District 1 Supervisor: Eric Mar

Eric Mar, currently in his second term on the San Francisco Board of Education, is a homeowner, San Francisco State University teacher, and long-time community organizer and leader. Although Mar is a Democrat, his opponents at the Chronicle and Examiner often label him a "Green Party member," and we understand their confusion. The SF Green Party believes that of all District 1 candidates, Mar best embodies the Ten Key Values of the Green Party. He has a long history of collaboration with grassroots organizations in support of a better environment, affordable housing, local small businesses, support for public power and clean energy, enhanced public transportation and bicycle routes, and improved public schools. On the Board of Education, he is most proud of bringing accountability to the fiscal management of the San Francisco Unified School District, co-authoring legislation that created a funding stream between the San Francisco general fund and the school district to hire librarians, and enhance arts enrichment and recreation programs.

Mar lives near Golden Gate Park--and enjoys and supports Healthy Saturdays, the city's program of opening certain park roadways to pedestrians and bicycles on Saturdays. He supported last year's Muni reform measure, Prop A, and opposed Donald Fisher's construction-industry giveaway to build more parking garages. He also opposes Fisher's current attempts to further the privatization of the Presidio National Park through the establishment of a private museum on the park grounds. This institution is also likely to increase traffic along Presidio Boulevard and through the Arguello Gate. He is supporting Prop H, the San Francisco Clean Energy Act, and Prop B, the affordable-housing set-aside, both endorsed by the SF Green Party as well.

As candidate for supervisor, he has identified several issues that demand collective governmental intervention. They include global climate change, ensuring an affordable housing stock for San Franciscans who are not wealthy, and reducing environmental health impacts such as asthma and cancer in San Francisco's lowest-income and most-heavily polluted neighborhoods.

He supports Bus Rapid Transit on Geary, and is interested in studying proposals for congestion pricing on Market Street and other busy parts of the city, as well as the creation of parking benefit districts in commercial corridors of the city.

Mar is widely respected and known for his compassionate and analytical approach to the issues. The SF Green Party enthusiastically endorses him.

District 3 Supervisor: (ranked endorsement) #1: David Chiu, #2: Tony Gantner

All supervisorial races use ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting), and we issued a ranked endorsement in this contest. David Chiu has our endorsement for first choice, and Tony Gantner has our endorsement for second choice.

David Chiu is a neighborhood activist and civil rights advocate. He supports the Clean Energy Act (Prop H), and agrees with us on many issues, ranging from immigrant rights to public financing of campaigns. He led the 2004 campaign for Prop F, the initiative sponsored by Supervisor Matt Gonzalez that would allowed immigrant parents of public school students to vote in local School Board elections. Chiu also opposes Prop V (JROTC) and supports Prop B (Affordable Housing), as well as Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's efforts to expand the number of foot patrols by police officers. He also agrees with us on many development issues, such as halting Lennar construction in the Bayview until the asbestos pollution and other health problems are resolved.

In a tough race with well-funded opponents who are spending more than the public financing limit, Chiu is working within the limits of San Francisco's public financing system. Many Green Party leaders and activists support Chiu and are working hard on his campaign. If elected, David Chiu would become the first Chinese-American supervisor to represent the district that includes Chinatown.

Tony Gantner was a key District 3 leader in Matt Gonzalez' run for Mayor in 2003. He also agrees with us on key issues in this election, including Prop B, and he helped draft the Clean Energy Act (Prop H). He agrees with us on development issues as well as with our efforts to move the SF Police Department towards more community policing.

The SF Green Party is proud to endorse both David Chiu as our #1 choice and Tony Gantner as our #2 choice.

District 4 Supervisor: no candidate

District 7 Supervisor: no candidate

In these districts, the SF Green Party thought that no candidate who sought our endorsement was sufficiently in agreement with our 10 Key Values to merit our endorsement. However, voters are encouraged to view the answers to our questionnaires for these races, linked from the bottom of this page.

District 5 Supervisor: Ross Mirkarimi

Green Party member Ross Mirkarimi is running for re-election this year without a serious challenge. However, Mirkarimi is not taking his incumbency for granted. Both prior to being elected and in office, Mirkarimi has a long history of strong and unifying leadership that would make any progressive proud.

In the 1990s, Mirkarimi co-founded the Green Party of California. His wide range of environmental accomplishments include coordinating an environmental impact investigation in Iraq with a Harvard Study Team in 1991 and helping to stop the development of a nuclear power facility in Livermore. Mirkarimi has also played a role in many Green and progressive political campaigns, including Ralph Nader for President in 2000, Matt Gonzalez for Mayor, the MUD campaign for public power, and the successful Sunshine Initiative. As a private citizen, Mirkarimi helped lead several legislative efforts at City Hall, including the return of district elections, transgender rights, creation of the SF Department of the Environment, and demolition of the Central Freeway.

After Matt Gonzalez declined to seek a second term four years ago, Mirkarimi defeated 21 other candidates to win the District 5 seat on the Board of Supervisors. Mirkarimi has achieved a lot during his short time in office. In the area of crime prevention, he pushed for improved community policing and comes to the scene of violent crimes that occur in his district, day or night. Quite notably, Mirkarimi passed legislation mandating police foot patrols, only to have the measure promptly vetoed by Mayor Newsom. In a stunning rebuke of the Mayor, Mirkarimi emerged victorious when he and his colleagues on the Board voted to override the veto.

Always strong on the environment, Mirkarimi passed laws to ensure climate protection. He sponsored tough legislation authorizing litigation against the state to stop aerial pesticide spraying for the light brown apple moth, and won accolades from around the world for his landmark legislation limiting plastic bag use in San Francisco. He helped protect Japantown's unique identity against speculative developers, led volunteer community cleanup efforts in his district, and also helped establish two Farmers Markets that enable district residents to buy fresh, organic produce. Mirkarimi is also the main author of the Clean Energy Act (Prop H).

In addition to his impressive legislative record, Mirkarimi has won the respect of his colleagues on the Board, even those who who hold opposing political views. With his experience and strong leadership skills, Mirkarimi has a good chance of becoming the next President of the Board of Supervisors. Many progressives also believe Mirkarimi will be a strong candidate in the next mayoral election.

The San Francisco Green Party is proud to support Mirkarimi in his bid for re-election. He is one part of the Green Party's dream team for 2008, along with District 9 candidate Mark Sanchez.

District 9 Supervisor: Mark Sanchez

Mark Sanchez is currently President of the School Board, a legislative body that has become a model of parliamentary professionalism and unity under his leadership. Having served on the school board for two full terms, Sanchez is the only candidate in the hotly contested District 9 race who has a proven track record in elected office of supporting Green and progressive values. This record was accomplished under difficult circumstances.

Sanchez was instrumental in writing a parcel tax initiative to help our local schools. The measure, Proposition A, passed overwhelmingly in the June 2008 election. This demonstrated Sanchez' progressive instincts and ability to achieve success within the limits of the legislative options available to local elected officials.

In 2000, Mark Sanchez became the first elected Green Party member in San Francisco. As a School Board Commissioner, Sanchez has led efforts to close the achievement gap in our public schools, implement a peace curriculum, get military recruiters out of our schools, end JROTC, demand greater accountability and transparency from administrators, and get bike racks installed in schools. He helped recruit highly regarded Superintendent Carlos Garcia and balanced the school district's multi-million dollar budget.

