your definition of 'future mailings' is." By that, he meant they had no intention of stopping the use of her photo, because other mailings already were "in production" and thus according to his definition did not qualify as a "future mailing." It was like asking Bill Clinton what the definition of “is”' is!

But this is just symptomatic of the kind of sleazy campaigning the "No on A" side has conducted all along. They have relied on mudslinging tactics and the age-old propaganda tactic that if you repeat falsehoods and misinformation enough times, people might start believing it's the truth. These political consultants are skilled at manipulating and misinforming voters, and they are trying to do it with Proposition A.

For more information, see www.improvetherunoff.com/

<<>>     <<>>     <<>>

Do December runoffs help or hurt progressives?

By Rich DeLeon

This question arises in debates about Proposition A, the March ballot measure that would replace December runoff elections with an "instant" or "same-day" runoff, if needed, to be completed on November election day.

I crunched some numbers on recent voting trends to measure the impacts of December runoffs on various constituencies, particularly progressives. Bay Guardian readers should find the results worth thinking about before they decide how to vote on Proposition A.

First, I constructed an index of progressive voting in San Francisco precincts based on 12 key ballot measures from November 2000 to November 2001. You can view a map and list of these Progressive Voting Index (PVI) scores on the Usual Suspects website at www.clemens.org.

Second, using the PVI scores as a tool, I compared voter turnout in the 25 percent most progressive precincts with the 25 percent least progressive (most conservative) precincts in both the November and December 2001 elections.

Here is what the comparison revealed.

November 2001 general election: For every 100 voters who turned out in the progressive precincts, 107 turned out in the conservative precincts. This 7 percent difference is fairly close to parity.

December 2001 runoff election: For every 100 voters who turned out in the progressive precincts, 126 turned out in the conservative precincts. This dramatic increase in the ratio of conservative to progressive voters occurred despite (or perhaps because of) the 44 percent drop in voter turnout citywide between November and December.

If December runoffs favor conservatives, as the evidence shows, how did liberal Dennis Herrera beat conservative Jim Lazarus in the December 2001 runoff for city attorney? If victories like that can be won under the current election rules, why do progressives need Proposition A?

The answer is suggestive. If San Francisco had used a same-day runoff in November, Herrera most likely would have won by an even greater margin. In November, the liberal/progressive candidates for city attorney won a combined 60 percent of the vote. It is highly likely that nearly all of those votes in an instant runoff would have stayed in-house and transferred to Herrera. In the December runoff, however, Herrera won with only 52 percent of the vote. Thus, due to the proportionally greater decline in progressive voter turnout, Herrera probably lost approximately 8 percent of his potential vote, making the election close.

Progressive defenders of December runoffs have also pointed to the progressive sweep in the December 2000 runoffs for Board of Supervisors as evidence justifying opposition to Proposition A. But clearly the December 2000 district runoffs were a spectacular exception to well-established historical trends. Many powerful forces converged in that election, not least the anti-Willie Brown backlash, the cresting of the dot-com invasion, and the return to district elections, which forced despised incumbents to stand trial before angry neighborhood electorates. Progressive success that year was not due solely to a one-time surge in turnout among progressive voters. Those who believe that Proposition A might prevent this kind of happy history from repeating itself have deluded themselves into thinking that the exception is the rule. The exception is the exception; strategy and policy should be based on the rule.

Based on the evidence presented, I conclude that December runoffs have hurt progressive voters, candidates and causes in the past and (absent same-day runoffs) will continue to do so in the future, even under district elections. Vote for Proposition A.