Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
Aaron Peskin and 6 other elected officials have proposed a "recall reform" amendment that would make it practically impossible to recall ANY elected official in San Francisco.
The recent landslide recall of three school board members --- which Siva and I led --- would not have been possible under this law.
This charter amendment is a naked power grab by politicians afraid that the people of San Francisco will hold them accountable.
Vote No on Proposition C.
Under the current law, a recall can be initiated for 3 years out of the 4 year term of an elected official.
Under the proposed amendment it's ONLY practical to initiate a recall 8 months out of a 4 year term.
If this amendment had been in place, the school board recall --- which won in a landslide with up to 76% of SF voters supporting it --- would not have been allowed. You wouldn't have been able to recall Commissioners López, Collins or Moliga despite their utter failure on the school board.
In addition, the recalled school board members could run in the November election but the newly appointed board members couldn't. This would deny our children and our school district the steady leadership they need at a time of crisis.
Recalls are a vital tool to keep our elected leaders accountable to the public they are elected to serve. They are incredibly rare (the last successful recall in SF history occurred more than 100 years ago)! The school board recall was the first San Francisco recall on the ballot in nearly 40 years.
If this amendment passes, it will severely restrict the ONLY tool we the people have to remove elected officials who fail to do their job. Don't let it pass.
Vote NO on Proposition C.
Autumn Looijen
Co-lead, Recall SF School Board
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Recall School Board Members Lopez, Collins & Moliga.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Arthur Rock, 3. Garry Tan.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION C
San Francisco adopted the recall process in 1907 as a Progressive reform mechanism to hold local politicians accountable. The importance of the recall is that it gives power to voters to remove elected officials before their term expires.
The recall mechanism was designed to be hard to trigger so that elected officials would be removed only as a result of intense voter dissatisfaction.
Since 1907, there have been only six instances in which recalls qualified for the ballot.
The first successful recall in San Francisco in over 100 years was the recent landslide recall of three school board commissioners.
The current recall process has a high bar to succeed. It is used sparingly and reflects the will of the voters of San Francisco.
The proposed charter amendment is an attempt by current elected officials to curb the power of the voters. It would, in effect, protect current and future elected officials from recall for 42 months out of a 48-month term.
Additionally, by not allowing the appointee to run for office in the next election, it would relegate the appointee to lame duck status, discouraging qualified candidates and inhibiting accountability.
Don't let the Board of Supervisors take away your vote. The recall is our last protection against politicians who flagrantly ignore the will of the people.
Vote NO on Proposition C.
Families for San Francisco
familiesforsanfrancisco.com
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Families for San Francisco.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
Protect democracy. Vote No on Proposition C.
On the same day as the historic recall vote of three School Board members, our Supervisors defied the almost 80% of San Franciscans who voted for the recall by putting Proposition C on the ballot. Proposition C restricts our democratic right to recall irresponsible elected officials and prioritizes insiders and incumbents over the voters.
Recalls are a rarely used but important part of the people's voice in a democracy. The School Board recall was the first successful San Francisco recall in 110 years. Our last attempted recall was 1983. Hardly, a recall "free-for-all." Yet, this charter amendment, introduced by Supervisor Peskin and supported by Supervisors Chan, Haney, Mar, Preston, Ronen and Walton, would shield irresponsible incumbents from recall for over half their terms of office, and would prohibit their replacement from running in the following election.
Proposition C would prolong the chaos in the District Attorney's office. We wouldn't be able to vote on the Mayor's replacement, and that replacement would not be able to run to fill out the rest of the term. If the appointee cleans up the mess left by the recalled incumbent, and the voters approve and want that appointee to continue, Proposition C takes that right away from the voters, the appointee and the mayor.
Proposition C is based on a mistrust or fear that voters do not know the difference between elected officials they want to recall and those they don't. We know the difference, and we know that taking away voting rights simply because citizens are using them, is not democracy.
Protect the people, not the politicians. Vote No on Proposition C!
John Trasviña
Marie Hurabiell, SOAR-D1
Martha Conte, D2Unite
Julie Paul, D2Unite
Paulina Fayer, activ8sf
Laurance Lee, activ8sf
Simon Timony, Advocates11
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Edwin M Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club PAC, sponsored by Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Association of Realtors.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
It should outrage every San Francisco voter that a handful of our elected officials are attempting to limit the public's ability to hold City Hall leaders accountable. This is exactly what members of the Board of Supervisors propose: to severely restrict the window of opportunity for the public to democratically undertake a recall, making it nearly unworkable, and furthermore - if a recall election does succeed - to then prohibit an individual appointed as replacement from running as a candidate in the next scheduled elections.
