January 7, 2003

By Savannah Blackwell

Campaign mailers and club slate cards, newspaper endorsements and television ads – these are among the sources voters frequently depend on when deciding how to cast their ballots on important civic issues.

One of the most vital information sources – mailed free to every registered voter in San Francisco – is the Department of Elections' official Voter Information Pamphlet, the bulky guide that lays out the pros, the cons, and the details of the city's frequently lengthy ballot. But that document could lose much of its educational value if a proposal now being considered by the San Francisco Elections Commission is adopted.

On Jan. 3, commissioners met to consider eliminating the paid arguments section, the "for" or "against" write-ups many initiatives have featured in past voter handbooks.

Community activists have long relied on the guide as an effective way to get their messages out to the electorate. And costing only $200 a piece, the handbook arguments have without doubt given underfunded, grassroots groups a voice, one that would certainly be muted by slick, consultant-driven campaigns.

But, facing a huge budget crunch, officials in the Mayor's Office of Finance and the Elections Department have decided the handbook could be leaner and less expensive. The November 2002 handbook, one of the thickest in recent history, cost $1 million to print and distribute. In addition, the department has been criticized for the $5.6 million cost overrun in the 2001-02 budget under former elections chief Tammy Haygood.

"Everyone agrees that it is nice to have them, but it is not critical to a successful election," commissioner Michael Mendelson told us. "We just can't afford them right now."

During discussions over the 2002-03 budget last summer, Elections Department representatives noted that the city heavily subsidizes the actual cost of the arguments. San Francisco is unique among California counties in offering individuals and groups the opportunity to publish their opinions on local measures for a small fee. Elections chief John Arntz said the paid arguments in the November 2002 handbook cost about $660,000, while the department only collected roughly $140,000 for submissions. By eliminating paid arguments, the city could save around $500,000.

"The reason this [suggestion] came about was because the Mayor's Office wants each department to cut back, and this is a big chunk of our budget," Arntz said. "[With the arguments], we have less for the department to operate on."

But already, a long list of civic leaders and activists – including Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants Union, Robert Haaland of the Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club, consultant David Spero, veteran Democratic Party leader Agar Jaicks, and representatives of Common Cause – is alarmed.

The Election Commission's proposal prompted activists to turn out at the Jan. 3 meeting to express their opposition.

"Voters value the paid arguments as essential to understanding the issues and making informed decisions," San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee chair Jane Morrison told the commission. "A variety of viewpoints from different individuals and organizations can provide a variety of reasons for voting for or against a ballot measure. Without paid arguments, voters would have to depend on campaign literature from political consultants paid to present a convincing argument that often contradicts the true meaning of a measure."

Indeed, getting rid of the arguments would be antidemocratic, activists say.

"A ballot argument is a cheap investment in democracy," said Sue Hestor, a land-use attorney who has frequently used the option. "It would be a real step backward to eliminate paid arguments. The city should be encouraging people to communicate with voters. [Without the arguments], only those interests with vast campaign war chests – who will say anything to win – will be able to get their message out. Getting rid of the arguments would be undemocratic."

San Francisco Elections Commission is scheduled to discuss the matter Jan. 15, 7 p.m., City Hall, Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S.F. (415) 554-5184.