In addition to Sanchez' impressive record on the school board, he has worked for many years as a teacher in the public school system and co-founded Teachers 4 Change. His close relationship with and understanding of youth in our community is vital in District 9, where tragic violence is taking a devastating toll.

Sanchez' experience will allow him to hit the ground running to implement his progressive platform of violence prevention, youth empowerment, improved transit, affordable housing, tenant protections, and continued improvements to our public schools.

Like Supervisor Mirkarimi, Sanchez works well with others and has won the respect of those who may disagree with him. He has won endorsements from a diverse and powerful coalition of groups, including the Sierra Club, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and the League of Pissed-Off (Young) Voters. He also has the endorsement of Assemblyman Mark Leno, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, and Former Mayor Art Agnos.

The San Francisco Green Party is proud to support Mark Sanchez for District 9 Supervisor. District 11 Supervisor: (ranked endorsement) #1: John Avalos, #2: Randy Knox

All supervisorial races use ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting), and we issued a ranked endorsement in this contest. John Avalos has our endorsement for first choice, and Randy Knox has our endorsement for second choice.

John Avalos is well known for outstanding legislative work on development and housing issues. His background as a SEIU organizer has given him deep connections to the labor community. He is also in agreement with the Green Party on transportation issues, and would work hard to bring better public transit to an under-served supervisorial district. In addition, Avalos strongly supports the Clean Energy Act (Prop H), and he played a key role in drafting Prop B.

Avalos has years of experience in City Hall as a well-respected and well-liked aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, and this experience will allow him to move quickly to implement his legislative priorities.

Randy Knox also agrees with the Green Party positions on nearly all major issues facing San Francisco, and he has years of experience serving as a progressive voice on the Board of Appeals. Knox was one of the first supporters and a key leader in the Gonzalez for Mayor campaign in 2003. However, we are disappointed that Knox has indicated that he would support Supervisor Bevan Dufty for President of the Board of Supervisors over Ross Mirkarimi. The vote for Board President will be a key vote for newly elected supervisors, as the Board President will become Mayor if our current absentee Mayor wins his race for Governor. Knox recently re-registered from Green to Democrat, but we are pleased to endorse him as our second choice.

School Board: Barbara Lopez, Sandra Lee Fewer, Norman Yee

The SF Green Party solicited candidate questionnaires and interviewed 8 candidates for the 4 open seats on the School Board. In the end, we endorsed three candidates who are well qualified for the position and will put our 10 Key Values into practice on the Board. They are Barbara Lopez, Sandra Lee Fewer, and Norman Yee. Because voters cannot rank their choices in School Board elections, we encourage voters to select only these three candidates.

To the Green Party, some of the most important issues facing the SF Public School system are closing the achievement gap, fairness in budgeting issues and in deciding which schools to expand or close, and student safety and violence prevention. However, the conservative political faction of the City is instead focused on re-segregating the public schools (deceptively called "neighborhood schools," although the current student assignment system could fairly be described as "neighborhood schools" since most students are assigned to their first choice school in their neighborhood) and on re-opening the fight to preserve the continuation of the JROTC military recruitment program (see our endorsement of NO on V for more details).

We need to preserve a progressive majority on the School Board to maintain the improvements that have taken place in the last few years, such as the replacement of an autocratic superintendent, and a new culture of polite discourse and civil debate at School Board meetings.

Barbara Lopez has seven years of experience at the legal clinic La Raza Centro Legal, where she represented youth in expulsion, suspension, safety transfer, and special education hearings in SFUSD. She has been a strong voice for immigrants on issues related to housing, public safety, and tenant rights. She is a strong supporter of allowing immigrant parents with children in the public schools to have a voice in their children's education through participation in School Board elections. She also opposes JROTC, which is a military recruitment program that also happens to provide leadership training. Such recruiters overwhelmingly target youth of color, who may not be aware of recruiters' record of deceptive promises until after a military contract is signed.

Lopez is the only Latina candidate running for School Board this election. If elected, she will be the only queer woman (following the departure of Carole Migden) in elected office in San Francisco. It is very important to have diverse voices on the School Board, particularly since underrepresented communities suffered so much in the last round of school closings.

With these criteria in mind, Sandra Fewer is another candidate who is exactly the kind of person we want to see running for School Board. She's very knowledgeable about the issues the SF Green Party considers most important, and articulate in defending her (and our) positions on these issues, which will enable her to be both a strong and effective voice on the Board. She brings years of experience working with youth as part of Coleman Advocates.

Fewer's top priority is closing the racial achievement gap between Latino and African American students vs Asian and white students. Fewer hopes to engage parents and develop more successful principals to create a more effective climate for learning in our most under-performing schools. This will require spending SFUSD funds on effective outreach and training programs.

Norman Yee is running for re-election, and we are happy to endorse him for another term. Among current Board members, he's been a key swing vote on issues that are important to the Green Party. Although he did not initially support the removal of JROTC from schools, he voted to eliminate PE credit for the program upon finding that such credit would violate state law (unlike some of his conservative colleagues, who dogmatically support the program and refuse to consider alternatives). He opposes Prop V, although he has indicated his willingness to reconsider the phasing out of JROTC should Prop V pass.

College Board Trustees: Bruce Wolfe, Milton Marks, and Chris Jackson

The SF Green Party solicited candidate questionnaires and interviewed 4 candidates for the 4 open seats on the College Board. We endorsed a slate of 3 candidates who (if all elected) will join Green Party Trustee John Rizzo to form a progressive majority on the College Board for the first time. The three candidates who most embody the values of the Green Party are Bruce Wolfe, Milton Marks, and Chris Jackson. As with the School Board, we ask voters to vote only for these 3, since ranked choice voting is not currently used in College Board elections.

A progressive Board would bring new levels of accountability and transparency to a system that is well known for corruption and waste under the current conservative majority. In addition, the board will recruit a new Chancellor, and it is important to find somebody who is an honest, accountable, and a competent administrator.

Bruce Wolfe has been a member of the Green Party since 2004. He has served two terms on the SF Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, and has served for four years on the SF Unified school Districts' Prop H Public Education Enrichment Fund Budget Committee, which has appropriated a $450 million budget over 10 years. He also served on the SF Sierra Club's Executive Committee.

Wolfe has volunteered for Green and progressive campaigns in SF and Oakland since 1998. He has been a key player in the fight for Community Choice Aggregation, and opposing the Earthlink/Google WiFi debacle. He would be be a strong advocate for the rights of people with disabilities, and for more accountability and fiscal common sense.

Milton Marks is running for re-election, and is currently the longest- serving progressive on the College Board. He has consistently advocated for additional accountability and transparency, and has almost always been on the losing end of votes on these issues. A Marks-led board following the 2008 election would presumably recruit a much better Chancellor than the current Board would.

Chris Jackson is a recent graduate of San Francisco State and is one of the youngest candidates for Trustee. Jackson has served as an officer of the SF Youth Commission, and has pushed for greater focus on youth employment and youth violence prevention. His campaign's focus on Green job training and neighborhood planning are well in accord with the 10 Key Values of the Green Party.

