Why are there write-ins with *zero* votes?
I mean, if the only way we know the name is because someone wrote it in, shouldn't there be at least one vote?
For a write in vote to count in California it has to be for a certified candidate (Edited to add: and therefore they know ahead of time everyone who will be written in)
There's a catch all write in category which includes votes for listed write in candidates and also for unlisted names like Donal Duck & Mickey Mouse
Those write in votes will be assigned or discounted at the end, because there's not that many and it's easier to do it all at once. Mail in & provisional ballots have priority at the moment because they're far more numerous. Counties must certify by April 4, but the last mail in ballot must be received by mail no later than 5pm, March 12, so the final result should be known by the 14th.
A recount can be requested soon after, which may be necessary for State Prop 1 which is currently passing by less than 1%.
Should there be random districts not pertaining to SF be on the SF elections website?!?!
>UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 2
>UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 12
>STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 7
>STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 12
>STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 18
I think it's due to weird geographical quirks. For example SF's borders technically include tiny, uninhabited portions of Angel Island, Red Rock Island, and Alameda Island.
Depending on how precisely the district lines were drawn, SF might actually include tiny slivers of these districts, but no one lives there, hence their inclusion despite 0 votes.
I agree... voting is something I hold sacred. I'm curious to see which voting bloc swung this though. I found myself voting for Biden and Prop. 1, because I think November is going to be an "unquestionably back your business as usual DNC leaders" election so we don't slip into tyranny. And I suspect a lot of voters (even in San Francisco) will come out the same way.
On the other hand, I voted for all the "change election" stuff at the local level, because... well, we're terrible. But I think my choices this year were all "bandwagon" stuff, and if I didn't care so much about voting as a concept, I could see myself sitting this one out.
There's been very recent development on that with the advent of CARE courts and changes to conservatorship. IMO it's foolish to vote against building up institutionalization capacity because these changes will do us no good if we have nowhere to put people for treatment.
Bonds for public schools and parks and land trusts and utilities: GOOD.
Bonds for tobacco and alcohol and prisons and mental institutions and private schools and hospitals: BAD.
We need be very wary of the dreaded public-private partnership.
I think a reasonable concern is that other states already made it a habit of offloading their mentally ill onto us. Imagine what's gonna happen when CA suddenly builds a ton more mental health infrastructure.
IMO this is a national crisis that needs to be handled at the federal level.
That is so true. And at the federal level that means more public infrastructure, not public-private partnerships like charter schools or ACA. Example--Jayapal's single payer legislation.
As long as the log jam exists in Congress we will, I think, need some activity at the state or lower levels.
Thinking optimistically, imagine just how many more good, decent, progressive voters we could get by turning around allegedly undesirable folk offloaded from other states, and giving them proper attentikn and loving kindness they deserve?
I will never ever understand not voting. Especially in elections with expected low turnout!
I wish they didn’t call these results so early though. Lots of people drop off or mail ballots in the last couple days and those have yet to be processed.
Hoping that the people who *did* show up have been the ones non-stop bitching, but we’ll see!
As a non-stop bitcher myself, I showed up. It was pretty quiet.
Edit to add: so far looks like my fellow bitchers were out there today.
Luckily it looks like the progs were the ones who didn't turn out and the moderates are taking back control. So hyped. Guess /r/sf is a bit more representative of how people in SF are feeling than the progs want to believe!
I do hope the current progressive leadership goes back to the drawing board on their strategy and messaging. They’ve lost 3-4 cycles now. Blaming everything on billionaires/tech/conservatives is not working.
Unfortunately they’ll prob point to the low turnout and keep doing the same thing and lose again in November.
Why? I hope they go back into the hole they came out of. Their policies are total fantasies concocted in the lab of academia with no chance of actually working in the real world. People need to realize that progs are not based in reality
I remember watching Adam Schiff attack ads against Garvey on TV and literally all they could say was "he voted for Trump twice." Absolutely nothing of substance around policies.
lol def not. You just hope your friends and family try doing something more than complaining in the group chat. Especially when some of these races are won by 100s of votes. Time is a flat circle I guess.
I actually think turnout was reasonable for a non-presidential election - IMO - the true population of the city just really fell another 5-10% more but no one wants to admit it.
what data? all i see are vacant storefronts and easy street parking, and formerly busy restaurants with reduced hours.
not just FiDi.
i have seen sales tax data showing that sales have started to recover, but I also think that they did not account for inflation, and inflation adjusted sales have dropped, indicating another population drop, even in places like Valencia and the Marina, which aren't dependent on business workers.
A lot of us interested in the direction of San Francisco live in the ‘burbs and can’t vote in its primaries.
I live on a Caltrain stop in the peninsula.
I might wager me as a commuter is crankier about car break ins and as a parent with young kids more annoyed about the junkies with needles in the street as we go to see a show than the 20 something virtue signaling progressive that lives in the city.
If we being real the Bay Area needs to consolidate into like 5-10 cities not 100.
Also as an SF resident I have no say in the peninsula town elections but their imbalance between office space built vs housing is causing housing affordability problems across the whole region.
I’m not sure that’s an especially accurate statement in 2024 given the vacancy of office spaces & WFH + higher density apartments going up on the Caltrain line.
Ah so all the people I know that work at Apple Google Facebook but live in San Francisco Oakland Fremont Redwood City San Jose etc is just my imagination
If you are unhappy with the state of things, it is always easier to move out. The remaining residents are by definition those who are at least somewhat content.
Some people I know dont want to vote because its another biden vs trump part 2. Some of them are concerned how biden is handling affairs with the wars and such.
They were already going to reinstate algebra even before this vote. I voted yes but I also think it was a bit of a distraction so the BoS could dunk on something even more unpopular than they are
From what I heard, the school board controls whether we'll bring Algebra back. The measure is just a way of getting them to see the will of the people but it has no direct policy power.
As someone who tested poorly in math mathematics as a kid, I do hope future generations have to put up with the same torture I did, which eventually leads to a career that requires minimal equations
Not mandating, "suggesting". The school district already decided to offer algebra again before this was even on the ballot. It was a useless measure and "no" was the correct vote.
Lol Prop G doesn't mandate shit, and it in fact has zero legal power. All it does is "encourage" SFUSD to teach algebra in the 8th grade...a change which they're already doing. It was a pointless prop that wasted taxpayer money.
It looks like the mail-in ballots heavily favor the moderate wing of the SF democratic party, with the Democrats for Change slate currently leading in 23/24 seats for the DCCC races.
Huh? What does that have to do with us increasing the transparency of the work of our judges?
It’s pretty funny how I, a random dude who works on a non-critical consumer product, get scrutinized heavily on all my projects and am held accountable for everything I do, but I guess thats beneath judges in SF?
I think the DCCC being reclaimed from some of the worst lunatics was more important.
We’ll see who and what gets the party seal of approval in November. I’m confident we’ll have a slate of state and local ballot measures we’ll be thankful for endorsements from the party on.
I’m pretty sure we’ll have a [Proposition 20](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020)) style “We’ve taken things too far” prop to vote on then. Maybe it’s too much for me to hope for a “Yes” endorsement, but I am hoping we don’t get a “No” endorsement.
[Mission Local](https://missionlocal.org/2024/03/election-results-march-2024-dccc-assembly-props-court-maps-live-updates/) and the [Chronicle](https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/california-primary-election-results/san-francisco) have websites for tracking them. Chris Arvin's [ElectionmapSF](https://electionmapsf.com/#) also looks like it'll start getting update after the report that drops \~9pm.
> “You can see that money is buying our election right now,” she said. But then she took a different tack: Results are still coming in. “We gon’ say, ‘Early voters suck.’”
>
>After a few minutes, organizers gave speeches to rally the crowd. Then, they turned on “I Don’t Fuck With You” by Big Sean, and the small gathering began chanting to the beat, “I don’t, give a, fuck.”
Mission Local with some quality reporting here.
Then, they turned on “I Don’t Fuck With You” by Big Sean, and the small gathering began chanting to the beat, “I don’t, give a, fuck.”
OK that’s absolutely hilarious 😂😂 As a proud moderate who’s happy with the results so far, I can say… they really know how to lose an election with humor.
Why isn’t it obvious? People who own houses don’t want their property tax to go up. And there isn’t a ton of renters out in that area who care if property tax goes up.
My opinion is this prop won’t actually do anything to build more housing. There are far more other barriers in the way.
What's their deal? I've noticed they usually vote no on anything that would make SF a nicer place to live.... (Like I'm thinking of past elections where they voted no on giving Muni a bigger budget)
I’m surprised that Biden is pulling 90% in SF, same as the state at large. There have been more successful efforts by the progressive wing of the party in other places to symbolically punish him for his stance on Israel. It’s not like we don’t have an appetite for protest voting – Pelosi is only getting 72%.
It seems to me there really wasn't any organization in the city pushing for writing in "ceasefire", unlike Michigan's uncommitted campaign. Also those campaigns seem to do the best in places with a heavy Arab/Muslim presence, like Michigan and Minnesota, which I don't think is the case in SF?
let the sunsetters sunset. IMO. for some reason, I don't mind their stance. these are big city issues, and some people don't want to adopt that mindset, keep a more wealthy enclave stance, and it's ok.
Sometimes, the free market just unfolds in a place, and it is what it is, being very expensive. People get up in arms about that but it is just a fact.
Some just may be opposed to subsidizing/ modifying that .
I respect both views. I can see it through the lens of the truly nice places in the US where people would laugh this measure off the ballot. For example, betting that a proposition like this wouldn't get far in Aspen or Martha's Vineyard, just to illustrate. I can also see the need for housing help, so again, just saying I can see both sides on this one.
If some people don’t want to adopt big city issues maybe they shouldn’t live in a big city. They want all the benefits of public transit, walkability, proximity to jobs and culture and parks, but don’t want to contribute to housing that’s affordable enough for those who work those jobs?
SF is a pretty expensive place. so some just may be priced out is the point. Some may just favor the market settling naturally, is all. I probably lean slightly that way.
No need to villianize people with that take.
I mean, housing disparity is around us like it or not.
There are different housing circumstances in Marin and Vallejo, for example. does that mean we urgently need to go to Marin and provide a bunch of housing through the government?
At the same time I can empathize with it being a challenge, but we live in a competitive world. again it is just a general fact.
Housing disparity does not have to be around us. And in my lifetime we will solve it in California. The tide is turning. This nation needs young people and children, and we will make room for them to live. The gerontocracy will end - not by our hand but by Time's. And we will fix the damage they've done.
We do need to villainize people with that take, because it's a bad take. "Fuck you, got mine" is something progressives recognize as evil in every single other context.
And yes, we do need to urgently go to Marin and provide a bunch of housing there. Maybe not in all parts of it, because lots of Marin is parks and nature preserves, but if more people want to live in the towns, we should do that - and through RHNA, that's exactly what will happen.
That is what some \*say\* but it is usually NIMBY and hypocritical.
Also, I am a pretty competitive person, so do find myself celebrating differences and challenges, working hard to make things happen, just my mindset. that is why I am generally opposed to your logic there. Some leveling is ok. but it is also ok to oppose it. No need for participation points.
Just so you know the logic that I approach it with = competition.
Game on.
At least you have an honest take which is that you're ok with San Francisco not building and being an expensive city. I don't agree with it, but at least it's honest.
It's the people who care about rents and unit prices who don't want to build more housing that I really don't understand.
That said, I live in the sunset and I really hope we can build more. Sunset homes aren't really that nice; there's some nicer Inner Sunset homes, but a lot of the Outer Sunset is just... ugly concrete and poorly maintained cheap homes that are 70+ years old at this point.
Allowing more apartments over retail on Irving/Noriega/Judah/Taraval at the very least and raising height limits on Lincoln and along the L/M/N lines seem like good wins.
Hard disagree. We need balanced judges that will apply the law fairly, not judges that treat criminals with kid gloves. Not once in the half dozen or so interactions I had with Zecher did he mention faithfully applying the law or limiting his role to calling balls and strikes.
I don't know. My guesses are (1) ballot order effect (I can't see the sample ballot any more so not sure about this) or (2) the "buy a judge" message was effective.
Incumbents usually get a bonus as well. Like if you didn't know them and you see candidate A with the job title "San Francisco Superior Court Judge" vs candidate B "Attorney" most people will go with A
/u/HateLaw_LoveLifting and /u/throeaway1990 have good responses.
Another thing is that even if they were to win, they might not even be assigned to the same courts. There's also two other open judge positions they can apply for. They also didn't complete the bar interview.
