Special Election Post-Election Presentation

1. Special ElectionPost-Election Presentation

2. Election in National Context • Democratic candidates win two Governor races: Corzine in NJ (53/44) and Kaine in VA (52/46) • Republicans facing continued political setbacks, led by the leak investigation, the response to Katrina, and the challenges in the Iraqi war • Democratic base motivated by the frustration of the current political landscape • Democrats outspent opponents in New Jersey and California • Reform measures, including redistricting, soundly defeated in Ohio

3. Political Landscape

4. Party Registration % Registered

5. California Party Registration Over Time % Registration by Party Democrats Republicans DTS/Other

6. San Francisco: Party Registration

7. Turnout

8. California Turnout % Turnout in California Presidential Elections Davis Recall Special Elections 2005: 49% Reagan: Prop 1A tax limitation Gubernatorial Elections Wilson: Prop 172 & School Vouchers Brown: Prop 1 (school busing)

9. San Francisco Turnout % Turnout in San Francisco Kerry v. Bush Mondale v. Reagan Clinton v. Bush Dukakis v. Bush Gore v. Bush Clinton v. Dole Recall As of 11/28/05 Attorney Runoff

10. Absentee Voting % Voting Absentee in San Francisco Mayoral Runoff Estimated School Vouchers Pelosi Special Feinstein Recall

11. Historical Absentee vs. Precinct Turnout in California Precinct Vote Absentee Vote

12. Flashback: 2001

13. Special Election Trivia Questions • What SF ballot proposition received the highest number of TOTAL votes (i.e. the lowest abstention rate?) • What candidate race had the fewest number of total voters participating? • Which statewide measure received the highest number of TOTAL votes from San Francisco voters? • Which statewide prop has the most NO votes? • On which statewide prop is SF alone?

14. Statewide Props

15. Proposition 74 • “Public School Teachers, Waiting Period for Permanent Status, Dismissal Initiative Statute.” Increases probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years. Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Fiscal impact: unknown net effect on school district’s costs for teacher compensation, performance evaluations and other activities. Impact would vary significantly by district and depend largely on future district personnel actions. • Supporters: Governor, Republicans • Opponents: Alliance for Better California, CTA, SEIU, public employee unions

16. Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure

17. Proposition 75 • Public Employee Union Dues, Restriction on Political Contributions, Employee Consent Requirement Initiative Statute. Prohibits using public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employee’s prior consent. Excludes contributions, benefiting charities or employees. Requires unions to maintain and, upon request, report member political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission. Fiscal impact: is probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset by revenues from fines or fees. • Supporters: Governor, Republicans • Opponents: Alliance for Better California, CTA, SEIU, public employee unions

18. Proposition 75: Union Dues

19. Proposition 76 • State Spending and School Funding Limits Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding requirements in Proposition 98. Permits the Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of the Governor’s choosing. Fiscal impact: state spending likely reduced relative to current law due to additional spending limit and new powers granted to the Governor. Reductions could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments. • Supporters: Governor, Republicans • Opponents: Alliance for Better California, CTA, SEIU, public employee unions

20. Proposition 76: Budget & Spending

21. Proposition 77 • Redistricting Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Amends State Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three member panel of retired judges selected by legislative leaders. Fiscal impact: is one-time state redistricting costs totaling no more than one point five million dollars and county costs in the range of one million dollars. Potential reduction in future costs but net impact would depend on decisions by voters. • Supporters: Governor, Republicans • Opponents: Alliance for Better California, CTA, SEIU, public employee unions

22. Proposition 77: Redistricting

23. San Francisco defeats Governor’s measures by 20% more than state

24. Schwarzenegger Scorecard

25. Other Statewide Propositions

26. Proposition 73: Abortion

27. Prop 78: Prescription Drugs (Pharmaceutical Companies)

28. Prop 79: Prescription Drugs (Consumer Groups)

29. Proposition 80: Electricity Reregulation

30. Citywide Props

31. % Voting on Each Measure Percent of San Franciscans Voting on Each Measure

32. Citywide Candidate Races

33. SF Assessor-Recorder: Ting Wins

34. SF Treasurer: Cisneros Wins

35. City Attorney: Herrera Wins

36. Proposition A: City College Bond Shall San Francisco Community College District (City College)  increase opportunities and improve conditions at its campuses throughout San Francisco by issuing $246.3 million in Phase II bonds at legal interest rates to pay for capital improvements including increasing student access to advanced computer technology and bio/stem cell technology, renovating classrooms, building new facilities for upper division classes, neighborhood classes and the performing arts, with annual audits, citizens’ oversight & no spending for college administrators’ salaries. City College needs renovations;Phase II of upgrade Argument in favor  Rushed to the ballot; Haven’t spent previous bond money yet Argument against  Major Supporter: City College Major Opponent: Guardian Major Endorsers: Newsom: YES Chronicle: YESDem Party: YES Bay Guardian: NOSPUR: YES Alice: YES Ballot Arguments in Favor: 0Ballot Arguments Against: 0