Congressional District 8: Cindy Sheehan

Nancy Pelosi's awful record in the House of Representatives has only gotten worse since her ascension as the first female Speaker of the House. Her congressional career began with a giveaway of a national park in the Presidio to private developers, but that pales in comparison to her recent work to pass Bush's $700 billion handout to Wall Street thieves. Her "soft on crime" approach towards the Bush administration started with taking impeachment off the table, has continued with her refusal to block warrantless spying on Americans (along with full amnesty for corporations that participated in this illegal program). As House Minority Leader prior to 2006, Pelosi was briefed on pre-war intelligence on Iraq, but still aided and abetted Bush's illegal war. After the Democrats swept into Congress in 2006 with a popular mandate to end the war, Congressional approval ratings plummeted to new lows as Pelosi and the Democrats have surrendered to Republicans at every possible opportunity. Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats have held our soldiers hostage in Iraq, demanding the election of a Democratic President before they will act to end the war.

San Franciscans might put up with a congressperson who is so out of step with our values, if she were at least bringing home our Federal tax dollars for local priorities such as affordable housing, Muni operations, and better schools. As the home of the most powerful Democrat in Congress, you would think we'd be rolling in earmarks--imagine a Prius in every garage and free lattes for all the liberals! Even Sarah Palin managed to bring in $27 million in earmarks as Mayor of a tiny town of 5,500 people. Instead, Pelosi has brought no benefits to San Francisco other than the scorn of Republicans throughout the country. To make matters worse, Pelosi has consistently endorsed the most conservative candidates and initiatives in San Francisco. It's no surprise that this year she's opposing the Clean Energy Act (Prop H), while "compromising" with congressional Republicans to open up the United States coastline for oil drilling.

In the last four years, the SF Green Party has run Green candidates Terry Baum and Krissy Keefer against Pelosi. This year, we are proud to endorse Independent candidate Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan gained national notoriety by camping in front of George Bush's vacation home in Texas to demand an answer to the question of exactly why her son Casey and other soldiers were sacrificed in wars Iraq and Afghanistan.

After establishing Camp Casey in Crawford and a brief respite from activism, Sheehan re-emerged on the public scene with her announcement that she was leaving the Democratic Party and denouncing the two-party system. After Pelosi took impeachment off the table, Sheehan announced her candidacy.

Like Green Party candidates, Sheehan has had to fight an uphill battle not only to get on the ballot, but also to garner the attention she deserves in acknowledging her campaign platform. She champions the cause of single-payer-health reform (SB 840 & HR 676). She realizes that immigrants rights and economic reform are two issues that are inextricably linked. She advocates the repeal of No Child Left Behind, more democratic control of the public airwaves and less concentration of ownership of the the media, reversing the deregulation and privatizing of federal jobs, a national energy system based on decentralized public power, and stronger federal civil rights and privacy protections.

Congressional District 12: Barry Hermanson

Barry Hermanson is a longtime Green Party leader and neighborhood activist. He is a co-founder of the Westside Greens, and has run several times for District 4 Supervisor and State Assembly. He successfully spearheaded San Francisco's minimum wage campaign, and he has been a tireless advocate for single payer health care and a living wage.

Hermanson's message in this election is simple but effective. While Congress spends more than half of their discretionary budget on the war (and are trying to give away even more of our tax money this year to Wall Street thieves), local priorities for spending are being neglected. Despite Democrats taking over Congress in 2006, funding for education, health care, parks has declined, and our national infrastructure (from bridges to levees to schools) is literally crumbling.

Until Congressional representatives focus on our out-of-control spending on war and corporate giveaways, the United States will continue to head towards an economic collapse similar to that which destroyed the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. Fresh voices such as Hermanson's are needed to point out this unpleasant reality.

Superior Court Judge: Gerardo Sandoval

Gerardo Sandoval currently serves as District 11 Supervisor, and has been effective on the Board of Supervisors at representing many of the legislative priorities of the Green Party. He graduated from Columbia Law School, and is well qualified to serve as a Superior Court Judge.

In a world where the third branch of government is dominated by old, white Republicans, the incumbent Judge Mellon is one of the oldest, whitest, and most Republican of all. Appointed by Pete Wilson, he has a reputation as one of the most partisan judges in office in San Francisco. Attorneys report that Mellon has denied bail to defendants accused of minor misdemeanors, and issued arrest warrants against defendants who, under agreements with prosecutors and defense attorneys, did not need to appear in court. Mellon once summoned 15 bailiffs to remove a man who created a minor disturbance during a court hearing.

If elected, Sandoval will be one of few people of color serving as a Judge, as well as one of very few judges with a background serving as a Public Defender (most judges worked for corporate law firms, or in the DA's office).

We enthusiastically endorse Gerardo Sandoval for Superior Court Judge.

Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are our nominees for President and Vice President.

The SF Green Party is proud to support the first all women of color presidential ticket in US history!

Cynthia McKinney served six terms in the US Congress and two terms in the Georgia General Assembly. She is a global human rights and peace activist with a substantial voting record supporting women and people of color. Rosa Clemente is a community organizer and journalist who was one of the founders and primary organizers of the first national Hip Hop political convention. Their "Power to the People" campaign goal is to ensure that public policy reflects the Green Party values of ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, and nonviolence.

As a member of Congress, McKinney led opposition to the systematic disenfranchisement by the Republican Party of African American voters, which took place without comment or opposition from Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry, and continues this year without resistance from Obama. She also exposed corruption, waste, and fraud in Pentagon, and fought for the impeachment of Bush and other criminals in his administration.

Cynthia McKinney has been a steadfast supporter of full reproductive rights for women throughout her legislative career, including funding for contraception and UN family planning, and opposition to "abstinence only" sex education. She supports singe payer health care, free higher education, an end to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, and equal marriage rights for all adult couples. Rosa Clemente has been an outspoken advocate on issues affecting people of color, particularly women, and has directed her campaign toward the 48% of young people who don't vote, to encourage participation in the electoral process.

District 7 BART Board: Marshall Walker III

The governing body of BART, with the vast majority of seats elected by suburban counties, is rigged against San Francisco. Thus, although BART has funds to spend on bus lines to bring customers to BART, most of those funds are spent on suburban bus systems rather than on Muni. Although BART negotiated a deal with Muni to allow riders to use full price Adult Fast Passes on BART trips within San Francisco, Muni pays BART nearly the full fare cost every time such a pass is used. This costs Muni more than they make selling the passes. BART does not currently take youth or Lifeline Muni passes, and only recently began a pilot project to take senior and disabled passes. BART spends a great deal of money to provide free or reduced price parking to its suburban commuters, and spends the vast majority of the region's public transit funding on service expansion in the suburbs rather than on projects that would serve a larger number of urban customers (e.g., a light rail line on Geary).

San Francisco is gerrymandered into three BART districts. District 7 includes a small part of Southeastern San Francisco, as well as large areas of Alameda and Contra Costa county, including the City of Richmond. We are pleased to endorse Marshall Walker III for the District 7 seat.