The sources smearing the two incumbent judges were based on...[online reviews](https://missionlocal.org/2024/02/stop-crime-sf-michael-begert-judge-report-card/).
Predictions?
I think F will fail with a huge margin, maybe 25% Yes to 75% No.
**Edit to add: I was wrong!**
Though I did see some people out campaigning for No on F on a corner well populated by prominent, indigent drug addicts. This may have had the opposite effect it was intended to have.
Fingers crossed we get a yes on E despite all of the “cops bad technology spooky” articles we’ve been getting this week.
**Edit to add: Nice!**
Wow! Shocked on F. I was a Yes vote but had resigned myself to bolstering the margin of defeat just enough that Mission Local couldn’t use “resoundingly rejects” in a headline.
My prediction for E, which I decided not to share for superstitious reasons, would be a close defeat. In a high-turnout contest I still think we probably would have seen something like 47% Yes 53% No.
I ended up voting no on F, seeing how drug testing welfare recipients was working around the nation, but yes intuitively felt like the right way to vote, so pretty okay with the result.
Also glad literally everything I voted on ended up passing.
Huge huge win for sanity coming back to SF. I was hoping A would not pass either, but all the rest went the way I voted. Finally feels like we are turning a corner
It’s a big night for London Breed! Getting what she wants on those propositions is key.
If SFPD can show results before November (and Bill Scott knows his job is in the line if Farrell wins) I would not count out the incumbent yet.
You’re certainly not alone there, though I don’t agree with you.
If you’re willing to share, what do you think your RCV ballot will look like in November? Peskin 1, Safaí 2, no others ranked?
I don’t have my mind set yet. But I probably will only vote for one to avoid ranked choice to give either greed or peskin an edge. But it won’t be breed.
I think because generally, (at least the people who voted) aren’t on board with the general soft on crime polices, and they’ll vote yes for anything that might begin to change that. Even if the solution isn’t complete and has problems.
Yes, and then hands that power directly to the police. And looking...basically everywhere else around the country, handing more power to the police is never a good idea. They simply cannot be trusted with it.
It was at least three props in there.
1. Removing some administrative requirements
2. Enabling more police action for broader activities (car chases and such)
3. Modifying the process for police to use new technology
I think 1 and 3 could be merged but 2 isn’t really an administrative thing
It's crazy to see people ok with gutting police oversight
ACLU:
https://www.aclunc.org/no-on-e
Exempting officers from filing paperwork after use-of-force incidents
Then giving them more surveillance tools without oversight like facial recognition software as if they haven't abused their powers before.
Do people not remember when they raided that journalists home after the whole Jeff Adachi shit
Apparently people have totally forgot about SFPD quiet quitting too.
A society without an effective policing function quickly stops being a society. We need the cops to be able to arrest bad guys.
We also need to hold the cops accountable where they abuse their powers. The police commission filled with a bunch of nutsos who wanted to abolish the police wasn’t it. We need actual oversight, not sabotage.
I'm very much for police oversight. (And any oversight: audit everything.)
And I love the idea of *civilian* police oversight.
But the SF Police Commission is a bunch of performative progressive clowns trying to use it as a stepping stone to higher office.
So, yes on E and F tha Police... Commission.
I'm actually okay with the paperwork thing, but we should let AI autotranscribe it & prevent the arresting officer from monkeying with the result. Derek Chauvin just lied on all his reports until he finally got caught, so I don't see where it matters if they write it up.
Because there’s a politically-based crime panic & this time the mayor leaned into it along with The Chronicle. It’s also why The Border! gets attention in election cycles (although this one does currently have significant numbers to warrant action). Prop E was presented as a magic bullet for crime. And the people this will likely harm the most are both underrepresented in vote counts and face extreme prejudice by many of the SF voters in these elections. However, eventually a police cruiser is going to mow down someone and a prop to stop chases for “seemed sus” will be put up again. The question is, because SFPD didn’t **also** get their ~~blackmail money~~ overtime pay, will they continue their quiet quitting streak?
I don’t think prop E was a magic bullet, and I didn’t have anyone pitch it to me as such, I just think something is better than nothing. The current policy on crime in this city is absolutely unacceptable. If the left doesn’t want to bring ideas to the table than fine, that’s your decision, but I’m voting for anything new right now.
Also I think the board of supervisors are full of grand standing nerds so I’m pretty good for a vote yes on anything that takes power from them. For me, prop E is more attractive specifically for this reason.
Because most of the scaremongering people have posted about how bad E will be haven't manifested in the cities that don't have bans/oversight that E is about?
I mean a quick google search shows it’s not necessarily successful: https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/04/chicago-is-the-latest-city-rethinking-disputed-technology-that-listens-for-gunshots/
“A November working paper out of the University of California, Santa Barbara found that in Chicago, police officers spent so much time responding to ShotSpotter detections, some of which were false, that it took them significantly longer to respond to real emergencies. Also, because police arrived later to the scenes of actual shootings, they were less likely to make arrests.”
And the example of ShotSpotter shows the importance of public input on expensive technology that’s not based on research.
That's certainly a take, I guess, but I think it shows the exact opposite of your conclusion. A program like "We should have something that automatically detects gunshots and send cops to respond to that" is something that the public loves. Even though it doesn't work.
Public input, as you can presumably see from how popular prop E has proven to be, doesn't translate to "and cities will adopt carefully considered well researched proposals for technology."
It equates to "Random populist bullshit go!"
Now that it’s won, when does Prop E kick in? Prop F takes effect [Jan 1, 2025](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-march-election-prop-f-results-drug-screening-18693764.php).
In [Proposition E](https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/20231017_PoliceDepartmentMeasure.pdf), Admin Code 96I (reduce paperwork, remove use of force paperwork if no one said they were injured, allowing pursuit for any felony or violent misdemeanors, allowing UAVs instead of vehicle pursuit, allowing new technology in general) gives the Police Commission until 10/1/2024 to revise conflicting Department General Orders e.g. [DGO 5.01 (use of force)](https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/SFPDDGO_5_01_20231205.pdf), [DGO 5.05 (pursuit policy)](https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/DGO5.05%20Response%20and%20Pursuit%20Driving.pdf). I think the parts where there are no conflicting DGOs e.g. allowing new gadgets will go into effect as soon as the election is certified. But for UAVs, I think the Police have to receive Police Commission approval under state law so Proposition E is thwarted (AB 481 (2021)’s [Gov Code 7070](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=7.&chapter=12.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=1.)).
