LeagueVoice

Are you captivated by the tenacity of the Occupyers but  can’t quite see yourself at home at their General Assembly, wiggling your fingers?  Ease into activism, the League way. 

The League and Occupy share many core interests which can be described simply as government by the people for the people (all of us).  The League’s national, state, and local positions support activism and education in areas high on Occupy’s priority list:  campaign finance reform, the value of each person’s political voice, quality education, social services for the needy among us, a tax structure that provides for a civilized society, and more. 

So be part of the Occupy movement within an organization you already know.  For the San Francisco League, 2012 is shaping up to be an activist year and it needs you.  The annual planning meeting held on January 16 focused on brainstorming areas where members could take action.  A second planning meeting on February 11 will further identify topics of highest priority against which we can throw our thinking and our selves.   The floor is still open to ideas; your participation will make a difference. 

Come to the February 11 meeting (contact the office for more information and the location) and join other members resolved to do something constructive and productive now.  As for those wild, crazy, and often brave Occupyers, get to know them better by monitoring their media, starting at  www.sfoccupy.org. 

This is the final weekend of the spectacular exhibit “A Walk in the Wild: Continuing John Muir’s Journey” at the Oakland Museum. The exhibit is large and comprehensive, overflowing with information and interactive displays encompassing every aspect of John Muir’s life. A visitor may take a virtual tour of the John Muir Trail in the Sierra Nevada from Yosemite Valley to the summit of Mount Whitney, explore replicas of his living quarters, which included a view of Yosemite Falls, and learn about the terrain discovered and loved, and the wildlife and flora that he helped to document and preserve.

There is a reason that today John Muir is called the Father of the National Parks – in 1890, he petitioned the United States Congress to pass the National Parks bill, which gave California both Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks. In fact, Muir took President Theodore Roosevelt on a tour of Yosemite. Much of the magnificent natural landscape remaining in the Golden State today owes its preservation to John Muir, which is why so much has been named for him: Muir Woods, Muir Beach, and the John Muir Trail to name just a few.

Among of the most enjoyable aspects of the exhibit are the quotes from John Muir’s journals displayed along the walls, including:

“I only went out for a walk, and finally concluded to stay out till sundown, for going out, I found, was really going in.”

“I wish I knew where I was going. Doomed to be ‘carried of the spirit into the wilderness,’ I suppose. I wish I could be more moderate in my desires, but I cannot, and so there is no rest.”

These lines not only resonate today, but help the visitor to imagine what John Muir was like as a humble man, hiking alone and writing down his thoughts, beyond the legacy that he has become.

This effect is only multiplied when the visitor stumbles upon Muir’s journals, featured in display cases, along with his presidential correspondence. The exhibit also showcases a few breathtaking paintings by William Keith, the fellow Scotsman and artist who accompanied Muir on many of his expeditions – Muir knew all the best vistas. Also not to be overlooked are various profiles on environmentalists and activists today, who carry on John Muir’s mission in their diverse fields. All in all, the “A Walk in the Wild: Continuing John Muir’s Journey” is a wonderful way for a modern-day Californian to learn more about, and grow in appreciation for, a man who long ago so valued the beauty of the natural landscape that he dedicated his life to preserving it, so that we may do the same today.

Guest Post by Elisabeth MacNamara, President of the League of Women Voters

As we pause to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., let us remember his lifelong passion and commitment to securing equality for all in American society. This year, it seems particularly appropriate to remember Dr. King’s crusade for the ballot. What would Dr. King have thought of the recent wave of restrictive voting laws sweeping the nation during this presidential election year? In a 1957 speech titled “Give Us The Ballot,” Dr. King spoke bluntly about the need for equal voting rights.

“So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others.”

Today, let us honor Dr. King by demanding an equal path to the ballot for all Americans. In 1965, we were fighting to get the ballot. Today, it seems, we must demand that we keep it.

November 8, 2011: Election Day. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the city. With over a dozen candidates with diverse backgrounds, allegations of fraud followed by a demand for investigations into the incumbent’s campaign, and incessant press speculation as to the ramifications of ranked-choice voting, all signs pointed to an engaged citizenry poised to make heard their voice in deciding the fate of San Francisco.

Or so it appeared. However, early numbers from the Department of Elections (DOE) showed that a meager 39% of registered voters had exercised their right. This number, of course, represents a still lower percentage of the voting age population.

Then the numbers changed. The percentage of voter turnout slowly inched up, eventually landing at (slightly) more respectable 42.47%. In fact, we could have seen this change coming (many no doubt did). The DOE even issued a press release on November 3, 2011 advising voters that final numbers cannot be available immediately: while unofficial results would be periodically released as more data became available, final election results would be announced by a press release, to be issued no later than December 6, 2011.

This year, official results were released to the public on November 17, 2011. To address concern about the fact that unofficial numbers generally change, John Arntz, the Director of the Department, issued a statement prefacing the results under the befitting heading, “Why Election Results Change After Election Night.” Here, Arntz explains the three main factors which prohibit the DOE from finalizing results on election night: 1) vote-by-mail ballots received on election day; 2) provisional ballots (cast in the face of questions as to the voter’s eligibility, which will be subsequently determined); and 3) write-in votes. These categories seemingly made up about 3.5% of total votes this year.

Given society’s hunger for immediate information, it is no surprise that the DOE churns out what results it has, when it has them. But incomplete numbers can be misleading, and this year is as good a time as any to remember that when it comes to election results, patience is a virtue.

Still, 42% seems pretty low. The volatile economy and obdurately polarized domestic politics indicate that leadership in San Francisco could play a decisive role in determining our direction into the future – but a fateful, if somewhat grave, moment in history seems to have had little persuasive value on 58% of registered voters. Having previously lauded ranked-choice voting on these pages, contemplating this figure I shuddered to ponder if confusion over the new system could possibly have deterred voters. Was turnout this year lower than usual?

In fact, it was rather typical. (Whew.) When Gavin Newsom was elected in 2003, it was with a 45% voter turnout; for his reelection in 2007 that figure was 35%. To find a turnout in a San Francisco mayoral election above 50%, one needs to look back two more cycles to the start of Willie Brown’s term in 1995. This election rang in with just below 52% turnout, which was the highest percentage since incumbent Dianne Feinstein was elected in her own right after serving the remainder of the assassinated George Moscone’s term in 1979 (55% turnout). Mayor Moscone, in turn, was elected the term before with a relatively astounding 72% voter turnout.

This anomalous election aside, however, San Francisco sees its highest turnouts, unsurprisingly, during presidential election years. As the mayoral election has always been off of the presidential cycle, it seems San Francisco will remain unlikely to ride the boon of presidential campaign enthusiasm to spur participation in mayoral elections to come. The League of Women Voters strives to encourage the active participation of the citizenry in government, and it is saddening to see how little store the majority seem to set by their power as voters. Let us recall that democracy begins at home – and home means our neighborhood, our city, and our state, not just our nation. As we conclude our celebration of the Centennial of women’s suffrage in California this December, this election is a wake-up call that the right to vote is also a hard-won privilege; and one best exercised locally, fervently and often.

Natalya DeRobertis-Theye

Candidates for San Francisco’s Mayor, Sheriff, and District Attorney are all over town and on SFGovTV talking in what the politically weary would call soundbites.  With dozens of mayoral candidates, four candidates for Sheriff, and five people vying for the District Attorney position, the format for candidate forums tends toward one-minute response limits.  Mind you, the questions might go on for much longer, particularly the question is posed by a thoughtful, highly verbal constituent.  But responses tend to be restricted to one minute.  What can one glean about a candidate in one minute? 

Quite a lot.  Particularly when the candidates present their public selves in a series of single minutes.  Of course the responses are scripted.  These people have been making their case to the voters for years (that’s you, Phil Ting and Leland Yee) or at least months.  As smart, talented people with experienced advisors, the candidates have developed messaging that is well-tested.  That is good news:  this close to the election, voters are seeing the candidates at their best. 

And how do they sound at their peak?  How consistent are a candidate’s positions in terms of civil liberties?  Compassion?  Who seems to have a sense of the real world (listen to answers to questions about the homeless).  Who understands that fulfilling a City’s responsibilities requires funding (listen to the many – but not all – non-answers to this one).  Who repeatedly emphasizes endorsements and who races to describe extensive, relevant experience before the one-minute Stop sign is raised.  Who answers Yes or No to the lightning round question about your hot-button issue, such as the death penalty or the Chinatown subway.  Note how questions for mayoral candidates are pointed to the men, and decide whether the women should be voiceless and ignored – or that you will look closer at these candidates by spending quality time at their websites or participating in one of their solo-appearance Q&As around the City. 