Walker agrees with us on many of the issues important to San Franciscans, as described above. He is willing to renegotiate the fare reimbursement paid by Muni to BART for the use of Fastpasses, and also to negotiate a plan under which BART will take all types of Muni passes. Walker supports aggressive service expansion, and was vague on the details of how to pay for it. Although we have some concerns that further expansion into rural areas will lead to more suburban sprawl, the SF Green Party encourages investment in expansion along highly populated corridors, such as along 580 in the East Bay, and BART service expansion to the Presidio and Richmond neighborhoods of San Francisco. We also hope that funds for these projects will be obtained from the Federal Government, rather than building them on the backs of the riders through fare increases and service cuts, as has been the case in the past.

Walker's opponent is almost always on the wrong side of votes on the BART board, so we're happy to recommend replacing her.

District 9 BART Board: Tom Radulovich

Tom Radulovich has represented District 9 on the BART board, a district that includes most of San Francisco, since 1996. He has also been directory of Livable City, a group that advocates progressive housing and transit policies, since 2004. For years, he has been well known among public transit advocates as a intelligent and thoughtful resource for progressive transit policy, and was very helpful to the SF Green Party when we asked his advice in drafting the Transportation plank of our local platform.

Radulovich supports many of the same priorities as the Green Party, including the expansion of monthly pass programs and development of discount passes for low income riders. He supported the pilot project to take senior and disabled Muni passes on BART within SF. He has consistently advocated for more funding by BART for its San Francisco stations and partnerships with Muni, rather than only spending funds on expanding into the suburbs. He also supports the Clean Energy Act (Prop H), and is pushing to have BART be 100% fossil-fuel free within a decade.

Radulovich has consistently been a voice of sanity on the BART board, and he has been proactive about fighting for our priorities. We're happy to endorse him for re-election.

State Senate: Mark Leno

The Green Party has never before endorsed a Democrat or Republican candidate in a partisan race. We never endorse in other party's primaries, because Green Party members would have to change their registration in order to vote in those primaries. We often endorse Democrats in non-partisan races, but we almost always find that Democratic Party politicians who rise through the ranks and win a partisan primary have compromised any values they may once have held that are in line with the Ten Key Values of the Greens. However, we are pleased that Mark Leno has represented our Key Values well in the State Assembly, and therefore we endorse him for a promotion to the State Senate.

During his career in San Francisco, Mark Leno didn't appear to be headed for a future Green Party endorsement. He often voted with Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, and the conservative wing of the Board of Supervisors, and he frequently endorsed the same hacks for local office that the both Brown and Newsom inevitably support. However, his career in Sacramento has taken a turn for the better.

Leno recently gained state-wide notoriety for his determined fight for equal marriage rights for all adult couples... an issue that the Green Party has pushed since we were founded. We're also impressed by Leno's work on reform of the Ellis Act, which resulted in seniors and people with disabilities being protected from evictions. He has pushed for a more open government in Sacramento, similar to our local Sunshine laws. In the current election cycle, Leno has taken a political risk in supporting the Clean Energy Act (Prop H), despite the millions being spent against it by PG&E. He has shown courage for a Democratic Party politician in being willing to endorse Green Party members such as Mark Sanchez and Ross Mirkarimi over less qualified members of his own party.

We're not saying Leno would do as well as a Green in Sacramento. The Green Party supports systematic reform of our tax code to shift the tax burden away from ordinary people and back to large corporations. For example, a Green in the California Legislature would push for reform of Prop 13 so that it would continue to protect ordinary people from rising property taxes, but would no longer apply to property owned by corporations, which have seen their share of California's tax burden cut in half since Prop 13 passed. Leno has said little about the massive subsidies given by California taxpayers to landlords and real estate speculators, nor anything about the tax breaks given to large companies that ship our jobs overseas and to other states.

On balance, Mark Leno has clearly fought to bring our Ten Key Values to bear on public policy in Sacramento, and we're proud to endorse him for a promotion to the State Senate.

State Assembly, AD 12

Tom Ammiano is a liberal Democrat who has served for years on the Board of Supervisors. He has an impressive resume of support for a long list of progressive causes, culminating in his recent passage of landmark health care legislation. However, we are disappointed that Ammiano has not followed Supervisor Mirkarimi's lead in pushing for a Green approach to improving law enforcement, particularly as Mission residents feel that City officials have overlooked growing concerns about crime and public safety. Ammiano has also taken an increasingly partisan tone in recent years, and may as a result be ineffective in passing progressive legislation in Sacramento. The Green Party is recommending no candidate in this race.

State Assembly, AD 13

No candidate for Assembly in AD 13 sought our endorsement.

Local Ballot Initiatives

A: SF General Hospital Earthquake Safety Bond - YES

The SF Green Party rarely endorses a bond measure, for reasons we explain in on endorsement of No on Prop 3. However, there are a few cases for which we will make an exception. Urban public hospitals are an endangered species, possibly even more at risk of extinction than polar bears. Prop A would issue nearly a billion dollars worth of bonds to rebuild the hospital to current safety standards. Without these funds, SF General Hospital would be forced to close in 2013, and the City would be left with with the major crisis of losing its most important medical facility. It is essential to get SF General upgraded as soon as possible, in order to allow it to continue to operate after a larger earthquake.

While we would have preferred that the City save up the money in advance to rebuild the Hospital rather than issuing bonds, it would have been impossible to do so given the large amount of money required: such investment would have resulted in cutting back many other necessary City services. Until we have real fiscal reform and long-term planning in local and state government, bonds will be the only realistic way to finance large new construction projects, such as the General Hospital retrofit and High Speed Rail.

Even the SF Republican Party is joining us in support of socialized medicine on this one. Vote Yes on Prop A.

B: Establishing Affordable Housing Fund - YES

San Francisco has long faced a serious housing crisis. Due to the high cost of owning or renting, many people are simply priced out of the market. This is one reason why families have been leaving San Francisco. Our city's celebrated diversity is also being sacrificed because of the high cost of residential real estate. Proposition B directly address this problem by setting aside money for affordable housing.

C: Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Boards and Commissions - no position

The SF Green Party usually supports "good government" initiatives that reduce the possibility of corruption. We probably would have supported Prop C if it applied equally to all City commissions, because employees serving on commissions that oversee their own departments can clearly lead to conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, Prop C applies only to a subset of commissions, which appeared to have been chosen in order to target particular people serving on those commissions while sparing others.

We therefore abstained from taking a position on this one.

D: Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan - no position

Prop D would create an "improvement district" that would result in development of the waterfront area south of Mission Bay, to just north of the Mirant Power Plant. Tax revenues from development of the district would be redirected towards local improvements rather than going into the General Fund.

We are convinced that Pier 70 should be developed to meet the needs of all San Franciscans, but not convinced that Prop D is the best plan. We are worried that Prop D will result in the cookie-cutter style development that took place in the Mission Bay / Eastern SOMA area, which is overloaded with expensive condos and chain stores rather than being a walkable urban neighborhood.

We therefore did not take a position on Prop D.

E: Changing the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials - NO

Prop E would raise the number of signatures required to initiate a recall election for City supervisor. Currently, 10% of the voters in the district are required to sign a petition; Prop E would raise that to 15-20%, depending on the size of the district.

The SF Green Party agrees that the recall process needs significant reform. Currently, if a supervisor were recalled, the Mayor automatically appoints their replacement, unlike the Gubernatorial recall in which voters selected a replacement at the same time. We would support reform that would allow replacement candidates to be elected by the voters. We would support extending existing election rules regarding public financing of candidates and ranked choice voting to apply to recall elections as well.