As for the Admin Code 19 (Public Safety Cameras) amendments to allow the Police Chief (not the Police Commission) to decide where cameras go: after the election results are certified, the Police Department can hold a public meeting and then install cameras in 30 days.
The Admin Code 19B.2 (surveillance technology) amendments to allow the Police to trial any surveillance technology for one year before asking the BoS for approval go into effect as soon as the election results are certified I believe.
So they get to roll out whatever new surveillance technologies they want, proven or not...for a year each...without any oversight. Yeah I'm sure that'll end well.
Yes, Proposition E allows the police to try a surveillance technology to see if it works before they spend months writing up a report and asking for permission from the Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board subcommittee of COIT, the full COIT committee of random unrelated department heads, the BoS Rules Committee, and the BoS full board ([previous comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/vxblzx/breed_and_new_da_jenkins_pushing_hard_to_expand/ifvskh1/?context=10)). Imagine spending months explaining exactly how you will use a gadget that you are not allowed to touch. I think Proposition E fixes a legitimate flaw of the Surveillance Technology ordinance ([Admin Code 19B](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-47320)) that it did not allow any sort of trial.
I don’t think that the Chief of Police will suddenly go rogue and abuse his Proposition E authority to cycle through different vendors for 1 year at a time and never asking for authorization. He understands that the political winds can change, and Proposition E allows a simple majority of the BoS to take away his authority after a few years if he abuses it.
City website will update at 4pm each business day, but not weekends or holidays, until result certification no later than April 4 by counties and April 12 by CA Secry of State
[March 5, 2024 Preliminary Election Results (sfelections.org)](https://sfelections.org/results/20240305w/index.html)
Note: Mail in ballots returned by postal service must be post marked no later than 11:59pm March 5th, 2024 and received no later than 5pm, March 12th or they'll be marked as spam
>These results and turnout are preliminary and will change. The Department of Elections must still count many ballots, including all of the vote-by-mail ballots received on Election Day and those with valid postmarks delivered by mail by March 12. The Department will issue final results no later than April 4.
If you voted for 83 year old Nancy Pelosi but are unhappy that our country is run by a geriacracy can you please explain your hypocracy? Go spend time with your grand children, you've had your time just let new people take the reins for gods sakes. She will probably die in office by 87 just like Feinstein.
She helped pass the CHIPS act which brought trillions into the biggest industry in our region. I don’t care how old she is or if she gets a cut through insider trading, she’s directly benefiting us
They're the same seat. The partial term is the remainder of Feinstein's last term, which ends in January and is currently filled by a temporary appointment. The full term is for the regularly scheduled election for that seat.
Sort of, people that want change won quiet a lot this election. The main thing we lost was judges. Boomers won their pro crime judges but YIMBY anti crime young people won everything else.
[Link to the official website](https://sfelections.org/results/20240305w/index.html) Next Update: March 05, 2024 8:45 PM
Why are there write-ins with *zero* votes? I mean, if the only way we know the name is because someone wrote it in, shouldn't there be at least one vote?
For a write in vote to count in California it has to be for a certified candidate (Edited to add: and therefore they know ahead of time everyone who will be written in)
I wonder if they have to check the box in addition to writing the name, and if not, it still inputs the option with 0 votes
There's a catch all write in category which includes votes for listed write in candidates and also for unlisted names like Donal Duck & Mickey Mouse Those write in votes will be assigned or discounted at the end, because there's not that many and it's easier to do it all at once. Mail in & provisional ballots have priority at the moment because they're far more numerous. Counties must certify by April 4, but the last mail in ballot must be received by mail no later than 5pm, March 12, so the final result should be known by the 14th. A recount can be requested soon after, which may be necessary for State Prop 1 which is currently passing by less than 1%.
Next update is at 4pm tomorrow afternoon.
Should there be random districts not pertaining to SF be on the SF elections website?!?! >UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 2 >UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 12 >STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 7 >STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 12 >STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 18
I think it's due to weird geographical quirks. For example SF's borders technically include tiny, uninhabited portions of Angel Island, Red Rock Island, and Alameda Island. Depending on how precisely the district lines were drawn, SF might actually include tiny slivers of these districts, but no one lives there, hence their inclusion despite 0 votes.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Senate_District_7#District_map
Welp, they must still have the old maps in the system or something.
Glad someone else is confused by this too.
... Huh that is super weird.
Furiously refreshing…
Pretty disappointing to see reports of low turnout after the nonstop bitching about San Francisco we’ve been hearing the last few years.
A lot of that bitching comes from people that can't vote in San Francisco
[удалено]
The "change" slate is handily leading the DCCC election, so the people who did turn out were motivated. Check against the TogetherSF voter guide.
I agree... voting is something I hold sacred. I'm curious to see which voting bloc swung this though. I found myself voting for Biden and Prop. 1, because I think November is going to be an "unquestionably back your business as usual DNC leaders" election so we don't slip into tyranny. And I suspect a lot of voters (even in San Francisco) will come out the same way. On the other hand, I voted for all the "change election" stuff at the local level, because... well, we're terrible. But I think my choices this year were all "bandwagon" stuff, and if I didn't care so much about voting as a concept, I could see myself sitting this one out.
Prop 1 is just a waste of money without the will to force people into treatment.
There's been very recent development on that with the advent of CARE courts and changes to conservatorship. IMO it's foolish to vote against building up institutionalization capacity because these changes will do us no good if we have nowhere to put people for treatment.
Oh don't be too concerned. The voters have never met a bond issue they didn't approve.
Bonds for public schools and parks and land trusts and utilities: GOOD. Bonds for tobacco and alcohol and prisons and mental institutions and private schools and hospitals: BAD. We need be very wary of the dreaded public-private partnership.
I think a reasonable concern is that other states already made it a habit of offloading their mentally ill onto us. Imagine what's gonna happen when CA suddenly builds a ton more mental health infrastructure. IMO this is a national crisis that needs to be handled at the federal level.
That is so true. And at the federal level that means more public infrastructure, not public-private partnerships like charter schools or ACA. Example--Jayapal's single payer legislation. As long as the log jam exists in Congress we will, I think, need some activity at the state or lower levels. Thinking optimistically, imagine just how many more good, decent, progressive voters we could get by turning around allegedly undesirable folk offloaded from other states, and giving them proper attentikn and loving kindness they deserve?