It literally takes tens of thousands of voters to commence a recall effort, collecting signatures to qualify a petition when a city's elected official has crossed the line and deserves to be recalled. It's extremely rare. It's a highly important option of last resort. Our California constitution guarantees recalls as part of a healthy democracy. It's as potent a solution as an impeachment, to remove egregiously incompetent, scandalous and corrupt officials.
Don't let city hall radicals push false narratives about recalls in hopes of covering up their own (or their colleagues') misdoings to avoid accountability.
Emphatically vote NO on Proposition C, restricting the timeline for recall process and prohibiting subsequent appointee's right to run as a future candidate.
Richie Greenberg, Chairman
YES on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee
RecallChesaBoudin.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
The world is acutely aware of the devastating impact our public officials have on San Francisco. It's time to create a healthy city, beginning with protecting the democratic, constitutionally-guaranteed right to recall officials who abuse their power, holding accountable those who believe they should be able to do anything they want once in office.
Aaron Peskin, city supervisor who authored Proposition C, wants to exempt himself - and his fellow bureaucrats - from repercussions when they fail and hurt our community. We do not accept this move toward despotism. Stand up to bureaucrats and vote NO.
Proposition C has dire consequences for San Franciscans who care deeply about all who live, work, and visit here. We must always have a voice in the way our city is managed. Three disgraced School Board members who've harmed our public school system were recently ousted by recall in a landslide. This is progress. Yet, dangerous, squalid, depressing scenes still play out on San Francisco's streets, a direct result of bad policy and poor leadership. Officials who are responsible need to be held accountable, and to ensure this, we need our right to recall them when proven to be especially egregious.
Now San Franciscans overwhelmingly want district attorney Chesa Boudin out of office before he does even more damage. Boudin assured voters he would produce a safer city for all. Instead, chaos and crime increased; he broke his promise with devastating results. Recalling him is the appropriate action. When his recall is successful, Mayor London Breed would appoint an interim district attorney, yet if Proposition C passes, the interim replacement won't have the ability to run in the next election.
For these reasons, Vote NO on Proposition C.
Erica Sandberg
RecallChesaBoudin.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
Vote NO on Proposition C ...
Preserve the Democratic Right of Recall.
When a politician wins election, it's not "job security" for the full term of office. Depending on the job, a politician can be censured, impeached, recalled, removed, or criminally prosecuted.
Recall is a sacred right of the voter under California law. The Board of Supervisors has exploited loopholes to strip San Franciscans of their rights.
This Charter Amendment is a diversion to neuter the Recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin. If Proposition C passes, the District Attorney's replacement —appointed by the Mayor — can't run for re-election next year. In other words, the Mayor has to hire a "temp," who won't be the most qualified person for D.A.
(San Francisco already suffers that problem.)
Proposition C, had it been in effect, would have prevented the School Board Recall of Collins, López and Moliga, because it cuts in half the months to organize and schedule a recall.
Mayor Breed's School Board appointees — Ann Hsu, Lainie Motamedi and Lisa Weissman-Ward — would also have been "temps" disqualified from running again, because Proposition C forbids this.
In fact, the Mayor wouldn't have had the appointment power! Under Proposition C, other members of the School Board would have selected replacements — including commissioners who voted with Collins, López and Moliga to end merit-based admissions to Lowell, to rename the schools, to paint over murals, to keep the schools closed.
Remember, recall organizers wanted to remove more School Board members but couldn't, because of date limitations. Proposition C makes these restrictions worse!
Also, under Proposition C, if voters ever recall a Supervisor, the Board of Supervisors would appoint the replacement.
Vote NO on Proposition C.
Larry Marso
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
It is notoriously difficult to qualify a recall proposition for the ballot in San Francisco, and most efforts never make it. But once in a great while enough San Franciscans decide they're so fed up with a politician that they sign petitions and vote to recall. That's what recall elections are about - they're a safety valve that allows the people to take power away from elected officials who abuse or misuse it. They are democracy in its purest form.
But Proposition C seeks to put a stop to that by closing the window of opportunity between the initiation and closure of a recall, which will make future recalls all but impossible. And the anti-democratic ideas don't stop there! Proposition C further seeks to keep potentially good interim office holders from running for the same office in the next election — even if they are popular with the people of San Francisco.
