Time to Scrap the 2009 Municipal Election

by Paul Hogarth, 2007-11-06

It’s been a sleepy election – where we expect a record low turnout that could jeopardize the passage of Proposition A, and risk the passage of Proposition H. All because there’s nothing on the ballot nationally, nothing on the ballot statewide and no competitive Mayor’s race locally. Before we have an election in two years where Don Fisher can ram through another terrible proposition, it’s time to seriously question the need for a San Francisco election in 2009. The City Attorney and Treasurer will be up for re-election that year, but why not consolidate those races with a statewide election? Because if Dennis Herrera and Jose Cisneros have no serious opposition, 2009 could make the 2007 race look downright fascinating.

Back in June, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick proposed a Charter Amendment that died in the Rules Committee. What it would have done is abolish local elections in odd-numbered years, consolidating the quadrennial Mayor’s race with presidential elections – and the City Attorney’s race with gubernatorial elections. The Controller said it would save the City $3.7 million, and it would give infrequent voters (i.e., poor people, renters and people of color) an opportunity to weigh in. Because when there’s nothing at the state or national level to vote on, turnout drops precipitously.

Earlier this year, as progressives dreaded a Newsom romp in November with no serious opposition, activists feared how a low turnout could sink their ballot propositions. When Supervisor Chris Daly proposed a Housing Charter Amendment, tenant activists urged him to wait for another election – like February 2008 – where a higher turnout would improve their chances. Now it looks like Daly will put off his measure until November 2008, which sounds like a smart move. Other measures were likewise postponed.

But while progressives can be strategic about choosing when to put up a ballot initiative, they cannot control when Don Fisher – or another Republican C.E.O. – can put up an awful proposition. And that’s the real danger of a low turnout municipal election with no exciting candidate campaign, no grass-roots volunteer presence and no compelling reason for low-interest voters to get engaged. It’s disgusting we even have to fight Proposition H – but the only reason it has a chance is because Republicans, landlords and the Chamber of Commerce will have a disproportionate voice.

Which is why I don’t fault Supervisor Aaron Peskin for trying to cut a deal that would have defused Don Fisher’s attack pieces. Peskin saw the writing on the wall about a low turnout election, and tried to see what he could do to preserve our transit-first policy. The provision that he put into Prop A – that will trump Prop H’s effects even if the parking measure passes – was nothing short of brilliant.

Looking ahead at 2009, I fear that we will once again have an extremely low turnout election that could force us to fight the same battles over again. There will be no national election, no statewide election, and the only San Francisco races will be for City Attorney and Treasurer. In November 2005, there was a decent turnout because it coincided with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special election. But barring such a scenario – which is what motivated voters to come out – turnout would have been awful.

Unlike the Mayor’s race – where a competitive election can boost a healthy turnout – San Franciscans don’t even come out for a City Attorney’s race when their vote matters. In November 2001, when Louise Renne retired and we had a vigorous four-way race with skilled candidates, turnout was a meager 30%. In the December run-off between Dennis Herrera and Jim Lazarus, it was a pitiful 17%. And we’re surprised that public power failed that year?

Local ballot measures alone are not compelling enough a reason for the casual San Francisco voter to cast their ballot. There needs to be something national or statewide, or else a vigorous, high-profile and competitive local candidate race. The “Yes on A / No on H” campaign is doing a terrific job getting out the vote, but they are facing long odds to motivate people. Progressives shouldn’t have to go through such nonsense due to factors beyond their control.

After today’s election, it will be time to revisit Jake McGoldrick’s Charter Amendment because most of us -- I hope -- are in it for the long haul, and are constantly looking ahead to future elections.

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org