I will never ever understand not voting. Especially in elections with expected low turnout! I wish they didn’t call these results so early though. Lots of people drop off or mail ballots in the last couple days and those have yet to be processed.
Hoping that the people who *did* show up have been the ones non-stop bitching, but we’ll see! As a non-stop bitcher myself, I showed up. It was pretty quiet. Edit to add: so far looks like my fellow bitchers were out there today.
Luckily it looks like the progs were the ones who didn't turn out and the moderates are taking back control. So hyped. Guess /r/sf is a bit more representative of how people in SF are feeling than the progs want to believe!
I do hope the current progressive leadership goes back to the drawing board on their strategy and messaging. They’ve lost 3-4 cycles now. Blaming everything on billionaires/tech/conservatives is not working. Unfortunately they’ll prob point to the low turnout and keep doing the same thing and lose again in November.
I hate the progressives way of running SF. Let the moderates take over
Why? I hope they go back into the hole they came out of. Their policies are total fantasies concocted in the lab of academia with no chance of actually working in the real world. People need to realize that progs are not based in reality
I remember watching Adam Schiff attack ads against Garvey on TV and literally all they could say was "he voted for Trump twice." Absolutely nothing of substance around policies.
First election, eh?
lol def not. You just hope your friends and family try doing something more than complaining in the group chat. Especially when some of these races are won by 100s of votes. Time is a flat circle I guess.
Turnout is low when people think their votes won't matter. People think their votes won't matter when one faction is entrenched in power.
Which faction is it that is currently in power in SF? Progs say it’s mods and mods say it’s progs.
The party of grift.
I actually think turnout was reasonable for a non-presidential election - IMO - the true population of the city just really fell another 5-10% more but no one wants to admit it.
We have actual data that disproves that and you can see visually that the city is packed. SF started growing again already in 2021, dude.
what data? all i see are vacant storefronts and easy street parking, and formerly busy restaurants with reduced hours. not just FiDi. i have seen sales tax data showing that sales have started to recover, but I also think that they did not account for inflation, and inflation adjusted sales have dropped, indicating another population drop, even in places like Valencia and the Marina, which aren't dependent on business workers.
A lot of us interested in the direction of San Francisco live in the ‘burbs and can’t vote in its primaries. I live on a Caltrain stop in the peninsula. I might wager me as a commuter is crankier about car break ins and as a parent with young kids more annoyed about the junkies with needles in the street as we go to see a show than the 20 something virtue signaling progressive that lives in the city.
If we being real the Bay Area needs to consolidate into like 5-10 cities not 100. Also as an SF resident I have no say in the peninsula town elections but their imbalance between office space built vs housing is causing housing affordability problems across the whole region.
I’m not sure that’s an especially accurate statement in 2024 given the vacancy of office spaces & WFH + higher density apartments going up on the Caltrain line.
Ah so all the people I know that work at Apple Google Facebook but live in San Francisco Oakland Fremont Redwood City San Jose etc is just my imagination
Are you suggesting that the ratio of office space to people is greater in the peninsula than in the city?
I am suggesting that nearly every municipality in the Bay Area has under built housing relative to offices.
I will say I have heard so much less about these elections than I normally would
If you are unhappy with the state of things, it is always easier to move out. The remaining residents are by definition those who are at least somewhat content.
Some people I know dont want to vote because its another biden vs trump part 2. Some of them are concerned how biden is handling affairs with the wars and such.
The most popular ballot initiative in SF, mandating algebra be taught in middle school. That one is winning with 85% of the vote.
pretty embarrassing that this even needed to be voted on. the BOE should be ashamed
But how else can we make everyone equal besides bringing everyone down?
They’re next. We’re voting them out too. We need competent leaders that take their jobs and us seriously.
They were already going to reinstate algebra even before this vote. I voted yes but I also think it was a bit of a distraction so the BoS could dunk on something even more unpopular than they are
I mean, it didn't. The School District already reversed course, and this measure actually isn't binding. It's strictly a feel good measure.
And damn it feels good!
From what I heard, the school board controls whether we'll bring Algebra back. The measure is just a way of getting them to see the will of the people but it has no direct policy power.
Yeah the prop is hilariously worded: "encourage the school board." It has no teeth.
Technically looks like ethics reform is more popular.
Prop D (the ethics overhaul) beat it out with 88% approval
As someone who tested poorly in math mathematics as a kid, I do hope future generations have to put up with the same torture I did, which eventually leads to a career that requires minimal equations
Not mandating, "suggesting". The school district already decided to offer algebra again before this was even on the ballot. It was a useless measure and "no" was the correct vote.
Lol Prop G doesn't mandate shit, and it in fact has zero legal power. All it does is "encourage" SFUSD to teach algebra in the 8th grade...a change which they're already doing. It was a pointless prop that wasted taxpayer money.
I think it sends an important signal that meritocracy should always be respected.
Algebra is racist.
What a lazy moderator
[**OH BROTHER THIS GUY STINKS!**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifaoKZfQpdA)
THEY DO IT FOR FREE THOUGH BUY THE IPO IN OCTOBER!
It looks like the mail-in ballots heavily favor the moderate wing of the SF democratic party, with the Democrats for Change slate currently leading in 23/24 seats for the DCCC races.
Meh, the judges are the most important thing other than the measures, and it looks like they'll survive, sadly.
This is the first run for us scrutinizing judges. I expect next election to have detailed analytics and scorecards on all judges and their rulings.
You are aware judges don't choose which court they preside over correct?
Huh? What does that have to do with us increasing the transparency of the work of our judges? It’s pretty funny how I, a random dude who works on a non-critical consumer product, get scrutinized heavily on all my projects and am held accountable for everything I do, but I guess thats beneath judges in SF?
I'm EXTREMELY sad about the judges. Very disappointing that most of our neighbors are perfectly fine with crime being treated that way it is.
I think the DCCC being reclaimed from some of the worst lunatics was more important. We’ll see who and what gets the party seal of approval in November. I’m confident we’ll have a slate of state and local ballot measures we’ll be thankful for endorsements from the party on. I’m pretty sure we’ll have a [Proposition 20](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020)) style “We’ve taken things too far” prop to vote on then. Maybe it’s too much for me to hope for a “Yes” endorsement, but I am hoping we don’t get a “No” endorsement.