We think that 10% of the voters in the district (i.e., approximately 3800 voters on average) is an adequately high bar to initiate a recall, considering that the Department of Elections routinely finds a large fraction of signatures on any petition to be invalid for technical reasons. Keeping a low threshold would allow ordinary citizen's groups a chance to initiate a recall, while raising the bar would make things difficult for those who don't have the resources to hire paid signature gatherers. Raising the threshold would therefore tilt the political balance in the City even further towards wealthy special interest groups and large corporations.

Support Grassroots Democracy by voting NO on Prop E.

F: Holding All Scheduled City Elections Only in Even-numbered Years - NO

Prop F would cut the number of City elections in half, eliminating elections in odd numbered years. This is a bad idea for several reasons:

First, fewer elections means an even longer ballot when elections do take place. If you think this year is bad, imagine a ballot with Props A to ZZ. Longer ballots mean voters don't have time to adequately research what they're voting on, which is bad for democracy.

Second, fewer elections would mean that replacement officials who were appointed to fill a vacancy would serve for an additional year before voters could have any say in the matter.

Third, moving more elections to the same date would limit our choice of candidates, because with more elections occurring at the same time, many candidates would choose to run for re-election to the same office they currently hold rather than challenge an incumbent for another office. Under the current system, incumbents often do not have to give up the office they currently hold in order to run for a different seat. The current system therefore leads to a more diverse set of choices for voters than would result under Prop F.

The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop F, as it is in opposition to our Key Value of Grassroots Democracy.

G: Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave - YES

Prop G would allow City employees who took unpaid parental leave to buy service credit for the time they were absent. This would allow the employees to eventually retire with the same benefits as they would have earned if they had not taken the unpaid leave.

The SF Green Party supports this measure, as City workers should not be penalized for taking time to start a family. The workers who are penalized under the current system are disproportionately women, and fixing this problem is in keeping with our Key Value of Feminism.

In todays world of digital appliances, the old saying that "a stopped clock is right twice a day" no longer applies. Therefore, we were surprised to find out that Prop G was sponsored by the conservative Supervisor Alioto-Pier.

Regardless of its authorship, the SF Green Party strongly supports Prop G.

Prop H: Clean Energy - YES!

Prop H, sponsored by Green Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, is the most important local proposition on this November's ballot.

Prop H sets groundbreaking new clean energy standards for the City. It mandates that an increasing share of the City's electricity be produced from clean, renewable sources: 51% by 2017, 75% by 2030, and 100% by 2040.

If these standards are not met by PG&E, Prop H would empower the SF Public Utilities Commission to issue revenue bonds to build a public power system or (if cheaper) to buy out PG&E's system. Prop H would therefore enable SF to take community control of our own energy future, rather than paying for PG&E's misleading greenwashing campaigns.

Prop H would be a huge step forward in the fight against global warming, and would also result in San Francisco becoming the center of a new green energy industry. In addition to creating thousands of new jobs in solar and wind energy installation, Prop H would guarantee that union workers at PG&E would not lose salary or benefits if their jobs were municipalized.

Vote YES on H, and ask everybody you know to do the same!

I: Creating the Office of an Independent Rate Payer Advocate - NO

Prop I would create a new position in City government to lobby the Public Utilities Commission on behalf of the ratepayers, in matters regarding service rates. This sounds like a good idea at first, but there is a fatal flaw in Prop I: the ratepayer advocate would serve at the pleasure of the City Administrator.

Prop I would therefore result in a supposedly "independent" position that is actually dependent on the Mayor, just as all members of the PUC are currently appointed by the Mayor. We don't expect that the advocate created by Prop I would actually be able to stand up to PG&E without being quickly replaced, possibly at great taxpayer expense (as when the PUC fired Susan Leal).

Prop H includes language that would create a truly independent ratepayer advocate, without the above loophole. Vote NO on Prop I and YES on H.

Prop J: Creating a Historic Preservation Commission - NO

This proposition would replace the City's current Landmarks Board with a newly established Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission would be entirely appointed by the Mayor, with appointees subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. It would take over some of the current duties of the Planning Commission with respect to overseeing development of historic districts and proposed changes to historic buildings.

While the current Landmarks Board is an advisory board to the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission would be an equal player in making development decisions. The Historic Preservation Commission would have the final approval over all external changes to historic buildings and buildings in historic districts.

Although the SF Green Party supports the preservation of neighborhood character (part of the reason behind our opposition to chain stores), we think Prop J goes too far. Prop J would elevate the importance of historic preservation over all other competing issues, such as the need for affordable housing or encouragement of neighborhood businesses. Although the Planning Commission currently does not always pay enough attention to the need to preserve neighborhood character, in most cases they do a good job of balancing competing interests. In addition, some members of Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, but if Prop J passes, all members of the new commission would be appointed by the Mayor. This concentration of power is not in accord with our key value of Decentralization.

The SF Green Party therefore opposes Prop J.

Prop K: Decriminalization of Sex Work - YES

Prop K would de-prioritize police enforcement of prostitution laws. If Prop K passes, arresting people solely for the victimless "crime" of prostitution would be prohibited, and police would be required to provide equal protection under the law by consistently and rigorously investigating crimes like rape and robbery regardless of whether or not the victim works in the sex industry.

Currently, prostitutes and clients who are victims of violence are sometimes afraid to go to the police for fear that they themselves will become the targets of law enforcement. In addition, arresting and charging prostitutes results in their having a criminal record, which makes it difficult for those who wish to pursue other careers to exit the sex industry.

Despite SF's rising murder rate, "No arrests have been made" is unfortunately becoming our Police Department's new unofficial slogan. Today, the SFPD rarely investigates "routine" burglaries and muggings. With this miserable record, it is time to redirect police resources towards preventing and solving more serious crimes.

While some have raised concerns that Prop K might hinder the enforcement of serious crimes such as human trafficking, we are pleased that Prop K authorizes the Board of Supervisors to modify the final language in such a way as to eliminate such unintended consequences.

The SF Green Party therefore strongly supports Prop K.

L: Funding the Community Justice Center - NO

Prop L is an unfunded mandate (the sort that the Mayor supposedly opposes) to build a new Community Justice Center (CJC) in the Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods. This new court, expected to cost $500,000 to build and $2.8 million per year to run, would be created specifically for the prosecution of nonviolent misdemeanors, such as shoplifting, drug possession, prostitution and graffiti.

Based on a similar court system set up in New York, this program will do little if anything to alleviate the problems experienced by residents in the central city area. It offers the false choice of forced entry into one of the perennially underfunded City support programs or a ride through the broken and corrupt criminal justice system. Instead of wasting money on this "new" program, this money should be invested in the support services that the program is meant to funnel people into, but that for some reason always find themselves on the chopping block every budget season. The threat of criminal charges will do little to force "service resistant" people into programs. Folks don't go to shelters because they are understaffed and overcrowded. People don't go to job training programs because they rarely result in jobs. People don't go to substance abuse programs because they are wait-listed for months on end. If the city forces people into services the city is not funding, they are setting people up to fail.