See for yourself that a one-minute statement can be a meaningful statement, particularly when it is part of a series.  Watch the candidate forums now playing on SFGovTV.  I predict you will develop a sense of the individual candidates as they will perform for San Francisco if elected.  Then delve deeper for those whom you hear may have the City’s best interests at the forefront, all things considered.  Look more closely, too, at those who create a disquieting feeling in you for whatever reason. 

This election – choosing Mayor, Sheriff, and District Attorney – is a defining election given the times we face.   Let’s give however minutes it takes to listen, learn, reflect, and cast an informed vote.  Voter registration ends October 24.  You must re-register if you have moved since the last election.

October 10, 2011 marks the 100th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage in California. Needless to say, the League of Women Voters owes everything to the committed women who, one century ago, worked tirelessly and creatively to earn this most basic and essential right.

To honor the occasion, the League of Women Voters of Oakland co-sponsored the Oakland Centennial Suffrage Parade. A team of co-sponsors, organizations, and women and men of all ages gathered Sunday, October 2nd at the Lake Merritt Bandstand for the event. I interviewed my mother, Michelle DeRobertis, a member of the League of Women Voters, Oakland, to learn what the celebration was all about.

League of Women Voters of San Francisco: Why did you want to be a part of the Oakland Centennial Suffrage Parade? What made it special?

Michelle DeRobertis: I wanted to participate due to the historical significance of 100 years of women’s suffrage in our state. It was a particularly appropriate event due to the fact that Oakland, where I’ve lived for thirty years now, was the site of the very first Women’s Suffrage parade in California. On August 23, 1908, 300 women marched down Harrison Street to the Republican National Convention to petition that they include women’s suffrage in their platform. They were turned down.
LWVSF: What a legacy! I understand that the Bay Area as a whole was not very supportive of women’s suffrage at the time?

MD: That’s correct. In fact, despite the early commitment of local Suffragists, in 1911 Alameda County voted against women’s right to vote by a margin of 10,600 – 12,800. San Francisco County also shot it down, 21,900 to 35,600. It is actually the rural counties and Los Angeles County that we have to thank for passage of women’s suffrage in 1911. Apparently, the major cities were concerned that women would enforce prohibition.

LWVSF: And we now know how that noble experiment turned out. What was the crowd like Sunday?

MD: There were a ton of organizations present. The League of Women Voters, of course, but also the American Association of University Women, the Oakland Heritage Alliance, labor organizations, Girl Scouts, some in vintage uniforms, and many more. There really were girls and women of all ages. Many women were dressed in period clothing to honor the original Suffragists, complete with the iconic purple sashes. There were quite a few men as well.

LWVSF: Who were the speakers and distinguished guests?

MD: There were quite a few female elected officials many of whom gave brief speeches. Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California’s 9th District, Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, California Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, and Oakland Councilmembers Jane Brunner and Libby Schaff. They were proud to announce that women are now a majority of Oakland’s City Councilmembers! I think that having this many successful women politicians present was so inspiring to all of the young girls there. Nate Miley, President of the Alameda County Supervisors, also spoke to show his support on behalf of his sex.

LWVSF: How was the parade?

MD: We marched down Grand Ave., complete with a motorized cable car to escort those unable to walk and excited children. After returning to the band stand, the guests were invited to the Veteran’s Memorial House for a traditional Ice Cream Social, underwritten by Assemblymember Skinner and Oakland’s own Fenton’s Ice Cream.

LWVSF: My lifelong favorite. How fun. Do you think that it is important that we celebrate the milestones of women’s suffrage?

MD: Absolutely. And I think that the lesson to take from the entire occasion is a reminder of just how difficult it was for women to earn this most basic right. There was one man at the parade in period dress with a sign reading: “DANGER: Women’s Suffrage is a Menace to the Home and Men’s Jobs!” This not only added historical flavor, but it served as a reminder of what the Suffragists were up against. Although we take it for granted now, the right to vote is a right for which our grandmothers and great-grandmothers, and for the younger generation, great-great-grandmothers, really had to fight. It was also an appropriate time to be reminded that the Equal Rights Amendment has still not passed. It reads simply, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of by any state on account of sex.” So although there is much to celebrate, the fight continues.

LWVSF: Thanks, Mom.