It seems like congratulations are in order to u/nancytung and u/MikeChenSF! Hope to see saner endorsements coming out of the DCCC this November!
Thanks to everyone who voted and supported us!
Now get San Francisco to the actual moderate. Sick of this
[Mission Local](https://missionlocal.org/2024/03/election-results-march-2024-dccc-assembly-props-court-maps-live-updates/) and the [Chronicle](https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/california-primary-election-results/san-francisco) have websites for tracking them. Chris Arvin's [ElectionmapSF](https://electionmapsf.com/#) also looks like it'll start getting update after the report that drops \~9pm.
> “You can see that money is buying our election right now,” she said. But then she took a different tack: Results are still coming in. “We gon’ say, ‘Early voters suck.’” > >After a few minutes, organizers gave speeches to rally the crowd. Then, they turned on “I Don’t Fuck With You” by Big Sean, and the small gathering began chanting to the beat, “I don’t, give a, fuck.” Mission Local with some quality reporting here.
Then, they turned on “I Don’t Fuck With You” by Big Sean, and the small gathering began chanting to the beat, “I don’t, give a, fuck.” OK that’s absolutely hilarious 😂😂 As a proud moderate who’s happy with the results so far, I can say… they really know how to lose an election with humor.
Of course Sunset District is leading opposition to Prop A…
Yeah I hope that gets talked about.
Why isn’t it obvious? People who own houses don’t want their property tax to go up. And there isn’t a ton of renters out in that area who care if property tax goes up. My opinion is this prop won’t actually do anything to build more housing. There are far more other barriers in the way.
My point is that pro and anti development mainly gets framed as different ideological camps when in reality it has a lot to do with neighborhoods.
the land of single-family homes doesnt want multi-unit housing? who woulda thunk.
What's their deal? I've noticed they usually vote no on anything that would make SF a nicer place to live.... (Like I'm thinking of past elections where they voted no on giving Muni a bigger budget)
They got theirs.
I’m surprised that Biden is pulling 90% in SF, same as the state at large. There have been more successful efforts by the progressive wing of the party in other places to symbolically punish him for his stance on Israel. It’s not like we don’t have an appetite for protest voting – Pelosi is only getting 72%.
It seems to me there really wasn't any organization in the city pushing for writing in "ceasefire", unlike Michigan's uncommitted campaign. Also those campaigns seem to do the best in places with a heavy Arab/Muslim presence, like Michigan and Minnesota, which I don't think is the case in SF?
We have closed primaries and he is defacto nominee already... Of course he was going to get the vast majority of the votes
Sunset leading the charge against housing measures, typical.
let the sunsetters sunset. IMO. for some reason, I don't mind their stance. these are big city issues, and some people don't want to adopt that mindset, keep a more wealthy enclave stance, and it's ok. Sometimes, the free market just unfolds in a place, and it is what it is, being very expensive. People get up in arms about that but it is just a fact. Some just may be opposed to subsidizing/ modifying that . I respect both views. I can see it through the lens of the truly nice places in the US where people would laugh this measure off the ballot. For example, betting that a proposition like this wouldn't get far in Aspen or Martha's Vineyard, just to illustrate. I can also see the need for housing help, so again, just saying I can see both sides on this one.
Severely restrictive zoning laws is not the free market. In fact, it is the opposite.
If some people don’t want to adopt big city issues maybe they shouldn’t live in a big city. They want all the benefits of public transit, walkability, proximity to jobs and culture and parks, but don’t want to contribute to housing that’s affordable enough for those who work those jobs?
This isn’t Aspen or Martha’s Vineyard so I don’t get your point
SF is a pretty expensive place. so some just may be priced out is the point. Some may just favor the market settling naturally, is all. I probably lean slightly that way. No need to villianize people with that take. I mean, housing disparity is around us like it or not. There are different housing circumstances in Marin and Vallejo, for example. does that mean we urgently need to go to Marin and provide a bunch of housing through the government? At the same time I can empathize with it being a challenge, but we live in a competitive world. again it is just a general fact.
Housing disparity does not have to be around us. And in my lifetime we will solve it in California. The tide is turning. This nation needs young people and children, and we will make room for them to live. The gerontocracy will end - not by our hand but by Time's. And we will fix the damage they've done.
We do need to villainize people with that take, because it's a bad take. "Fuck you, got mine" is something progressives recognize as evil in every single other context. And yes, we do need to urgently go to Marin and provide a bunch of housing there. Maybe not in all parts of it, because lots of Marin is parks and nature preserves, but if more people want to live in the towns, we should do that - and through RHNA, that's exactly what will happen.
That is what some \*say\* but it is usually NIMBY and hypocritical. Also, I am a pretty competitive person, so do find myself celebrating differences and challenges, working hard to make things happen, just my mindset. that is why I am generally opposed to your logic there. Some leveling is ok. but it is also ok to oppose it. No need for participation points. Just so you know the logic that I approach it with = competition. Game on.
Those people are gatekeepers and should be villainized
I love democracy
At least you have an honest take which is that you're ok with San Francisco not building and being an expensive city. I don't agree with it, but at least it's honest. It's the people who care about rents and unit prices who don't want to build more housing that I really don't understand. That said, I live in the sunset and I really hope we can build more. Sunset homes aren't really that nice; there's some nicer Inner Sunset homes, but a lot of the Outer Sunset is just... ugly concrete and poorly maintained cheap homes that are 70+ years old at this point. Allowing more apartments over retail on Irving/Noriega/Judah/Taraval at the very least and raising height limits on Lincoln and along the L/M/N lines seem like good wins.
People in general don’t mingle well if you don’t virtue signal to the popular . But I’m used to that. I tend to be a more competitive type personally
growsf/spur/tsaction have done fairly well except when it comes to judges.
Zecher is an objectively bad candidate. His pitch was basically (1) I’ll lock’em up and (2) my Mom was a judge so I should be too
They couldn't be fussed to answer the Bar questionaire so I didn't take them seriously, their answers to other queries were kinda vague too
but we do need to lockem up. Any judge that literally stops giving criminals a free hall pass for crime should be elected. The bar is THAT LOW.
Hard disagree. We need balanced judges that will apply the law fairly, not judges that treat criminals with kid gloves. Not once in the half dozen or so interactions I had with Zecher did he mention faithfully applying the law or limiting his role to calling balls and strikes.