Despite how the plan has been promoted in the Chronicle, this program is not actually set up to handle "quality of life" infractions such as public urination. But because there exists a fine line between infractions and low-level misdemeanors, police officers will have an enormous amount of discretion to decide who ends up before a judge at the CJC. For instance, someone urinating on the street might also have been drinking, and it will be up to the officer to decide if this person is cited for the infraction of public urination or is instead charged with a misdemeanor for public intoxication. A similar situation applies for panhandling - an infraction - versus "aggressive" panhandling - a misdemeanor. Police officers are not trained as social workers and are ill equipped to deal with a "service resistant" population. However, with a newly built court, the police will be pressured to ensure a sufficient stream of misdemeanor cases. The City already has had a similar program operating since the beginning of 2008, which was described by a participating attorney as "a colossal waste of time" (SF Chronicle, January 5 2008). The new court would divert police resources from the prosecution of serious crimes that are of more concern to most San Francisco residents, such as burglaries, armed robbery, and homicides.

Sadly, the conservative wing of the Board of Supervisors has already funded this boondoggle. But if enough voters reject the program, it will encourage some of the more forward thinking city leaders to demand a review of the program and to look at more effective use of city resources. Vote NO on L.

M: Changing the Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords - YES

Prop M defines a number of ways landlords could harass their tenants in order to get them to move out of an apartment, and also sets penalties if a landlord violates the law. Prop M would prohibit shutting off utilities in order to get tenants to leave, attempting to get a tenant to move through fraudulent means, intimidation, or threats, refusing rent checks, or violating a tenant's right to privacy by asking about their citizenship status or social security number.

This legislation is an important step forward for tenants' rights, since unscrupulous landlords often get around rent control laws by harassing long-time tenants until they leave. The landlord can then fill the vacant apartment with new tenants who pay the current market rate. This drives up the average rents, thus placing higher financial burden on honest landlords and other residents.

The SF Green Party asks you to vote YES on M.

N: Real Estate Transfer Tax - YES

Prop N would raise the real estate transfer tax (a tax paid when a property is sold) on properties worth more than $5 million, from 0.75% to 1.5%. It would also reduce the transfer tax on all residential property on which the seller has installed a solar power system or made seismic safety upgrades. Finally, Prop N would close a loophole under which corporations often avoid the tax by never formally selling a property, but instead selling a long-term lease on a building.

The SF Green Party supports progressive taxation, and Prop N is an important tool for bringing badly needed revenue to the City.

Vote Yes on N.

O: Replacing the Emergency Response Fee with an Access Line Tax and Revising the Telephone Users Tax - YES

San Francisco currently charges an "emergency response fee" on telephone lines, which is used to fund our 911 emergency response system. Prop O would replace this fee with a tax of the same amount, which could be used for other emergency services as well, including the police and fire departments. In addition, Prop O would clarify that the tax applies to current and future technologies that are the equivalent of telephones (but not to Internet services).

Prop O will give San Francisco the flexibility to improve emergency response times by spending the emergency funding where it is most needed, rather than restricting the funds only to a very specific set of services as required by the existing law.

The SF Green Party supports a YES vote on Prop O.

P: Changing the Composition of the SF County Transportation Authority Board - NO

The SF County Transportation Authority (TA) Board, not to be confused with the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA), currently consists of all 11 members of the Board of Supervisors. The TA is responsible for overseeing spending on approximately $80 million dollars in local transportation funds. Prop P would replace the TA board with a 5-member board, with two of the members being the Mayor and a mayoral appointee.

Prop P is simply a power grab by Mayor Newsom, in his feud with the Board of Supervisors. Since the Mayor has a terrible record on transportation spending (he once raided Muni funds to pay the salaries of several of his office staff), this would be a bad idea. The current Board of Supervisors is doing the job well, unlike the Mayor-appointed MTA board. Also, the Board of Supervisors is ultimately responsible for passing a City budget, so it makes sense that they should also control money spent on City transportation projects.

The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop P.

Q: Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax - YES

Prop Q would eliminate a loophole in the current payroll tax that allows certain types of businesses, particularly law offices and real estate firms, to avoid paying tax on the salaries of their "partners." It would also lower taxes on small businesses.

Prop Q is a common sense closing of a loophole, and will also help our local small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our neighborhoods.

The SF Green Party strongly supports Prop Q.

R: Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant - no position

Prop R would rename the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant to the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant" effective immediately after Bush leaves office. Only the sign at the plant and its website would be changed immediately; other resources such as maps and business cards would be changed when reprinted.

Greens were split over whether or not to endorse this proposition. Proponents argued that it's a good joke at little public expense, and that the plant might even become a tourist attraction. Opponents argued that the stunt is juvenile, that we should also name sewage plants after prominent Democrats who participated in Bush's criminal schemes, or are so disgusted by Bush that they wouldn't want to see his name on anything other than an inmate roster.

In the end, we came to consensus that San Franciscans should vote their conscience on Prop R.

S: Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides - NO

Prop S would make it City policy that voters will not approve initiatives that require the City to spend funds on particular programs (such as Prop L) that do not also include a new source of revenue to pay for the programs.

Prop S would not actually prevent set-asides (as voters could still pass them at the ballot box), but it would create a "surgeon general" style warning on all propositions that met the definition.

Set-asides are an important tool that voters can use at the ballot box to be sure our priorities are carried out by legislators. Few voters want to fund PR staff and Mayoral special assistants, but somehow these positions always receive full funding in City budgets. Set-asides ensure that at least part of the budget is spent according to our priorities, such as schools, libraries, and housing (Prop B).

Prop S was put on the ballot by Mayor Newsom as part of his ongoing feud with Supervisor Daly. Although Newsom has almost always supported set-asides in the past (including Prop L on this ballot), he is hypocritically using the issue as part of a well-funded campaign against Prop B.

Vote YES on S and B, and NO on L.

T: Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs - YES

Substance abuse programs are an important part of our homeless policy, since homelessness and much petty crime is the result of drug addiction. Unfortunately, the City has not funded these programs well, and there are many more addicts seeking treatment than there are available spaces in the programs. Prop T would ensure that City substance abuse programs are adequately funded, so that nobody would be turned away due to lack of space.

This is common sense policy, and is a much more cost-effective way to reduce crime and homelessness than the punitive approaches favored by the Chronicle and Mayor. It is especially frustrating that the Mayor has failed to fund substance abuse programs adequately, given his own history of substance abuse and his connections to the alcohol industry.

The SF Green Party strongly supports Prop T.

U: No More Funding for Iraq War - YES

Prop U is yet another symbolic statement against the Iraq War. It would ask our representatives in Congress to actually represent us for a change, and vote to end the war by de-funding it.

It's a no-brainer. Vote Yes on U (and vote for Sheehan to replace Pelosi).

V: Policy Against Terminating JROTC Programs in Public High Schools - NO

Prop V is a non-binding resolution that would make it City policy to not terminate JROTC in the public schools. Although the proposition is non-binding, some school board members and candidates have promised to revisit the issue should Prop V pass. There are many reasons we oppose Prop V:

First, JROTC is a military recruiting program, not just a leadership program. The Pentagon spends vast amounts of our tax money on the program for a reason, not just out of a sense of wanting to help the community. While JROTC apologists claim that only a small percentage of kids who go through the program choose to enter the military, reliable statistics are not available to the public. Military recruiting of minors is a violation of international law.