Natalya DeRobertis-Theye

(This interview has been edited and condensed)

Headlines around the world this week announced that women in Saudi Arabia will finally be granted the right to vote—in 2015. Waiting four years to have a chance to vote in municipal elections does not seem a huge victory to California women who have had the vote in local elections for 100 years. It is a step toward democracy, but how much will it change life for women in Saudi Arabia? As all of the news stories have been reporting, they are still not allowed to drive a car and cannot venture outside their home without a male relative to chaperon them. Will having a limited vote (when it finally comes in 2015) change Saudi women’s lives? Since its beginnings, the League of Women Voters has concentrated on the importance of women using their vote to change their societies, but the organization does not have blind faith that voting is the only route to democracy. The New York Times reported last week that faith in the power of voting is dimming in many countries as young people see that true democracy does not necessarily occur because people can vote. To truly bring democracy, a society must listen to the voices of all its citizens and ensure that democracy is protected in local, regional, and national governments.

One of the most valuable programs the League runs is the Global Democracy Program which, over the years, has brought together groups from all over the world to work with League members in promoting true democracy on a global scale. As explained on the League’s website:

The Global Democracy Program is the League of Women Voters’ program for activists and nongovernmental organizations worldwide. Working with groups abroad to increase their voice in stressing transparency, accountability, and good governance in their societies, the League assists in expanding community influence in public policy-making processes while helping citizens build leadership skills through interactive, hands-on training and citizen exchange programs.

Through this program, the League has sponsored exchange trips to countries in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Countries as different as Azerbaijan, Russia, Tajikistan, Colombia and Brazil have been visited by groups of League members who meet with grassroots organizations and nonprofit groups to discuss ways to solve various social problems. This year the League expanded  action to North Africa and representatives met with women’s political organizations in Cairo and Alexandria in anticipation of the November 2011 elections.

It is not just League members who are junketing around the world.  Groups from many of these countries have also been hosted on trips to the United States where they stay in members’ homes and are given the opportunity to observe and participate in local civic and government groups.  They have opportunities to meet with academics, lawyers, municipal leaders, and journalists to exchange ideas about how grassroots democracy can be nurtured and how women throughout the world can be encouraged to assume leadership positions.

As we read the news from overseas and hear more about the growth of democracy in parts of the world where it has been in short supply, it is nice to know that the League has been a part of the effort. Women in Saudi Arabia may still be denied the right to drive, but at least the world is inching forward. As the League’s familiar motto says, “Democracy is not a spectator sport”. Even though most of our work may be concentrated on local elections and regional concerns, it is important for us to remember that we are also part of a global movement struggling to make life better for all people. So today let’s salute our sisters in Saudi Arabia and cheer their efforts to move toward freedom—it’s a long road, but at least they are headed in the right direction.

A panel of direct democracy experts shared their ideas for reforming the California initiative process in San Francisco yesterday. The event, titled, “How Do We Put People Back in the Initiative Process?” was sponsored by Zócalo Public Square and the New America Foundation and took place in a small, packed setting at Fort Mason Center. Reform ideas covered a wide spectrum, but the esteemed panel overwhelmingly agreed on the paramount objectives of reform, rooted in trust of the citizenry: 1) the need to get more people involved in the initiative process; and 2) the need to make an abundance of accurate, comprehensive information readily accessible and understandable to every voter.

Moderator Joe Mathews, co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It, opened the evening by reminding the audience that when Californians voted the direct democracy tools into law in 1911, the initiative faced almost no controversy. In keeping with the premise that, at least on its surface, initiative is popular among Californians, Mathews set the stage by establishing that the discussion’s approach would be from a “mend it, not end it” perspective.

The first guest, Kim Alexander, President and Founder of the California Voter Foundation, made her number one goal clear: enhanced disclosure of top donors both for and against initiatives. Alexander believes this information should be plainly visible on petitions being circulated, in pamphlets sent to voters’ homes, available upon request in polling places, and easy to find online for absentee voters and the public at large. While currently this information is “available” on the Secretary of State’s website, she stressed that in reality, to find it is such a herculean task as to render it effectively unavailable. These critical disclosures ought rather to be front and center. While these proposals do not face broad opposition, she noted that the ebb and flow of campaign cycles tend to wane people’s enthusiasm, so they never get accomplished.