Proposition C, which was proposed by a member of the Board of Supervisors and backed by five more, is the Board's attempt to grab power not only from the Mayor, but from the San Francisco voting public. Don't be fooled by this naked power grab. Vote for democracy by voting NO on Proposition C.
Zach Georgopoulos
Attorney
RecallChesaBoudin.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
Voters, don't give away any more of your power. Proposition C greatly limits the window to recall an incompetent public official. Recent successful recalls have made some in government nervous. Keep politicians accountable to voters and retain your right to vote for appointees who get the job done. Vote NO.
San Francisco Republican Party
John Dennis
Chairman
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Republican Party.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
VOTE NO ON PROP C - It's Cockamamie!
Fair minded citizens banded together for the first time in almost four decades and ousted incompetent elected school board officials and seek to do the same with District Attorney Chesa Boudin for not doing his job.
Now City Hall is firing back!
Prop C is an undemocratic, unnecessary and unworthy measure deserving a NO vote.
Masquerading as good government and taxpayer issue, Supervisor Peskin is meddling with a standard set by our state's Constitution and one that has served our Charter City for 150 years.
This pure trickery, designed to keep the political class free from accountability and the power of electors - us.
Under current law, any elected official can be recalled after 6 months. Prop C doubles that time to 12 months as the time these officials are free from recall at the beginning of their terms and adds a new 18-month period during which they are also exempt!
This second "safe space" is not tied to the end of their four-year terms but to "a regularly scheduled election," which is almost always less than two years away. So, for 42 months out of their 48-month term, they are free from recall!! In other words, even in the face of massive dissatisfaction with, or misconduct by, a member of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, City College Board, or it will almost always be either "too early" or "too late" for voters to seek a recall except for a small six-month window every four years.
Prop C should be called the Political Class Protection Act - VOTE NO!
San Francisco Taxpayer's Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Quentin L. Kopp.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
VOTE NO ON PROP C
The Board of Supervisors is notorious for supporting democratic movements around the world but when San Francisco voters used their century-old constitutional authority to recall three errant School Board members, these same Supervisors banded together to stop us.
If this were done by a Southern or Republican state legislature, it would be called voter suppression.
In San Francisco, it's called the Peskin Charter Amendment or Proposition C. I call it the Incumbent Protection Act and we should all say No.
Aside from Judge Charles Weller in 1913 and Senator Edwin Grant in 1914, San Francisco voters had never recalled local public officials. And we hadn't even had a recall vote since 1983 against then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein. That is, until the School Board recall in February. The overwhelming voter response to the mis-spending and unlawful acts of the School Board (ending Lowell academic admissions; 44 schools renamed, etc.) was too much for this Board of Supervisors.
On the very same day that 75% of the voters in Supervisor Peskin's district and 81% in Supervisor Mar's district voted for the recall, these and other Supervisors placed Proposition C on the ballot to strip away at our right to recall. Organizations across the spectrum have termed the recall process a vital part of our electoral system. It ensures that public officials are held accountable. Opponents reveal their contempt for the democratic process.
Finally, Proposition C allows the recalled official to immediately run again for the same office but prohibits the replacement appointed to clean up after them from running. The replacement may or may not be better. But Proposition C takes away our right to make that choice.
Proposition C gives more protection to failed incumbents than to our voting rights.
Vote No on Proposition C!
Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.)
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Quentin L. Kopp.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C
Please vote NO on Proposition C.
Proposition C would limit when San Francisco voters could remove local elected officials who have breached the public trust. Recalls are rarely used and there is no need to amend the Charter for this.
The power of the people to elect and recall local officials is important to our democracy. While we try to elect the best qualified candidates in local elections, sometimes officials act in ways that are not illegal, but prompt efforts to remove them from office. That's what a recall is.
There have been several recent recall elections, both local and statewide, but it's not a permanent problem requiring a radical local solution. A recall can now be started after a local official has been in office for six months, and until six months before their term ends. A three-year window during a four-year term is an effective tool to have if it becomes necessary.
Proposition C would reduce that to barely more than a year and make local elected officials more difficult to remove from office through a recall.
It would also change how vacancies are filled after a successful local recall. A fundamental power of the Mayor is to appoint people to offices and positions, including filling vacancies. It's one of the reasons we elect a Mayor, and something to consider in candidates for Mayor.
The process for local recalls and filling vacancies is fine. There's no good reason for this change.
Please vote NO on Proposition C. Thank you.
David Pilpel
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: David Pilpel.