Second, the program costs the school system a lot of money, despite the proponents' claims. JROTC requires more instructors than other physical education classes, and the salaries paid by the school district to JROTC instructors are higher than for regular teachers. Just replacing JROTC with PE would save the school district millions per year.

Third, there are alternative leadership programs, such as a partnership with the SF Police Department, that could provide the same degree of leadership training without glorifying militarism and war. A partnership with the SFPD would allow more new police to be recruited who actually live in the City, which is a key part of community policing programs long advocated by the Green Party. Such a program would already be in place, if JROTC advocates had not stacked the committee charged with developing a replacement.

Fourth, it is in violation of state law to give kids PE credit for JROTC, since the instructors do not meet state standards. Keeping the program, and the PE credit, would expose our school system to an expensive lawsuit. Only the most pro-JROTC ideologues would risk our already cash-strapped budget on re-fighting yesterday's battles.

Vote NO on Prop V, and get rid of the program once and for all!

State Ballot Initiatives

1A: High Speed Rail Bond - YES

Prop 1A would create a rail trust fund to issue $9.95 billion in bonds to build a new, electric, high-speed railroad (HSR) between San Francisco and Los Angeles ($9 billion) and for connections to the HSR and for other repairs and modernization of existing tracks, signals, etc. Additional money would come from the Federal government and from private investors (because the project is expected to start yielding profits in about 20 years).

High-Speed Rail operates successfully in dozens of countries around the world. In 1996 the State created the California High- Speed Rail Authority to plan for train service at 200 miles per hour or faster. This bond measure was scheduled for the ballot twice in recent years and then pulled.

The proposed route would eventually link downtown stations in San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, San Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento, and also have stops in Central Valley cities. However, Prop 1A, the first phase of the plan, would only link San Francisco and LA.

In the SF Green Party, we are in consensus that the benefits of HSR outweigh the drawbacks (incentives to suburban sprawl in relatively rural areas). It is likely that if the bill doesn't pass in this election, we might not get a better opportunity, with rising gas prices and a failing economy. Population growth in the coming years will mean constant pressure for more highways and expanded airports, with their added environmental destruction locally and added greenhouse gas emissions. HSR uses 15 times less energy per passenger than single-passenger car trips, and air travel is even worse.

We strongly support a YES vote on 1A.

2: Treatment of Farm Animals - YES

The Treatment of Farm Animals Statute would end the practice by California factory farms of cramming calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens into cages so small the animals can not even turn around, lie down or extend their limbs. The requirements of this Statute will not be able to provide the animals with a "free-range" environment, which some family farms have established and which was the traditional, natural and healthy American way of farming in the past, but Prop 2 would make a difference between a tolerable life and a tortured existence.

Because the animals suffer so much in the cruel and unnatural conditions of the factory farms, they may not be able to grow well and are prone to illnesses. Therefore, they are pumped with growth hormones and antibiotics, which inevitably make their way into the humans who consume them. The reason family farms can honestly claim their free-range raised chickens and eggs do not contain hormones and antibiotics is because their animals, enjoying a more natural state of being, are healthier and grow well without chemical "aids." Furthermore, cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages fosters the spread of diseases that may also affect people. There are already several present-day examples of this possibility. Factory farms have become one of the main causes of pollution in the soil, water and air. For all these reasons, the Center for Food Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, as well as the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and numerous humane organizations, the California Veterinary Medical Association and family farms all support Prop 2.

Opponents claim that enacting Prop 2 would greatly increase the cost of food, but, actually, the economists of factory farms themselves admit that the initiative would cause an increase of less than one penny per egg. That is a tiny price for pushing an industry into a kinder and more healthy way of production that would benefit animals, the environment and human beings.

The SF Green Party urges a YES Vote on Prop 2 because it is in line with our Key Values of Ecological Wisdom, Community Based Economics, Sustainability, and the effort to lead lives of compassion and non-violence.

3: $2 Billion Children's Hospital Bond - NO

If Prop 3 passes, $980 million (almost one billion dollars), in bonds will be sold by the state to be paid back with interest over 30 years from the general fund, to expand capacity in California's Children's Hospitals. The total cost is expected to be about $2 billion in taxpayer funds. At first glance, who could be against improving and expanding hospitals for children? Looking deeper however, it is evident that Prop 3 has serious problems.

First, this is essentially the same measure as Prop 61 on the 2004 ballot, which passed giving $750 million to the same hospitals. Only $403 million (53.7%) of that money has been used. Shouldn't the prior fund be depleted before asking the taxpayers to fund another round?

Second, it is unclear if this taxpayer money is being used in the public interest. Eighty percent of the money will go to private hospitals (the other 20% goes to University of California facilities). Just looking at one of these private institutions, Children's Hospital of Oakland, one finds that the President/CEO was paid $673,000 in compensation in 2006, and the Chief Operation Officer was paid $420,000 that year.

Third, this campaign represents an abuse of the Initiative process. These private hospitals, crying poor, actually have substantial assets and are using them to get additional public subsidies. Moreover, these institutions have hired Richie Ross, the high priced Sacramento political consultant, to run their slick campaign to tap into the taxpayers to fund their private hospitals.

Fourth, if the taxpayers are going to fund the expansion of privately owned hospitals, the taxpayers should get a share of the ownership and control of these institutions, (including board seats and watchdog positions), something, (of course), not part of this proposition.

Finally, it is far past time that we have democratic discussion, debate and action about how to fix our broken health care system, which leaves almost 50 million people without health care in this country.

A single payer health care system for all, similar to the Medicare system, should be central to this discussion, which must include how to fund and improve our stressed public hospitals. This is likely a much better use of our scarce tax dollars. Prop 3 simply perpetuates the existing and unfair privately dominated medical system.

The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop 3.

4: Parental Notification for Abortion - NO

Prop 4 is essentially the same as the two previously defeated California propositions, with the same (male) sponsors. Every time this issue comes up on the ballot, the SF Green party opposes it. This time, the sponsors have given the measure a nickname, "Sarah's Law." These legislative measures are often as dangerous as similarly-named hurricanes blowing in from a right-wing Gulf.

Prop 4 is a constitutional amendment, not just a law. It would require notifying parents before a minor could seek an abortion, regardless of the situation in the home -- thus, ignoring any potential for child abuse. The only alternative for teenagers would be to talk to a judge, who would not be required to grant permission to have an abortion. There are also no exceptions for rape or incest.

The overall impact of Prop 4 would be to scare teenagers away from services, predictably causing more abortions. Studies have shown no improvement in child/parent communication in states where similar provisions are in force.

The SF Green Party supports a combination of sex education and safe availability of women's health services, which studies have shown to result in a reduction in the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies.

We strongly oppose Prop 4.

5: Non-Violent Offenders Sentencing and Rehabilitation - YES

Prop 5 would expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. It would also reduce the criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses to probation, and shorten parole for most drug offenses. Some marijuana-related misdemeanors would be changed to infractions.

The California State Legislature should have comprehensively addressed the issue of prison reform and drug rehabilitation long ago. Much of the current fiscal crisis in California relates to the proportion and expense of incarceration for non-violent, mainly drug-related, offenses. California's prisons are also seriously overcrowded.