Next to speak was Paul Jacob, President of the Citizens in Charge Foundation, an organization which advocates for the full ability of the people to govern themselves. Pointing out that the vast majority of laws and constitutional amendments in California were not passed via the initiative process but rather by the legislature, Jacob explained that his organization, in a recent assessment, gave California a B+ for its direct democracy (though not an A, as Mathews mistakenly stated). Jacobs noted that certain reforms, such as lengthening the signature gathering period from five to a minimum of nine months and lowering the number of required signatures, might bring California to a straight A. Acknowledging that these changes would likely result in many more initiatives, Jacob asserted that the people have a right to vote on as many initiatives as they demonstrate that they want.

Bruno Kaufmann, former Director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute of Europe, brought an international perspective to the discussion. Kaufmann described California’s system as “a hammer not a screwdriver” due to its brutality and inflexibility. He focused on the potential (some would say inevitable) future of online petitions, which, in addition to making debates over paid signature gatherers moot, will help expand participation in the early stage of the initiative process to a much wider audience. Kaufmann also noted that in Switzerland, for example, when an initiative gets the required number of signatures, it first becomes a “proposal.” The proposal is then submitted to lawmakers, who have the opportunity to respond to it with their own bill, a counter-bill or a compromise. The proposal’s sponsors maintain the right to withdraw, and any counter-proposals or compromises will be settled by the voters in an election.

Last up was James Fowler, a Professor at UC San Diego and co-author of the recent award-winning book Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks. Fowler, an expert on the intersection of the genome and the way people make decisions, began by discussing the phenomenon of voter fatigue, pointing to experiments that show that when people face too many choices, they walk away. He suggested reforms designed to make voting a less lonely process. By getting together, such as through online social networks (with the goal of this contact leading to an in-person get-together), a more social approach to the initiative process could ease the burden of decision-making. Perhaps more importantly, by connecting with the people around us, he argued that far more people would become energized and knowledgeable about the issues.

After each guest had his or her say, Mathews’ “lightening round” exposed a few areas in which nearly everyone agreed. For example, Kaufmann highlighted the Swiss saying, “Think like a philosopher, write like a farmer.” This comment unveiled wide consensus that when people get together and talk about the propositions up for vote, the group can together identify the specific issues that people care about, and make better-informed choices based upon a variety of perspectives. A great way that everyone can achieve this is by hosting, or attending, a Voter House Party. Alexander, a big fan of this idea, said that attending a Voter House Party is like having everyone else “do your homework for you.”

The panel also collectively dismissed the idea of limiting the subject matter of initiatives on the basis that the legislature has no such restriction. Jacobs, using the contentious Proposition 8 as an example, stated that notwithstanding that there are some issues upon which the majority has no right to have a say, such as with regard to the civil rights of a minority, there should be no limits on the subject matter of initiatives. If and when, as with Prop. 8, the initiative process oversteps its bounds by infringing basic liberties, Jacob argued it is up to the courts to overturn the new law. This was met with agreement by all except Alexander, who suggested that it would also be useful to illuminate possible constitutional violations before people vote for something which will likely be overturned.

Audience questions brought to light more consensuses. The experts concurred that greater disclosure about initiative campaign spending is essential. Under the premise that the more information about initiatives available to people the better, they also lamented the relatively small amount of attention paid to initiative campaigns by the media. The panel also denounced the process as too fast. Remedies to slow it down spanned from keeping the polls open for several days (including weekends) to having separate elections for separate issues, as is frequently practiced in Europe.

As the Centennial of the implementation of initiative, referendum, and recall by voters under Governor Hiram Johnson approaches on October 10, 2011 is an appropriate time for reflection by any measure. It behooves one to recall the original intent of direct democracy – to wrest control of state politics from the special interests which controlled the legislature (namely, the Southern Pacific Railroad) and return the power to govern to the people. We have all of late borne witness to the irony of that design. The panel at Fort Mason Center Wednesday evening proposed many reforms with that same objective of empowering the citizens. Time only will tell which, if any, reforms come into fruition, and whether if, in standing the test of time, they will ring true to their original intent.

Natalya DeRobertis-Theye

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is oft quoted, paraphrasing the American minister and abolitionist Theodore Parker, saying, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

These words seem ever pertinent as our society continues to struggle with injustices everywhere. A few days ago, the national poverty level was assessed at a shocking 15%. In a painfully slow economic recovery, for many families, the “arc” of the moral universe may seem more akin to a flatline.

But for the gay men and women serving in America’s armed forces, the long wait ended yesterday, September 20, 2011, when the U.S. Military’s 18-year old policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT),” was officially repealed. All enlisted Americans now have the right to serve their country in integrity with the respect that they deserve.

