Official San Francisco Democratic Party Profile & Endorsements - eVoter
ORGANIZATION
San Francisco Democratic Party
ORGANIZATION ENDORSEMENTS
2010 Official San Francisco Democratic Party Organization Endorsements
| Picture | Profile | Election | Office | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Edmund 'Jerry' G. Brown | 2010 California General Election | Governor | ca |
|
Gavin Newsom | 2010 California General Election | Lt. Governor | ca |
|
|
Debra Bowen | 2010 California General Election | Secretary of State | ca |
|
|
John Chiang | 2010 California General Election | State Controller | ca |
|
|
Bill Lockyer | 2010 California General Election | State Treasurer | ca |
 |
Kamala D. Harris | 2010 California General Election | Attorney General | ca |
|
|
Dave Jones | 2010 California General Election | Insurance Commissioner | ca |
|
|
Betty T. Yee | 2010 California General Election | Member, State Board of Equalization, 1st District | ca |
|
|
Barbara Boxer | 2010 California General Election | U.S. Senator | ca |
|
|
Nancy Pelosi | 2010 California General Election | U.S. Representative, 8th Congressional District | ca |
|
|
Jackie Speier | 2010 California General Election | U.S. Representative, 12th Congressional District | ca |
|
|
Leland Yee | 2010 California General Election | State Senator, 8th State Senate District | ca |
|
|
Fiona Ma | 2010 California General Election | Member, State Assembly 12th Assembly District | ca |
|
|
Tom Ammiano | 2010 California General Election | Member, State Assembly 13th Assembly District | ca |
|
|
Michael Nava | 2010 California General Election | Superior Court Judge, San Francisco County, Seat 15 | ca |
 |
Tom Torlakson | 2010 California General Election | Superintendent of Public Instruction | ca |
|
|
John Rizzo | 2010 California General Election | Board Member San Francisco Community College School District | ca |
|
|
Anita Grier | 2010 California General Election | Board Member San Francisco Community College School District | ca |
|
|
Lawrence Wong | 2010 California General Election | Board Member San Francisco Community College School District | ca |
|
|
Emily Murase | 2010 California General Election | Board Member San Francisco Unified School District | ca |
|
|
Hydra Mendoza | 2010 California General Election | Board Member San Francisco Unified School District | ca |
|
|
Kim-Shree Maufas | 2010 California General Election | Board Member San Francisco Unified School District | ca |
|
|
Janet Reilly | 2010 California General Election | Member, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco County, District 2 | ca |
|
|
Carmen Chu | 2010 California General Election | Member, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco County, District 4 | ca |
|
|
Debra Walker | 2010 California General Election | Member, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco County, District 6 | ca |
|
|
Rafael Mandelman | 2010 California General Election | Member, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco County, District 8 | ca |
|
|
DeWitt M. Lacy | 2010 California General Election | Member, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco County, District 10 | ca |
|
|
Jeff Adachi | 2010 California General Election | San Francisco County, Public Defender | ca |
|
|
Bert Hill | 2010 California General Election | Member, Bart District 8 | ca |
PROPOSITION ENDORSEMENTS
2012 Official San Francisco Democratic Party Proposition Endorsements
Check back for 2012 Official San Francisco Democratic Party proposition endorsements.
2011 Official San Francisco Democratic Party Proposition Endorsements
Check back for 2011 Official San Francisco Democratic Party proposition endorsements.
2010 Official San Francisco Democratic Party Proposition Endorsements
San Francisco City and County Measure N
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure N
Shall the City increase its real property transfer tax rate to 2.0% for sales and long-term leases of real property valued at $5 million to $10 million and to 2.5% for sales and long-term leases of real property valued at $10 million or more?
San Francisco City and County Measure M
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure M
Shall the City require the Police Commission to adopt a written community policing policy, require the Chief of Police to establish a comprehensive Foot Beat Patrol Program, and not amend its Police Code to prohibit sitting or lying on sidewalks?
San Francisco City and County Measure L
We endorse saying NO on San Francisco City and County Measure L
Shall the City amend its Police Code to prohibit sitting or lying on a public sidewalk in San Francisco between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., with certain exceptions?
San Francisco City and County Measure K
We endorse saying NO on San Francisco City and County Measure K
Shall the City keep the hotel tax rate at 14%, confirm that anyone collecting rent from a hotel guest must also collect tax on room rental and related charges, and define "permanent resident" so that only an individual could qualify for the "permanent resident" exemption?
San Francisco City and County Measure J
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure J
Shall the City increase the hotel tax rate from 14% to 16% for the next three years, confirm that anyone collecting rent from a hotel guest must also collect tax on room rental and related charges, and define "permanent resident" so that only an individual could qualify for the "permanent resident" exemption?