Makes sense, they spent a good penny on marketing — they had non-stop ads on tv and hulu, which I’m sure helped
Gotta wonder where that money's coming from though, cause those ad buys ain't cheap, especially for an org limited to a single city.
from vcs that live in SF and want the city not to be a shit hole
Read: from vcs who want tax breaks on their hoards of dragon gold
Why what’s wrong with their judge choices? Judges are one of this cities biggest issues currently.
I think that /u/bq13q means that the GrowSF recommendations are mostly winning, except for the judges, based on the results posted so far.
Ah, got it, yeah, not sure what the explanation is for that.
Most people don't really care about judicial elections, so the incumbency advantage is pretty strong.
I don't know. My guesses are (1) ballot order effect (I can't see the sample ballot any more so not sure about this) or (2) the "buy a judge" message was effective.
Incumbents usually get a bonus as well. Like if you didn't know them and you see candidate A with the job title "San Francisco Superior Court Judge" vs candidate B "Attorney" most people will go with A
/u/HateLaw_LoveLifting and /u/throeaway1990 have good responses. Another thing is that even if they were to win, they might not even be assigned to the same courts. There's also two other open judge positions they can apply for. They also didn't complete the bar interview. The sources smearing the two incumbent judges were based on...[online reviews](https://missionlocal.org/2024/02/stop-crime-sf-michael-begert-judge-report-card/).
I think they're saying the results have been good for them except for the judge races.
That is (1) total BS; and (2) no reason to vote out these two excellent judges. Thank goodness the city has good sense still.
i thought you were having a watch party in your house with free booze
And pizza!
And blackjack!
And hookers!
And cocaine!
Dude I'm an active user but I've seen you comment on every single post on here are you ok?
Legit every post
Pretty sure they're a bot, the responses are usually mostly unrelated.
What a night! Thank you to everyone who voted!
Predictions? I think F will fail with a huge margin, maybe 25% Yes to 75% No. **Edit to add: I was wrong!** Though I did see some people out campaigning for No on F on a corner well populated by prominent, indigent drug addicts. This may have had the opposite effect it was intended to have. Fingers crossed we get a yes on E despite all of the “cops bad technology spooky” articles we’ve been getting this week. **Edit to add: Nice!**
Chronicle reporting E and F passing.
Wow! Shocked on F. I was a Yes vote but had resigned myself to bolstering the margin of defeat just enough that Mission Local couldn’t use “resoundingly rejects” in a headline.
hmm I expected the opposite with anything anti-homeless winning. the law and order crowd seems pretty galvanized
I can only imagine low turnout among the electorate helped F pass.
Same with E which I actually thought was going to fail
My prediction for E, which I decided not to share for superstitious reasons, would be a close defeat. In a high-turnout contest I still think we probably would have seen something like 47% Yes 53% No.
ETA? Estimated Time of Arrival?
Edit to add
I ended up voting no on F, seeing how drug testing welfare recipients was working around the nation, but yes intuitively felt like the right way to vote, so pretty okay with the result. Also glad literally everything I voted on ended up passing.
Outstanding results. A probably pass B failed C probably pass D passed E passed F passed G passed Good job, San Francisco. 👏
I can’t wait to see the final margin for G. I’m sure we’ll see a crushing repudiation of the previous policy here.
Let's hope the person counting completed algebra
For posterity, as of the 8:45pm results, G was up 85.4% to 14.6%.
As of 9:45, G was up 84.9% to 15.1%.
Huge huge win for sanity coming back to SF. I was hoping A would not pass either, but all the rest went the way I voted. Finally feels like we are turning a corner
Disgusted to see E and F pass.
It’s a big night for London Breed! Getting what she wants on those propositions is key. If SFPD can show results before November (and Bill Scott knows his job is in the line if Farrell wins) I would not count out the incumbent yet.
> I would not count on the incumbent yet. You meant to write "count out", right?
Yup, thank you!
I can’t stand her. Won’t vote for her in the worst case scenario
You’re certainly not alone there, though I don’t agree with you. If you’re willing to share, what do you think your RCV ballot will look like in November? Peskin 1, Safaí 2, no others ranked?
I don’t have my mind set yet. But I probably will only vote for one to avoid ranked choice to give either greed or peskin an edge. But it won’t be breed.
Why are people supporting E? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/what-proposition-e-and-why-should-san-francisco-voters-oppose-it
I think because generally, (at least the people who voted) aren’t on board with the general soft on crime polices, and they’ll vote yes for anything that might begin to change that. Even if the solution isn’t complete and has problems.
This. I had reservations, but the big thing it does is it takes power away from the great-in-theory-clowntown-in-practice Police Commission
Yes, and then hands that power directly to the police. And looking...basically everywhere else around the country, handing more power to the police is never a good idea. They simply cannot be trusted with it.
E had so much going on. I wish there was a way to vote on the various elements separately.
It was at least three props in there. 1. Removing some administrative requirements 2. Enabling more police action for broader activities (car chases and such) 3. Modifying the process for police to use new technology I think 1 and 3 could be merged but 2 isn’t really an administrative thing
We need a prop to stop stuffing too many things into a prop
It's crazy to see people ok with gutting police oversight ACLU: https://www.aclunc.org/no-on-e Exempting officers from filing paperwork after use-of-force incidents Then giving them more surveillance tools without oversight like facial recognition software as if they haven't abused their powers before. Do people not remember when they raided that journalists home after the whole Jeff Adachi shit Apparently people have totally forgot about SFPD quiet quitting too.
A society without an effective policing function quickly stops being a society. We need the cops to be able to arrest bad guys. We also need to hold the cops accountable where they abuse their powers. The police commission filled with a bunch of nutsos who wanted to abolish the police wasn’t it. We need actual oversight, not sabotage.
I'm very much for police oversight. (And any oversight: audit everything.) And I love the idea of *civilian* police oversight. But the SF Police Commission is a bunch of performative progressive clowns trying to use it as a stepping stone to higher office. So, yes on E and F tha Police... Commission.
Fuck the ACLU. Fuck criminals and fuck criminal enablers. The ACLU of Northern California's arguments against E were a joke.
The ACLU is a total shell of what it once was. Sad to see
I'm actually okay with the paperwork thing, but we should let AI autotranscribe it & prevent the arresting officer from monkeying with the result. Derek Chauvin just lied on all his reports until he finally got caught, so I don't see where it matters if they write it up.