37. Proposition A: City College Bond

38. Proposition B: Street and Sidewalk Improvement Bond Shall the City incur $208 million of bonded indebtedness to finance street reconstruction, pavement renovation, disabled access curb ramp construction, sidewalk and street improvements, street structure rehabilitation and improvements, pedestrian safety street and signal improvements, street improvements for bicycle use and all other structures and improvements necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes? Streets, infrastructure in need of improvementProvides more budget flexibility Argument in favor  Property tax increase Bond measure not appropriate for general needs Argument against  Major Supporter: NewsomMajor Opponent: SF Taxpayers Assoc. Major Endorsers: Chronicle: NODem Party: YES Bay Guardian: YESSPUR: NP Ballot Arguments in Favor: 1Ballot Arguments Against: 7

39. Proposition B: Street and Sidewalk Improvement Bond Needs two-thirds to win; measure fails

40. Proposition C: Ethics Commission Budget Shall the City create a new budget process for the Ethics Commission that alters the role of the Mayor and authorizes the Commission to hire outside counsel under certain circumstances? Provides budget independence for Ethics Comm.Makes Ethics Comm. Independent of electeds Argument in favor  Removes Mayor role, leave Board role;Eliminates checks and balances Argument against  Major Supporter: MirkarimiMajor Opponent: Elsbernd Major Endorsers: Chronicle: NODem Party: YES Bay Guardian: YESSPUR: NO Alice: NO Ballot Arguments in Favor: 3Ballot Arguments Against: 4

41. Proposition C: Ethics Commission Funding

42. Proposition D: MTA Board Appointments Shall the President of the Board of Supervisors nominate three members and the Mayor nominate four members to the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors, and shall the members be prevented from serving as "holdovers"?  Argument in favor  Will make MTA board more representative of community, dilutes Mayoral power Reintroduces politics into MUNI;Board power grab Argument against  Major Supporter: AmmianoMajor Opponent: Newsom Major Endorsers: Chronicle: NODem Party: NO Bay Guardian: YESSPUR: NO Alice: NO Ballot Arguments in Favor: 2Ballot Arguments Against: 11

43. Proposition D: MTA Board Appointments

44. Proposition F: Firefighting Services Shall the City maintain and operate all 42 firehouses and specific emergency and rescue vehicles and equipment at the same levels that were used on January 1, 2004?  Argument in favor  Maintain safe staffing for fire services End brownouts that reduce response time Set-aside reduces budget flexibility Could hurt health care, other spending priorities Argument against  Major Supporter: Firefighters UnionMajor Opponent: Coleman Advocates Major Endorsers: Chronicle: NODem Party: YES Bay Guardian: NO NO NOSPUR: NO Ballot Arguments in Favor: 24Ballot Arguments Against: 5

45. Proposition F: Fire Department Funding Shall the City maintain and operate all 42 firehouses and specific emergency and rescue vehicles and equipment at the same levels that were used on January 1, 2004? 

46. Proposition H: Handgun Ban Shall the City ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco, and ban City residents from possessing handguns within San Francisco? Reduces proliferation of handguns Send a message to stop gun violence Argument in favor  Unconstitutional, city has no authority Criminals will still own guns; will not reduce crime Argument against  Major Supporter: Chris DalyMajor Opponent: Police Officers Association Major Endorsers: Chronicle: NODem Party: YES Bay Guardian: YES Alice: YES Ballot Arguments in Favor: 0Ballot Arguments Against: 6

47. Proposition H: Handgun Ban Shall the City ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco, and ban City residents from possessing handguns within San Francisco?

48. Proposition I: Military Recruiter Ban Shall it be City policy to oppose military recruiting in public schools and consider funding scholarships for education and training that could provide an alternative to military service? Argument in favor  Military should not be recruiting in schools Send an anti-war message to Washington Symbolic only, no real effect If schools adhere, could cost federal funds Argument against  Major Supporter: College Not Combat Major Opponent: Some Republicans Major Endorsers: Chronicle: NODem Party: YES Bay Guardian: YES Alice: YES Ballot Arguments in Favor: 0Ballot Arguments Against: 3

49. Proposition I: Banning Military Recruiters Shall it be City policy to oppose military recruiting in public schools and consider funding scholarships for education and training that could provide an alternative to military service?

50. Lessons