Prop 5 is a smart way to ease prison overcrowding by diverting nonviolent drug offenders to treatment. It will offer drug treatment to nonviolent youth, which heretofore doesn't exist, and will provide rehabilitation programs to prison and parolee addicts. Prop 5 will not apply to violent offenders. Although the SF Green Party supports full legalization of most recreational drugs (especially those such as marijuana that present little danger to the user), we think Prop 5 is a step in the right direction.

Vote YES on 5.

6: Anti-Gang Penalties - NO

Prop 6 is an attack down on gangs, drugs, and youth, by - among other things - forcing all public housing residents to submit to criminal background checks, prosecuting "gang-related" youths from the age of 14 as adults, admitting hearsay evidence in court, and establishing harsher penalties and eliminating bail for violent crimes. The estimated cost would be $1 Billion in the first year alone. The source of funding is the state's General Fund - i.e., money currently spent on schools, health care, and other non-punitive public services.

The idea for Prop 6 was first introduced as a bill in the State Senate by Republican Caucus Chair George Runner, but failed to even make it out of committee. Runner then got billionaire Henry Nicholas III to donate $1 million to get it on the November ballot as an initiative. However, crime-fighter Nicholas was himself arraigned last June on a 21-count indictment that included charges of pimping, drug trafficking, conspiracy, security fraud, and making death threats.

There is no question that gang-related crime is a serious problem in San Francisco, and contributes to our high murder rate. However, Prop 6 is a ploy by knee-jerk reactionaries to take what little money is left for public services and use it to further club the poor and disenfranchised into greater submission.

The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop 6.

7: Renewable Energy Requirements for Utilities - NO

Prop 7 sounds great on its face: half of our electricity would come from renewable energy sources by 2025; vast thermal solar arrays would be built in the desert; photovoltaic, wind, geothermal and other renewable technologies would be fast-tracked, and the cap would be lifted on penalties for utility non-compliance. It would expand today's renewable targets, currently at 20% by 2010 and proposed to be 33% by 2020, to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Also, the provisions of Prop 7 would for the first time impose renewable-energy requirements on publicly owned utilities like SMUD and the LA Department of Water and Power.

However, environmentalists are almost universally opposed to Prop 7 for several reasons. Prop 7 locks in place the cumbersome permitting procedures that have already seen California lose the lead in wind power to Texas. More importantly, the initiative is biased towards large-scale desert energy plants, which will need expensive long-distance transmission lines, and against cheaper, decentralized rooftop solar. It also effectively eliminates co-generation facilities from the mix. Decentralized co-generation is low-cost and delivers power directly to the grid, requiring no transmission lines.

This proposition is simply a way to subsidize big businesses and power companies for making minimal efforts to develop solar and clean energy sources. It would creates a regulatory agency that would waste millions of taxpayer's dollars every year for oversight and regulation not needed with on-site generation.

Vote NO on Prop 7.

8: Same-Sex Marriage Ban - NO

Prop 8 is another attempt to divest the citizens of California of their rights... one group at a time.

The Green Party has supported equal rights for same sex couples since our founding, and the Supreme Court of California recently agreed with us, ruling that the platitudes in the California Constitution regarding equal rights actually have meaning. Prop 8 is an outright attempt to change the Constitution to make access to these rights unavailable to same sex couples by denying them the freedom to marry.

We think every citizen should consider this a personal attack on the rights of all of us. One of the Green Party's 10 Key Values is that of social justice and equal opportunity. We believe that every person should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society. All peoples committed to equal rights, equal opportunity and a respect for diversity will find Prop 8 offensive. There are many resources that are afforded only to married couples. Loving and committed couples should be able to access these rights, which allow all couples to provide for each other and to make decisions in crisis and everyday life that has the full protection of the law, as only the legal system of marriage can convey.

This isn't about religion, this isn't about straight or gay, this is about all committed couples having equal protection under the law. Domestic Partnerships are not equal.

The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop 8.

9: Victims Rights - Reduction of Parole Hearings - NO

Prop 9 proposes additions and amendments to the California Constitution and to the California Penal Code, relating to the rights of victims of crime. Most of the changes being requested greatly expand victim's rights that were passed in 1982 in a proposition titled "The Victim's Bill of Rights." It would make the first priority of the Board of Parole Hearings to protect victim's rights in the parole process. Prop. 9 greatly limits prisoners' rights to due process, legal representation and parole consideration.

Prop 9 is more about revenge than Victim's Rights. It would increase funding for police and prisons, taking money away from education and health care. It's a step in the wrong direction, and a punitive waste of money.

Vote NO on 9.

10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles & Renewable Energy Bond - NO

Prop 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, authorizes the state to issue $5 billion in bonds - reaching almost $10 billion when finally repaid from state's General Fund in 30 years - to promote "alternative fuels" use, research, and education. The majority of funds would be allocated as cash payments of up to $50,000 each to purchasers of "alternative fuel" vehicles.

The SF Green Party has often been hesitant to embrace bond financing, except in the cases where public investment is urgently needed and cannot be provided by more just means (see our endorsement of Prop 1A and Prop A as examples).

In addition to being environmentally and socially responsible, we are also fiscally responsible. Because people who buy bonds are almost exclusively the wealthy, as investors are paid back over the 20-30 year life of the bond, wealth is transferred from middle and low income taxpayers to rich bondholders. As noted in the Voter Guide in 1992, over 35,000 U.S. millionaires supplemented their income with tax exempt state and local bond checks averaging over $2,500 per week (that's over $130,000 per year tax free). They avoided paying federal and state taxes on over $5 billion which must be made up by the rest of us. The SF Green Party calls on the public to join us in working to phase out this regressive and unfair subsidy of the rich and their investment bankers (who take millions of dollars off the top when the bonds are issued).

Bond money used to buy private cars instead of public transport? We don't think so! Vote NO on 10.

11: Redistricting - YES

Prop 11 is a constitutional amendment designed to remove the authority for setting district boundaries (for Assembly, State Senate, and Board of Equalization Districts) from the Legislature, and to create an alternative process for determining those Districts.

Prop 11 forbids politicians and their families from being involved in the redistricting process. It would set up a 14-member "Citizens Redistricting Commission", composed of 5 members from each of the two largest political parties, and 4 members (we'll call them "others") who could come from other parties or be voters who decline to state a party preference. For approval of any Redistricting proposal it would take at least three votes from the largest and second-largest parties' members and three from the "other" pool.

Prop 11 is a major improvement over the status quo, in which the majority party in the State Legislature has all the power. Although Prop 11 would not assure non-Republicrats fair representation in the procedure, it is better than no representation. The process for choosing the commission is complicated by fair, similar to the process for choosing a jury.

Prop 11 would certainly not be as good as proportional representation, which the Green Party supports. Other legislative reforms, such as Instant Runoff Voting in partisan races, are also higher priority for us. However, on balance, we support Prop 11.

12: Veterans' Bond Act of 2008 - NO

Prop 12 would issue nearly a billion dollars worth of bonds to help veterans purchase homes.

While we strongly support our veterans, and would support giving veterans a higher priority in getting into publicly financed housing, we don't think that such a large sum of public money should be issued exclusively on private housing for veterans, while ignoring other people in more desperate need for housing.

For our opinions on bonds, see our argument on Prop 10. When bonds are used, they should be used only for urgent investment in the public sector. Public bond money should not be used for private cars or private housing.

Vote No on Prop 12.