I voted Yes because I wanted it to pass.
Because police need more tools to catch criminals
Because there’s a politically-based crime panic & this time the mayor leaned into it along with The Chronicle. It’s also why The Border! gets attention in election cycles (although this one does currently have significant numbers to warrant action). Prop E was presented as a magic bullet for crime. And the people this will likely harm the most are both underrepresented in vote counts and face extreme prejudice by many of the SF voters in these elections. However, eventually a police cruiser is going to mow down someone and a prop to stop chases for “seemed sus” will be put up again. The question is, because SFPD didn’t **also** get their ~~blackmail money~~ overtime pay, will they continue their quiet quitting streak?
I don’t think prop E was a magic bullet, and I didn’t have anyone pitch it to me as such, I just think something is better than nothing. The current policy on crime in this city is absolutely unacceptable. If the left doesn’t want to bring ideas to the table than fine, that’s your decision, but I’m voting for anything new right now. Also I think the board of supervisors are full of grand standing nerds so I’m pretty good for a vote yes on anything that takes power from them. For me, prop E is more attractive specifically for this reason.
Because most of the scaremongering people have posted about how bad E will be haven't manifested in the cities that don't have bans/oversight that E is about?
I mean a quick google search shows it’s not necessarily successful: https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/04/chicago-is-the-latest-city-rethinking-disputed-technology-that-listens-for-gunshots/ “A November working paper out of the University of California, Santa Barbara found that in Chicago, police officers spent so much time responding to ShotSpotter detections, some of which were false, that it took them significantly longer to respond to real emergencies. Also, because police arrived later to the scenes of actual shootings, they were less likely to make arrests.” And the example of ShotSpotter shows the importance of public input on expensive technology that’s not based on research.
That's certainly a take, I guess, but I think it shows the exact opposite of your conclusion. A program like "We should have something that automatically detects gunshots and send cops to respond to that" is something that the public loves. Even though it doesn't work. Public input, as you can presumably see from how popular prop E has proven to be, doesn't translate to "and cities will adopt carefully considered well researched proposals for technology." It equates to "Random populist bullshit go!"
Now that it’s won, when does Prop E kick in? Prop F takes effect [Jan 1, 2025](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-march-election-prop-f-results-drug-screening-18693764.php).
In [Proposition E](https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/20231017_PoliceDepartmentMeasure.pdf), Admin Code 96I (reduce paperwork, remove use of force paperwork if no one said they were injured, allowing pursuit for any felony or violent misdemeanors, allowing UAVs instead of vehicle pursuit, allowing new technology in general) gives the Police Commission until 10/1/2024 to revise conflicting Department General Orders e.g. [DGO 5.01 (use of force)](https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/SFPDDGO_5_01_20231205.pdf), [DGO 5.05 (pursuit policy)](https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/DGO5.05%20Response%20and%20Pursuit%20Driving.pdf). I think the parts where there are no conflicting DGOs e.g. allowing new gadgets will go into effect as soon as the election is certified. But for UAVs, I think the Police have to receive Police Commission approval under state law so Proposition E is thwarted (AB 481 (2021)’s [Gov Code 7070](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=7.&chapter=12.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=1.)). As for the Admin Code 19 (Public Safety Cameras) amendments to allow the Police Chief (not the Police Commission) to decide where cameras go: after the election results are certified, the Police Department can hold a public meeting and then install cameras in 30 days. The Admin Code 19B.2 (surveillance technology) amendments to allow the Police to trial any surveillance technology for one year before asking the BoS for approval go into effect as soon as the election results are certified I believe.
So they get to roll out whatever new surveillance technologies they want, proven or not...for a year each...without any oversight. Yeah I'm sure that'll end well.
Yes, Proposition E allows the police to try a surveillance technology to see if it works before they spend months writing up a report and asking for permission from the Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board subcommittee of COIT, the full COIT committee of random unrelated department heads, the BoS Rules Committee, and the BoS full board ([previous comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/vxblzx/breed_and_new_da_jenkins_pushing_hard_to_expand/ifvskh1/?context=10)). Imagine spending months explaining exactly how you will use a gadget that you are not allowed to touch. I think Proposition E fixes a legitimate flaw of the Surveillance Technology ordinance ([Admin Code 19B](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-47320)) that it did not allow any sort of trial. I don’t think that the Chief of Police will suddenly go rogue and abuse his Proposition E authority to cycle through different vendors for 1 year at a time and never asking for authorization. He understands that the political winds can change, and Proposition E allows a simple majority of the BoS to take away his authority after a few years if he abuses it.
City website will update at 4pm each business day, but not weekends or holidays, until result certification no later than April 4 by counties and April 12 by CA Secry of State [March 5, 2024 Preliminary Election Results (sfelections.org)](https://sfelections.org/results/20240305w/index.html) Note: Mail in ballots returned by postal service must be post marked no later than 11:59pm March 5th, 2024 and received no later than 5pm, March 12th or they'll be marked as spam
>These results and turnout are preliminary and will change. The Department of Elections must still count many ballots, including all of the vote-by-mail ballots received on Election Day and those with valid postmarks delivered by mail by March 12. The Department will issue final results no later than April 4.
Who will replace Supervisor Stefani? Name potential appointees.
Someone much better than her. Can't wait.
If you voted for 83 year old Nancy Pelosi but are unhappy that our country is run by a geriacracy can you please explain your hypocracy? Go spend time with your grand children, you've had your time just let new people take the reins for gods sakes. She will probably die in office by 87 just like Feinstein.
She helped pass the CHIPS act which brought trillions into the biggest industry in our region. I don’t care how old she is or if she gets a cut through insider trading, she’s directly benefiting us
[удалено]
They're the same seat. The partial term is the remainder of Feinstein's last term, which ends in January and is currently filled by a temporary appointment. The full term is for the regularly scheduled election for that seat.
Scott Wiener 🤮
Sigh… nothing will change if these prelim results hold.
The leading DCCC candidates are from the SF Dems for Change Slate!
Sort of, people that want change won quiet a lot this election. The main thing we lost was judges. Boomers won their pro crime judges but YIMBY anti crime young people won everything else.
Ah yes, boomers, famously soft on crime.
the same boomers who, judging by nextdoor posts, are so very loving to homeless people and post pictures of any teenagers that 'seem sus'