San Francisco City and County Measure I
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure I
Shall the City open polling places on the Saturday before the November 2011 election if donors contribute enough money to pay for the costs?
San Francisco City and County Measure H
We endorse saying NO on San Francisco City and County Measure H
Shall the City prohibit elected City officials from serving on San Francisco political party county central committees?
San Francisco City and County Measure F
We endorse saying NO on San Francisco City and County Measure F
Shall the number of Health Service Board elections be reduced to two elections every five years instead of four elections?
San Francisco City and County Measure E
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure E
Shall the Charter be amended to establish Election Day voter registration specifically for municipal elections?
San Francisco City and County Measure D
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure D
Shall the City allow non-citizen residents of San Francisco who are 18 years of age or older and have children living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education?
San Francisco City and County Measure C
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure C
Shall the Charter be amended to require the Mayor to appear in person at one regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors each month to engage in formal policy discussions with the Board?
San Francisco City and County Measure B
We endorse saying NO on San Francisco City and County Measure B
Shall the City increase employee contributions to the Retirement System for retirement benefits; decrease employer contributions to the Health Service System for health benefits for employees, retirees and their dependents; change rules for arbitration proceedings about City collective bargaining agreements; and prohibit any increase in employee compensation for affected City employees for five years if a court invalidates any part of this measure?
San Francisco City and County Measure AA
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure AA
Shall the San Francisco County Transportation Authority add $10 to the annual registration fee for vehicles registered in San Francisco to fund transportation projects involving street repairs and reconstruction, pedestrian safety, and transit reliability improvements?
San Francisco City and County Measure A
We endorse saying YES on San Francisco City and County Measure A
EARTHQUAKE SAFETY RETROFIT DEFERRED LOAN AND GRANT PROGRAM GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 2010. To provide deferred loans and grants to pay the costs for seismic retrofits of certain multi-story wood-frame buildings with vulnerable soft-story construction at significant risk of substantial damage and collapse during a major earthquake and funded by a qualified governmental housing finance agency for permanent or long-term affordability, or single room occupancy buildings owned by private parties, and pay related costs, shall the City issue up to $46,150,000 of general obligation bonded indebtedness, subject to citizen oversight and regular audits?
Statewide Proposition 27
We endorse saying YES on Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives
Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts. Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for redistricting. Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the Legislature. Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Likely decrease in state redistricting costs totaling several million dollars every ten years.
Statewide Proposition 26
We endorse saying NO on Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited Exceptions
Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for state levies and charges, with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject to majority vote. Changes Constitution to require voters to approve, either by two-thirds or majority, local levies and charges with limited exceptions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potentially major decrease in state and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters.
Statewide Proposition 25
We endorse saying YES on Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes
Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. Provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the state budget from lowering the legislative vote requirement for passage. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. Minor reduction in state costs related to compensation of legislators in years when the budget bill is passed after June 15.
Statewide Proposition 24
We endorse saying YES on Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income
Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years and that would extend the period permitted to shift operating losses to future tax years. Repeals recent legislation that would allow corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations. Repeals recent legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a sales-based income calculation, rather than a combination property-, payroll- and sales-based income calculation. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Annual state revenue increase from business taxes of about $1.7 billion when fully phased in, beginning in 2011-12.
Statewide Proposition 23
We endorse saying NO on Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year
Suspends State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Requires State to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts. Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.
Statewide Proposition 22
We endorse saying NO on Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services
Prohibits the State from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. Prohibits the State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Significant constraints on state authority over city, county, special district, and redevelopment agency funds. As a result, higher and more stable local resources, potentially affecting billions of dollars in some years. Commensurate reductions in state resources, resulting in major decreases in state spending and/or increases in state revenues
Statewide Proposition 21
We endorse saying YES on Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles
Establishes an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge and grants free admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles. Requires deposit of surcharge revenue in a new trust fund. Requires that trust funds be used solely to operate, maintain and repair the state park system, and to protect wildlife and natural resources. Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Requires annual independent audit and review by citizen's oversight committee. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from the imposition of a surcharge on the VLF to be used mainly to fund state parks and wildlife conservation programs. Potential state savings of up to approximately $200 million annually to the extent that the VLF surcharge revenues were used to reduce support from the General Fund and other special funds for parks and wildlife conservation programs. Reduction of about $50 million annually in state and local revenues from state park day-use fees. These revenue losses could potentially be offset by increases in other types of state park user fees and revenues.
Statewide Proposition 20
We endorse saying NO on Redistricting of Congressional Districts
Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party. Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant change in state redistricting costs.
Statewide Proposition 19
We endorse saying YES on Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed.
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.
