‘Vote Early and Often’

In a speech in Parliament about parliamentary reform on March 2, 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay declared: “I believe there are societies in which every man may safely be admitted to vote. …I say sir, that there are countries in which the condition of the labouring classes is such that they may safely be entrusted with the right of electing members of the Legislature. …Universal suffrage exists in the United States without producing any very frightful consequences.”

Thus, we prepare for Nov. 3 by even voting by mail, together with casting a ballot at the Department of Elections beforehand in the basement at City Hall or on Election Day in some neighbor’s garage. Don’t let President Donald “Bone Spur” Trump spook you; get out there and “vote early and often.”

That reminds me that one of the blessings about living in a democracy is that you have complete control over how we pay our taxes – cash, check or money order! Moreover, democracy is a wonderful system. It permits you to vote for a politician and sit on the jury that tries him.

Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal informed us that “Another idea causing anxiety has been that Mr. Trump might order ICE agents to the polls.” Border czar Tom Homan denied that on Sept. 13, claiming: “This is another fear tactic. I want to put that to bed: there is no plan to sweep polling places looking for illegal aliens.”

A little more than one third of 2024 ballots in the U.S. were cast in person on Election Day, that method is used more by Republicans than Democrats and if Trump sent ICE agents, the backlash would be enormous. As the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted: “U.S. elections aren’t perfect, but their decentralized nature makes them hard to manipulate and they’re overseen by fair courts. There are lessons here, if partisans will quit assailing the system long enough to learn from its success.” (I’ll add an exclamation mark to that observation!)

For what it’s worth to readers, I’ll reveal how I’ll vote on Nov. 3. The most significant race is for replacing my longtime friend Nancy Pelosi in the U.S. House of Representatives. I unreservedly urge a vote for District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan. She’s an accomplished lawmaker, an immigrant who proves immigrant worth. Besides endorsing her, I note her undiscussed agreement with your modest scribe (me) on a number of local vote measures such as opposition to raising the number of voter signatures for placing a proposition on the local ballot. It would also increase the number of supervisors required to do that from the present three to a majority of 6. (It’s Prop. D.)

I now shorten this “lesson” by laying out my votes on all other local propositions, to wit: “no” on Prop. A (supposed S.F. Commission Streamlining), Prop. B (a public bank, no less), Prop. C (an expandable affordable housing fund), Prop. E (changing city commissions), Prop. F (boosting mayoral power), Prop. H (Muni parcel tax), Prop. I (directing the transfer tax to “affordable” housing, which means low income – again), and “yes” on Prop G, which means striking a compromise and reopening the Upper Great Highway to cars Monday to Friday and prohibiting motor vehicle use from 6 p.m. Friday until 4 a.m. on Monday.

I’m voting “no” on Prop RTM, a tax for regional transit. It primarily funds Muni, BART, Caltrain and AC Transit, along with other agencies – by gouging taxpaying-riders – the sales tax is half of one percent outside San Francisco, compared to the 1% bump for San Franciscans! Prop. I directs the current transfer tax toward “affordable housing” which I support, but I oppose Prop. J, which removes a transfer tax exemption on foreclosed large properties. That’s unfair to the owners.

One of our City’s (and county’s) treasures is the Presidio, which I first glimpsed in late 1952 as a U.S. Air Force officer stationed at McClellan Air Force Base near Sacramento.Pelosi championed the Presidio Trust Act, signed into law on Nov. 12, 1996, which created the Presidio Trust to manage the former Army post as a self-sustaining national park. Our fearless draft-dodger, President Trump felt the urge in April to show his power by dismissing all six Board of Directors members who have assiduously cared for Presidio history and assured current Presidio activity and usage, as unpaid board of directors members, and replacing them with his loyalists. I want to thank and pay homage to those ousted directors, to wit, Mark Buell, Chuck Collins, Leni Eccles, Patsy Ishiyama, Bonnie LePard and Nicola Miner. Thank you for your time and service to the Bay Area (and to Korean War veterans for that splendid Presidio Memorial dedicated to those veterans and their fallen comrades).

