San Francisco is holding an election on Tuesday, November 6. This is about a clear a case of “what if they held an election and nobody showed up” since the Herrera-Lazarus City Attorney runoff election in December 2001---a race Herrera won despite a 16% voter turnout. There is one striking similarity between that contest and our 2007 election: both impacted San Francisco’s future but failed to excite voters. It made an incredible difference that Herrera defeat a pro-landlord zealot like Lazarus, but there was little activist interest in the race and Herrera only won due to a brilliant absentee voter campaign waged by the late Robert Barnes. In tomorrow’s election, voters will decide to either give MUNI the resources it needs or accept that San Francisco lacks the political will to be a transit-first city. Will Prop A overcome voter apathy and Don Fisher’s money? Here’s my best assessment of the outcome of Prop A and the other key local measures.

In San Francisco’s November 6 election, voter turnout will not be clear from attendance at the polls. A high percentage of the city’s electorate are permanent absentee voters, and the relative ease of mailing ballots leads me to think that turnout may exceed predictions.

Proposition A:

The chief race of consequence involves Proposition A, the measure that pumps at least $28 million annually into San Francisco’s cash-starved Muni railway system.

In a normal turnout election, Prop A easily wins. Even in this lower-than normal turnout, the lack of organized opposition to Prop A would have seemed to ensure passage. After all, many voters ride Muni, there is no dispute that the additional funds are needed, and no alternative funding strategy has been offered.

But until last week, Prop A had failed to galvanize activists, and may still not have generated much excitement among voters. I’ve asked many insiders for their explanation for this, and have been given two main two reasons.

First, it is argued that Supervisor Aaron Peskin conceived and developed Prop A without grassroots involvement. Activists are said to not feel “ownership” of Prop A, and are not vested in the outcome.

Second, people may feel MUNI’s problems require much more money than an additional $28 million, and that the other reforms in Prop A have created an initiative too cumbersome to easily understand.

Progressives should be troubled by both of these arguments. First, Peskin stepped forward to save a transit system in crisis in the absence of any other politician or constituency taking the lead. It would be one thing if Peskin had jumped in and circumvented a grassroots process to increase MUNI funding; but transit activists were making no efforts to get MUNI more money, and those most involved with public transit seem grateful that Peskin took leadership.

Second, MUNI certainly needs more new money than granted by Prop A, but the system will never get that money if Prop A fails. Downtown interests will argue that voters do not support “pouring” more money into MUNI, and will insist that more parking garages and anti-worker changes in the system’s “work rules” are what’s needed.

Backers of Prop A realized that calls for operational reform meant that a stand alone measure for increased MUNI funding could not pass. It is now disconcerting to hear that these additional changes have made Prop A too “cumbersome” for voters to easily understand.

I see Prop A winning a close race. My reasoning is that the Yes on A mail campaign will boost the measure among absentee voters, the Yes on A forces will have the only GOTV operation going, and there is not an organized “No on A” effort or a defined constituency that will vote as a bloc against Prop A.

In addition, this past weekend saw hundreds of Prop A volunteers walking the streets, and many will keep working to get votes out through the closing of polls on Tuesday.

Ultimately, the most important factor in A’s passage is the lack of an alternative. Prop H was supposed to serve this function, but is heading for a major defeat.

We learned from the Herrera-Lazarus December 2001 runoff election that progressives can win low turnout races in San Francisco. So Prop A can still win even if turnout is as low as some fear.

Propositions C, E, G, I, K:

The lack of any No on C opposition campaign, and its “good government” aura, will likely lead to passage of this unfortunate measure that makes it harder for Supervisors to put initiatives on the ballot. Since the vast majority of such initiatives are progressive, Prop C’s passage just puts another obstacle in front of positive reforms.

Prop E, the Question Time Charter Amendment, will lose big.

Props G and I both involve funding for pet programs that are not among the cities top 1000 spending priorities. Prop G, funding for Golden Gate Stables, will lose easily; I’d like to think that voters are smart enough to disbelieve the rhetoric coming from the Prop I campaign about its “one-stop shop” for small businesses, and defeat funding that unnecessary bureaucracy as well. But they won't.

Prop K is non-binding, but does give the public a chance to express their opposition to placing advertising on every space in San Francisco. Clear Channel Outdoor, which profits from such advertising, is using its billboards to falsely claim that Prop K will cost MUNI $20 million annually.

I may be in too optimistic a mood today, but I again think voters will be smart enough to see through Clear Channel’s self-interested campaign and vote Yes on K.

Although day of election votes will not be counted until Thursday or Friday, the high number of permanent absentees could provide the likely final outcomes of many of the races when they are reported on Tuesday night. Prop A’s fate might not be known until next week.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org