Implemented in late 1993, DADT prohibited gay members of the armed forces from serving openly under threat of being discharged. As the policy has been subject to criticism over the years, the argument for maintaining it oft given the most credibility was that DADT promoted the maintenance of “unit cohesion.” In November 2010, however, the Pentagon published a report, based on polls taken among service members, which suggested the repeal would be likely to have at worst a neutral effect on the performance of the military. At this point, the repeal process which Obama had promised in his 2008 campaign, and for which members of Congress had long been pushing, gained serious momentum. Obama signed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act (H.R. 2965)” in December 2010. The Act provided for a comprehensive review of such a repeal, to ensure that the Department of Justice had prepared the necessary policies in order to be “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces” (H.R. 2965). When on July 22, 2011 President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen provided that these provisions had been met, the clock was set for the official repeal to take effect in 60 days’ time. As of yesterday, DADT is no longer military policy. (The repeal comes after more than 13,000 service members have been discharged as a result of the policy, including a disproportionately high percentage of women and minorities. Costs for the military to replace those discharged are estimated at upwards of $300 million.)

The repeal is the latest reflection of changes in the cultural landscape of the United States. Today, six states and the District of Colombia have legalized same sex marriage. More elected officials, professional athletes, celebrities, and other prominent figures are open about their homosexuality than ever before. National campaigns, such as the “It Gets Better Project,” have been launched to foster hope and confidence among harassed gay teens and youth. And perhaps most importantly, polls continue to suggest that the next generation is increasingly supportive of policies which establish equality for members of the LGBT community.

Just as Theodore Parker once labored for the abolition of slavery, and Dr. King for an end to segregation and racism, so too do voters across the country today stand up for justice for gays and lesbians. Yesterday, our country got one step closer. As we look to the future of LGBT rights, all signs point to that great arc of the moral universe continuing to bend toward justice.

Natalya DeRobertis-Theye

Plebiscite is a word one doesn’t use every day or even in a lifetime for many.  It is a synonym for referendum, which is an old friend in California among other overtly opinionated jurisdictions (Switzerland takes the international prize for its countless referendums). 

A plebiscite is an up or down vote, as they say these days, on an issue or ballot measure.   It differs from an election which technically involves voting to choose candidates for elected office.  We use the word “election” a bit loosely as an umbrella term when we conduct General or Municipal elections to put one candidate in office and decide the fate of ballot measures.  The precise among us would resist such lazy usage, though the wordsmiths do not advise regarding a single term that combines both an election and a plebiscite (or referendum).  

Plebiscite likely lost favor in the vernacular as our ability to spell well declined.  We can’t pronounce polysyllabic words with confidence, either.  Go on.  Ask ten people how to read aloud and spell plebiscite and see how many can do so correctly.  It’s a dead word to most of us.

It remains in favor with lawyers, who involuntarily gravitate toward those things that artificially distance us from the hoi polloi.  At this moment, the Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF or “bassiff”) is conducting a plebiscite regarding whom to endorse in the City’s District Attorney race.   There are five candidates, presented to a packed room of the BASF membership last week during a forum conducted by the San Francisco League.  Note that even though the plebiscite involves candidates it is not an election.  The membership is not directly voting to identify the person who will ascend to the office.  This vote will determine an endorsement. 

Endorsements are quite common during campaign season.  Many of us choose our candidates or decided on issues partially (or entirely) by the endorsers.  Remarkably, people already are endorsing Republican candidates for the party’s presidential nominee.  Seems a trifle early, considering how people can flame out. 

The people in power over the voting entity – in this case, the BASF membership – decide and follow rules to ensure integrity in the plebiscite process.  For the BASF’s plebiscite, at least one-third of the members must vote.  Then, only if one candidate receives 50% of the votes will there be an endorsement.  With five candidates, this is a high hurdle.  Nonetheless, BASF will publish the plebiscite results which may become guidance for its members, incremental to the campaign advertising and unequivocal endorsements the candidates will broadcast.  

We never miss an opportunity to remind ourselves that informed voting is a citizen’s privilege and obligation, whether in a plebiscite or an election.  BASF members are limbering up for November 8.  So should we all in our own way, in particular during times such as these.  Stay tuned to the League website for its usual objective pro & con description of the ballot measures.  Please search carefully for balanced information about the candidates.   Be ready on November 8.