On the other hand, our uncaring Board of Supervisors continues to not remove blight on public structures. In spring, deplorable revelations surfaced of sexual misconduct by the late Cesar Chavez. While promised in March, as of press time, his name is still on what was historically known as Army Street between Noe Valley and the waterfront until changed to Chavez’s name in 1995. Neither has the Cesar Chavez Elementary School at 825 Shotwell St. received a change of name from our school board. On the other hand, San Francisco State University removed his name from its student center.

An argument in favor of abolishing elections of our brave supervisors on an at-large basis (which means all San Francisco voters could vote for his or her favorite five or six candidates) was the lower cost of district election campaigns for candidates in those glorious years. The implicit advantage of electing aspirants in 11 different districts was less costly campaigns with the undemocratic need of candidates to kiss the ring of numerous “fat cats” for coin of the realm. What are the current facts? One example is Manny Yekutiel, a restauranteur in District 8 (the Mission and surrounding neighborhoods) who loves to host left-wing events when he isn’t being accused of sexually attacking some fellow resident. Yekutiel had raised $778,000 as of Sept. 28 to represent not all San Francisco residents as an at-large elected supervisor, but for approximately 70,000. For doing so, he’d be paid $175,370 per year, not the paltry $9,324 per annum supervisors were paid in the 1970s when I was allowed in Room 200, City Hall as an at-large elected servant of the people.

Another candidate in District 8, Gary McCoy, reported $123,450 in campaign contributions and $217,524 in public financing through Sept. 24. Michael Nguyen reported $73,029 in contributions and $133,974 in public funds, while Darshini Patel reported $44,812 in contributions and $60,000 in public financing. Manny Yekutiel reported $522,958 in contributions and $255,000 in public funds, according to San Francisco Ethics Commission campaign finance records.

Then there’s spending by outside groups, which is separate from money controlled by the candidates themselves. Candidates accepting public financing also agree to an Individual Expenditure Ceiling. For supervisorial candidates, that ceiling starts at $350,000 and may be increased in $50,000 increments as spending in the race increases. By Sept. 22, the ceilings had risen to $550,000 for McCoy, Nguyen and Patel, while Yekutiel’s remained at $450,000, according to the Ethics Commission’s District 8 expenditure-ceiling report.

Finally, I regret to convey more cheerless news about California’s High Speed Rail Authority, which I established by a 1996 bill while I was still a State Senator. Last month it was revealed the Authority consultants were paid almost $600,000 in unallowable travel expenses to “questionable locations” including trips to gyms, a nightclub, an escape room, a tiki bar and a cigar lounge while allowing them to fly first class and be reimbursed without questioning, thereby violating their contracts and state policies. Paying for travel which isn’t necessary or exceeds what’s allowed by state regulations or contract terms “is a waste of public funds and is behavior inconsistent with the Authority’s role as the steward of public resources” reported the California Office of Inspector General.

Moreover, Merced officials told the Authority not to attempt a station location change until it provided Merced complete plans and in Shafter, housing developer Lennar Homes has begun planning more than 1,200 homes right in the train’s path with City approval. Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom talks like he’s been a long-time supporter of the project. He proclaims that “all the hard work is behind us” regarding high-speed rail.

One of his first gubernatorial decisions in 2019 was to abandon the original decision to build a line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. That’s 171 miles. Merced to Bakersfield is only 119 miles and duplicates Amtrak service. Merced to Bakersfield was to be used as a test track only and doesn’t serve our largest population centers. I recall voters in 2008 approving high-speed rail from S.F. to L.A. by 2020 at a forecasted cost of $33 billion. Our State Inspector General informed taxpayers this year the cost for the full line is now predicted as at least $126 billion. No tracks have yet been laid and the Authority is out of money. Meanwhile, Morocco has built and opened a bullet train for over $2 billion in loans. Wait until that comparison is tied around Newsom’s neck on the presidential campaign. Do we still want high-speed rail? I do, but not this way. Let’s leave it to the next generation of Californians.

In 1769, Richard Henry Lee observed: “The nature of men in authority is inclined rather to commit two errors than to retract one.” Milton Friedman asserted: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

Quentin Kopp is a former San Francisco supervisor, state senator, SF Ethics Commission member, president of the California High Speed Rail Authority governing board and retired Superior Court judge.