League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	San Francisco County, CA November 4, 2008 Election
	Proposition F Holding All Scheduled City Elections Only in Even- Numbered Years City of San Francisco Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required Fail: 144,592 / 45.00% Yes votes ...... 176,692 / 55.00% No votes See Also: Index of all Propositions

Arguments For Proposition F

Arguments Against Proposition F

For voters, the sheer number of elections in San Francisco is almost overwhelming. Over the last forty years, there have been up to three elections a year. Voter fatigue is apparent when you take a look at the numbers. On average over the last 40 years, only 40% of registered voters cast ballots in municipal elections in odd-numbered years. On the other hand, in even-year elections, 70.45% of voters on average turn out to vote for the president; 61.35% of voters on average turn out to vote for governor. Currently, the city holds municipal elections for the Offices of the Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer in odd-numbered years, while holding general elections that include the offices of California State Governor and President of the United States in the even-numbered years. By combining odd-year and even-year elections, Prop F will ensure that a much larger, more vibrant and more diverse body of voters will choose San Francisco's leaders and make decisions on policy that affect every resident. Combining the election cycles will increase civic participation, prevent voter burnout, and give a voice to more San Franciscans. The numbers don't lie: The turnout in the November 2007 election was the lowest ever + 35%. That means a very low number of voters in San Francisco choose the elected officials who hold the offices of Mayor, Sheriff, and District Attorney. When a minority of the voters elects the leaders, democracy is not working. Additionally, this measure will save the city millions of dollars, more than $3 million every two years when elections are combined. A healthier voter turnout means a healthier democracy. Yes on Prop F. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick Supervisor Aaron Peskin, President Supervisor Chris Daly Supervisor Bevan Dufty Supervisor Sophie Maxwell Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval Rebuttal to Arguments For Voter turnout is NOT the only measure of "healthy democracy," and mixing our local contests into the shuffle of a huge federal election DECREASES citizen participation in local contests. Picture mayoral candidate forums as we know them: numerous, well-attended, vocal, they allow the incoming officeholder to know the needs and priorities of real San Franciscans. Now picture mayoral forums in a year with a Presidential election: forums would be fewer, less attended, and the exchange between citizens and leaders would dwindle. Grassroots campaigns would suffer because local candidates would have to fight for airtime with Presidential and state candidates. Picture the op-ed pages of area newspapers and blogs. In an odd-year, local outlets cover local issues, increasing participation in democracy. In a Presidential year, media focus is necessarily on national issues. Healthier democracy? Hardly. Lastly, Measure F would NOT save $3M per biennium. $3M is the total cost of an election, and much of that would get shifted to the even-year elections, not saved. Two significant costs of elections are ballot cards and printing costs/postage for the voter pamphlet--and both will cost more if we combine our elections. Moreover, there WILL be special elections in odd-numbered years, as we have an active citizenry and Board of Supervisors that knows how to get measures on the ballot. Special elections are costly: $3M in savings is an illusion. Ensure citizen participation in local elections continues. Vote No on F! Supervisor Elsbernd Supervisor Alioto-Pier Supervisor Chu

Measure F prevents San Franciscans from focusing on local issues and risks damaging Elections Department operations. San Franciscans currently have the unique opportunity to focus on City candidates and local ballot measures in off-year elections. Although voter turnout is lower, public knowledge of candidates is greater and input into city elections is higher when local campaigns are not forced to compete with state and federal candidates and measures for the attention of community forums, neighborhood organizations, and the media. As an example, if the mayoral election coincided with the presidential, a significant loss of voter focus and attention on our City's future would result. Citizen involvement, grassroots work and diverse voices would all suffer. Additionally, long lapses between elections would irreparably damage the Elections Department. We now have a Department that conducts elections efficiently and equitably. Effective elections rely on a competent workforce--specifically, the ability to re-hire trained temporary workers when necessary-- which becomes difficult, if not impossible, with elections that are up to two years apart. If Measure F passes, skilled workers will be lost, and the Department will be forced to hire dozens of unskilled temporary workers for sensitive, important work: long layoffs between elections will ruin the readiness and human capital in a reliable Department. Protect San Franciscans right to have their voices heard on local elections and ensure our Elections Department can continue to serve the public well. Vote No on F! Sean Elsbernd, Supervisor District 7 Michela Alioto-Pier, Supervisor District 2 Carmen Chu, Supervisor District 4 Ross Mirkarimi, Supervisor District 5 Rebuttal to Arguments Against Opponents' arguments against Prop F do not stand up to scrutiny. Opponents' arguments ignore the fact that only 35% of San Francisco voters showed up to "focus" on the last municipal election (November 2007). The leaders of San Francisco were chosen by 35% of registered San Franciscans. We believe in a majoritarian democratic process. Prop F will ensure that local, statewide and national candidates ALL receive the greatest exposure to voters. Opponents' arguments that the change will destroy Elections Department operations make even less sense. There is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that operations will not carry on in the same efficient manner. In fact, the very idea that a department can't train temporary workers every two years instead of one is laughable at best. The cost savings are not minimal, but millions every year without an election. Some opponents argue that there may need to be costly special elections in years without elections. In 2008, San Francisco held regular elections in February and June, and still needed to hold a special election in April. Special elections are rare, and will happen if needed, regardless of the number of elections in a year. The arguments against Prop F are ignoring the facts. Combining the election cycles will increase civic participation, prevent voter burnout, and give a voice to more San Franciscans. Vote Yes on Prop F. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick Supervisor Aaron Peskin Supervisor Chris Daly Supervisor Bevan Dufty Supervisor Sophie Maxwell Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval