The symbol of Robin Hood, a fallen noble who steals from the rich and gives to the poor, has traditionally been associated with socialism and the political left. The socialists love to portray their style of governance as heroism, as aiding the downtrodden by redistributing wealth. The reality, however, in California and the country, is quite the opposite: the Democrat modus operandi is to extract as much wealth as possible from the working citizen, in the guise of heroic equity, and then distribute the spoils to fund their ineffective, corrupt policies (i.e., their friends in government and nonprofit sectors)

San Francisco and California have bloated government coffers ; State and non-profits command immense budgets and largesse. San Francisco alone has a higher budget than 17 states. We have the highest state income tax, and the fifth highest tax-burden in the country. Despite this, nearly an astounding third of Californians are at or near poverty levels. I can go on:

California ranks 43rd in economic well-being, 35th in education, 10th in health, and 37th in family and community, 42nd in public safety, 25th in health care access, and 34th in economic rankings.

https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/

https://edsource.org/2024/california-ranks-bottom-third-in-overall-child-well-being-per-new-report/713965 https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2024/12/01/how-the-50-states-rank-by-tax-burden/103495/

Back to Robin Hood. Let us not forget that his nemesis, the Sheriff of Nottingham, was a tax-collector. The peasant’s revolt (14th century, following a plague pandemic no less), led by Robin, was to protest the burdensome tax-collection of the Sheriff, taxes that enriched the governors at the expense of the working yeomen. The elites imposed taxation and frivolous rules to only then limit access to resources (safety, healthcare, education, etc.). In an ironic twist, the left has embraced the unscrupulous tax-collector, who steals from the poor to provide for the rich. Robin Hood would today rebel against the Democrat tax-collectors, not support them.

As the rankings above demonstrate, treasures are lost: California spends over 30 billion a year funding benefits to illegal aliens, despite a budget deficit of 73 billion, while many Californians eschew healthcare simply to survive.

“According to an April 2024 report by the California Health Care Foundation, more than half of Californians report skipping care in the past year due to cost, while nearly half of those individuals say forgoing care has worsened their existing condition.”

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/dont-california-my-america-the-cost-of-california-policymaking

The modern left operates under the assumption that extracting as much wealth as possible from the citizenry, and redistributing that treasure to fund ideological causes, while hiring the right race or gender, will in fact lead to a healthy and functioning state. This form of governance, however, as empirically demonstrated, cannot keep you safe, will not educate your children, and cannot protect you from natural disasters. It is the opposite of sound governance. We demand better.

The symbol of Robin Hood must be co-opted by the right. The citizen yeoman must be prioritized. — President, SFYR

Urooj Rahman, a lawyer sworn to uphold the law, launched a molotov cocktail at a police cruiser in 2020. She texted “I hope they burn everything down … all police stations and probably the courts too.” She received 15 months, despite what could be described as domestic terrorism. Democrats and the Biden DOJ plead for leniency and intervened on her behalf. Similarly, almost half of the cases involving the Portland riots of 2020, including attacks on a Federal Courthouse (it was set on fire) and the police, have been dropped. Is setting a Federal courthouse on fire and attacking police an act of domestic terrorism? If not, as the Biden DOJ appears to believe, why is “parading on restricted grounds” domestic terrorism?

The media presented Jan 6. with hyperbolic exaggeration (claiming falsely, to this day, that police officers were killed). Their motive has been to send a message to Trump and his movement, rather than mete out even-handed justice. There are stories we hear of protestors being detained without trial for years; of being jailed under excessive sentences for the crime of “parading” — of being inside a building they were not supposed to be in, despite some claiming they were invited in; of grandmothers being hunted down by the FBI for attending a political rally. The Biden Administration has insisted that this is the number one threat the FBI should focus on, marshaling all of its immense resources to capture every protestor or rioter involved in this insurrection, despite no such insurrection charges being officially levied. We see, in New Orleans and Las Vegas, how Americans are mowed down by real violent extremists, and yet the FBI is helpless in preventing these attacks beforehand. Are their priorities wrong?

In such a biased and toxic millieu, it is impossible for the Jan 6 detainees to receive a fair trial, and the legal process has been tainted with the most undemocratic, un-American thing of all- unequal treatment before the law. Protesting is not a crime. Attacking the police is a crime, and must be punished.

During the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the “official proceedings” were also interrupted by protestors, who paraded into the courthouse, yet these protestors were not accused of insurrection. We look forward to the Trump Administration reviewing the cases and correcting the hysteria where appropriate with many pardons. During the Salem Witch trials, those too close to the trials and too emotionally invested, had to be removed from the decision-making, and those outside Salem had to step in to bring order and correct obvious wrongs.

– SFYR President

San Francisco Young Republicans announce endorsements for Mayor of San Francisco

 

The San Francisco Young Republicans (“SFYR”) met this month to issue the organization’s endorsements for the City and County of San Francisco’s Mayor’s race.  The three candidates endorsed by a supermajority were #1. Mark Farrell, #2. Ellen Lee Zhou, and #3. Aaron Peskin.  The race uses ranked-choice voting, so voters are encouraged to rank all 3 in that order.

The three core values of the Republican Party are law & order, prosperity, and beauty.  Each of these candidates’ campaign personifies one of those points.

First, our top endorsed candidate, former Mayor Mark Farrell is seen as the top law & order guy in the race.  Unlike the YIMBY Democrats who perpetually try to force San Francisco to bear the brunt of providing housing to vagrants, the Farrell campaign takes a different approach.

Our #1 choice, Mark Farrell calls for using city-owned property 100 miles away in Santa Cruz as the location for “treatment to help people suffering from addiction.”  This is the correct approach.  Providing treatment in an isolated area protects San Franciscans from the externalities caused by vagrants, and by bringing them far away from their urban drug dealers it gives them a fair chance to get reformed.  Farrell isn’t perfect, but on law and order issues, he is the top candidate running. Moreover, in a close race between Farrell and Breed, Farrell is the better choice. To wit, his hardline stance on deploying the National Guard to mitigate the drug markets operating with impunity in downtown San Francisco may be heavy-handed but necessary. Breed has had years to take such a strong position and has failed, while Farrell has publicly declared it as a viable option on the table. This election may come down to a few hundred votes, and we need a changing of the guard. We need a mayor that is friendlier to commerce, capital and small businesses, and much tougher on the armed gangs selling drugs to the homeless and organizing retail theft.

Number 2 pick, social conservative Ellen Lee Zhou makes waves in San Francisco as being the only Republican on the ballot for Mayor.  Democrat-run media outlets often lie to their readers, pretending that she is not in the race.  But she is, and she will make an impact on election day.  We would have liked to have ranked her higher, but SFYR wanted to see a candidate who showed the fundraising diligence needed to get past the election department’s matching funds threshold in our top spot.  For a Republican to win in San Francisco, they need to be serious about cultivating both volunteers and donors.

Ellen’s campaign has prosperity as a central issue: She promises to “[b]ring business back and create jobs”, and to “[c]reate a free market for landlords and tenants, win-win to help both parties.”  A former City worker, she understands that for San Francisco to have an efficient economy, our residents’ and business owners’ goals can’t be stalled forever in the permitting department.  Ellen promises “Full staff [for] each department [to] ensure the quality of life for San Franciscans.”

Our number 3 choice, District-3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin is the most experienced candidate in the race.  Peskin, for all his faults, does not seem beholden to developers and real-estate interests. He has publicly stated he wants to drive new construction but within reason, and without ignoring building restrictions that improve our quality of life. YIMBY Democrats (aka those who falsely call themselves “Moderates”) utterly loathe Peskin.  For decades Aaron has been a thorn in their bosses’ side, as Aaron champions the interests of his neighborhood’s homeowners, renters, workers, and small business owners.  Few things cause a meltdown in a YIMBY Democrat quite like saying positive words about their faction’s arch-nemesis Aaron Peskin.

Over 90% of our Young Republicans membership are renters.  We were relieved to see that Supervisor Aaron Peskin convinced the Board of Supervisors to push for ethical AI, banning landlords from using tools based upon non-public competitor rental data.  Landlords can still use AI, but now the data they use must be public, so as to put renters on a more fair bargaining position for negotiating contracts based upon free market conditions.  Peskin expressed that “[b]anning algorithmic price gouging is pro-housing policy . . . Let’s build housing for renters, not for real estate investors.”

A friend of the arts, our #3 choice Aaron believes in a beautiful San Francisco, and his policies over the decades have promoted that.  This is very important to us.  As we stated last month in our opposition to CA Assembly Bill 2580, Young Republicans believe in the importance of preserving San Francisco’s historical heritage and the unique and ornate styles that have inspired residents and attracted visitors.

The GOP is the party of physical fitness, so we appreciate Peskin’s athletic drive: his near-daily swims at Aquatic Park Cove in the icy Bay, and annual swims from Alcatraz to San Francisco.

Plus, we’re not going to forget that during the dark days of Mayor London Breed’s unconstitutional vaccine passport era, District-3 was the friendliest to groups like ours.  Venues in D-3 knew that Aaron would have their back against anything that Breed tried to throw at them.

Don’t get us wrong, we wouldn’t back either Farrell or Peskin for Congress, and we would have preferred to see a Republican run with sufficient coalition and organizational support to pass the matching-funds threshold and to achieve the fundraising needed to win city-wide.  But for this Mayor’s race, Farrell, Zhao, and Peskin are our picks.  To that point:  As the window to file as a write-in candidate has not yet closed, San Francisco Young Republicans further notes that if former Supervisor Tony Hall declares as a write-in candidate, voters are encouraged to write him in as #1, and rank the others as #2, #3, and #4.  Hall would be a more conservative choice than the other three endorsed candidates, but as of this time Supervisor Hall is not planning to run.

The YIMBY versus NIMBY debate rages on in San Francisco, and as is the case in American political debate, neither side is willing to develop a nuanced position or find a practical compromise.

Does San Francisco have a housing crisis?  Certainly, there is a homeless crisis, and there is crisis of affordability. The later, at least, is partly the result of geography. San Francisco is not Austin, Houston, or Tokyo, despite how loudly the YIMBY side insists on the comparison. We have limited land, they do not. Developers and their politician friends cannot solve the geography problem — the amount of land is fixed, limiting how affordable property can realistically get.

Moreover, building high-rises and apartment buildings in high-demand areas does not magically result in affordable housing. Manhattan is some of the most dense, developed lands in the country and also the most expensive. Keep this in mind when developers and their allies make the absurd claim that, in order to solve the problem of homelessness, building regulations and codes such as height restrictions must be eliminated.

The homeless cannot afford a tent, let alone a condo, and despite the construction of high-rises and condos all over the Bay Area for decades, prices continue to rise. At the time of this writing, the city has thousands of vacant condos for rent and for sale. Still, the homeless remain homeless, and housing costs remain astronomical.

What then, should we do? One obvious solution would be to lower property taxes. This would ease some of the burden on property owners and potentially renters. Property taxes (the amount, not the rate) are among the highest in the country.

City Hall, however, has no interest in lowering property taxes, as Democrats desperately need the revenue to fund their failed social experiments (Republicans, on the other hand, would lower taxes and eliminate many of these failed programs).

Yet another solution would be to limit or outright ban foreign investments on city property, as Vancouver has done. This should be on the table for San Francisco. Property in San Francisco is often scooped up by foreign investors looking to diversify their assets. Real estate developers and the city have no problem with this, as long the property taxes are collected.

What else can be done? We must also, of course, build more housing, but smartly, and with restrictions, and without erasing the city’s heritage and beauty.

What makes San Francisco a destination for tourists, nomads, and transplants, is largely her architecture and natural beauty. The ornate Victorian and Edwardian single-family homes (which were restored and maintained by the gay community originally), are treasures that must be conserved, and also guide and inform new construction. They make the city beautiful, and positively affect the mental health of San Franciscans — beauty, after all, makes one feel good.

We envision a new architectural style, one that re-envisions these highly ornamental, decorative styles, incorporating their design language in new constructions.

San Francisco is also unique in her hybridization of wilderness and urban spaces, exemplified by Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, Ocean Beach, and her flora and fauna. As conservatives, we believe in conserving the architectural and wilderness heritage of San Francisco.

Height and density restrictions, as well protections on historical buildings and land-use, will ensure that San Francisco continues to be one of the the most beautiful cities in the world and a destination. If these aspects of the city are not conserved, the city’s economy and uniqueness will decline, fast.

We need to build, yes, but we must not simply remove development restrictions. Why do we have height, density and historical restrictions in the first place? Before you tear down a fence, you should understand its purpose, so the saying goes. Height restrictions allow for equitable access to the most precious commodity of all — sunshine and peace. Sunshine and quiet make people happy, and affect mental health. Density restrictions limit traffic, and in an earthquake, can make the difference between life and death.

Constructing giant, dense towers surrounding Golden Gate Park, as many YIMBYs have suggested, will not only prevent future generations from experiencing what is perhaps the world’s only urban wilderness, but will also have an environmental and health impact on San Franciscans, both human and animal. Wild spaces, with wild sounds and wildlife, positively affect and improve mental health. Unchecked development will disturb the equilibrium Golden Gate Park provides, erasing its mental health benefits, and will also make it impossible for its flora and fauna to thrive. Furthermore, during the covid pandemic, the population density of high-rises in New York tragically contributed to high covid infection rates, while San Francisco was spared such a tragedy. Density, then, in more ways than one, affects mental and physical well-being.

Golden Gate Park must be radically protected, as any precious resource should, and access to it must be equitable rather than reserved to the highest bidder (do not fool yourself, if building restrictions are lifted, luxury condos right next to or within the park will be built, and they will not be affordable).

As Republicans and Conservatives, we believe is it our duty to preserve and conserve not only San Francisco’s cultural heritage, but also what makes people and the environment healthy and happy, and this includes height, density and land-use restrictions.

SFYR has issued the following endorsements for the November 2024 election.

U.S. President: Donald John Trump (endorsement issued before the VP was named–our statewide federation has endorsed Trump/Vance)

U.S. Congress District 11 (most of SF): Bruce Lou

U.S. Congress District 2 (Angel Island): Chris Coulombe

California State Senate District 11 (SF, Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City, and part of South SF): Yvette Corkrean

California Assembly District 17 (east SF): Manuel Noris-Barrera

SF Supervisor District 1 (Richmond District): Jeremiah Boehner

SF Supervisor District 3 (North Beach/Chinatown): Wendy Chau

SF Supervisor District 11 (Excelsior, Crocker-Amazon, Ingleside, & Ocean View): Oscar Flores

San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education (SFUSD School Board): Min Chang

San Francisco Mayor:
#1. Mark Farrell
#2. Ellen Lee Zhou
#3. Aaron Peskin

If Supervisor Tony Hall decides to run as a write in candidate we will at that time list him as an additional #1 endorsed candidate for Mayor.

Likely, more endorsements will be issued in the months leading up to the November general election.

The statewide California Young Republican Federation has issued endorsements for races outside of San Francisco County.  They periodically add to their recommendations.

June Edit: Addition of President Trump.
July Edit: Added a couple more local candidates.
August Edit: Added Mayor endorsements + March endorsements for candidates on November ballot.
October Edit: Added our final endorsement (D-3 race)

For the first time in six years, this is a year without an election in autumn!  But we are managing to be as busy as ever with a full speaker & event series.

• September: Our members heard from author & activist Clint Griess
• October 11th: Learn about SF media with Susan Dyer Reynolds, editor of the Marina Times
• October 28th: Halloween Picnic
• Late Oct/Early Nov: Beach Cleanup
• November 16th: Get insights into the world of TV, radio, and podcasts with former Producer & Writer of One America News Network (OANN), and former co-host of California Underground, Cynthia Kaui
• December: Christmas Fundraiser

If you want to stay up to date on SFYR’s upcoming events the best way to do so is to sign up for our e-mail list or to become a dues paying member and ask to join our Telegram group.

With all of our volunteering and our frequent event organizing, we do not update our website as frequently as we put out content to the e-mail list, Telegram, or our Instagram.

SFYR has issued the following endorsements for the March 2024 election.

U.S. Congress District 11 (most of SF): Jason Zeng

U.S. Congress District 2 (Angel Island): Chris Coulombe

California State Senate District 11 (SF, Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City, plus part of South San Francisco): Yvette Corkrean

California Assembly District 19 (north SF and west SF): Arjun Sodhani

Republican County Central Committees:

For the RCCC race in San Francisco, the only slate that SFYR has endorsed is the CITIZENS FOR A BETTER SAN FRANCISCO (CBSF)

San Francisco RCCC AD-17 (most of east SF):
* Min Chang (CBSF)
* Bruce Lou (CBSF)
* Manuel Noris-Barrera (CBSF)
* Jason Zeng (SFYR Officer)

San Francisco RCCC AD-19 (north SF and west SF):
PLEASE NOTE: The Board could not come to a final decision on 13.  We wound up endorsing 16.  In the ballot for RCCC AD-19 you can only vote for 13.  If you vote for more than 13 your vote will be discarded.  So please only vote for 13 of the below.

* Rudy Asercion (CBSF)
* Joseph Coyne Bleckman (CBSF) (SFYR Officer)
* Jeremiah Boehner (SFYR Officer)
* Jason Patrick Clark (CBSF) (former SFYR Officer)
* Yvette Corkrean (CBSF)
* John Dennis (CBSF)
* Howard Epstein (CBSF)
* Clint Griess
* Rodney Leong (CBSF)(former SFYR Officer)
* Dorothy Leone
* Lisa Remmer (CBSF)
* Bob Rintel (CBSF)
* Monika Rothenbuhler (CBSF)
* Thomas Sleckman (CBSF)
* Jacob Spangler (CBSF) (SFYR Officer)
* Philip Wing (CBSF)

PLEASE NOTE: To reiterate what was said above, because this is important.  The Board could not come to a final decision on 13.  We wound up endorsing 16.  In the ballot you can only vote for 13.  If you vote for more than 13 your vote will be discarded.  So please only vote for 13 of the above.

Napa County RCCC:
* Richard Maher (SFYR Officer)

Statewide Proposition:
Proposition 1 (Bonds for Substance Abuse Housing): Vote No

Local Propositions:
Prop. A (Housing Bonds): Vote No
Prop. B (Cop Tax): Vote No
Prop. C (Increasing Real Estate Tax Exemptions): Vote Yes
Prop. D (Ethics Bureaucracy): After a long discussion, we did not take a position.  We like ethics.  We don’t like bureaucracies that make it hard for small actors while the Corporate-wing of the Democrats easily jump through loopholes.
Prop. E (Expanding Police Powers): Vote Yes
Prop. F (Drug Test Those Getting Handouts): Vote Yes
Prop. G (Redirect School Funding to Algebra for the Smarter Kids): Vote Yes

Judges:
We did not take positions on the judge races.  The Corporate Democrats are trying their hardest to get rid of two judges (one of whom was appointed by a Republican Governor, the other by Gavin Newsom) accusing them of allegedly not being strong enough on crime), but we didn’t feel like it was a race that made sense for us to weigh in on either way.  The Republican judge (Begert) seems to be backed by a lot of Progressive money.  His doorhangers are everywhere.  The Democrat Judge (Thompson) doesn’t seem to have much of a campaign?  Would have expected it to be the opposite, but maybe its just because Begert was around for a long time and Thompson is new.  One of the groups pushing to remove the judges lists on their mailers the same address as the address on the mailers of one of the judges who they are trying to remove.  Its a -very- strange race.  Overall, something shady is going on, but we can’t tell which side is the shadier ones.  Our abstention is not due to a lack of monitoring the race, but rather that we don’t want to lead you astray.  We’d say do your own research, but good luck at finding non-biased sources…

U.S. Senate
We did not weigh in on either race.  (One is to fill the last few weeks of Diane Feinstein’s 2019-2025 term, the other is to fill the 2025-2031 term.  Same major candidates are in both.)  We didn’t want to step on the statewide CYRF’s toes, but by the time it was confirmed they were not getting involved in the race it was too late for us to make a careful decision.

U.S. President (Republican nomination):
We didn’t want to step on our nationals (YRNF’s) toes, so we have not endorsed in this race.

Check back at this page as the election draws closer.  We will likely make more endorsements.  [2/14 Edit–At this point we are finished with endorsements.]

Due to the new realities of California universal mail-in ballots–When ballots arrive in early February is the de facto new “election day”.  All political education is most effective if it is delivered a month earlier than it would have been under the old system: by the time the official election day in March rolls around, most voters will have already voted.

January Update: Added more candidate endorsements.  As two candidates we endorsed prior to the close of the filing period did not wind up running, we removed from from the above list.

February Update: Added endorsements on Prop 1, local propositions, and gave some details on races we made no endorsements in.  Done with endorsements!  See you in the Summer when we start endorsing for the super long November ballot.

March Update: Added final extra endorsement made before the election.

Tonight SFYR is hosting the former Chief Executive of the New York State Conservative Party, Shaun Marie as our speaker.

She’ll share her decades of experience as a political organizer and influencer on the national, state, and local level as well as having an effect on the shape and operations of the political system of New York State. It will be a thought provoking discussion about how to improve California.

If you want to stay up to date on SFYR’s upcoming events the best way to do so is to sign up for our e-mail list or to become a dues paying member and ask to join our Telegram group.

With all of the elections volunteering and our frequent event organizing, we do not update our website as frequently as we put out content to the e-mail list, Telegram, or our Instagram.

But for those of you curious about getting involved, here is a recap of the last year of events:

August 2022: Discussion on the Nov Election ballot issues + Speaker Jason Clark, CAGOP’s Bay Area Regional Vice Chairman & CAGOP Board of Directors Member (and former SFYR Issues Director) at Spark Social in Mission Bay

September 2022: Discussion on Housing Policy at Radhaus in Fort Mason

Autumn 2022: SFYR’s President Joseph Bleckman led a GOTV day for the November elections, and members had opportunities to get involved with campaigning locally and in Georgia for the US Senate runoff, phonebanks, and election integrity work.

October 2022: SFYR Halloween Fundraiser + Costume Contest

November 2022: Joined SFGOP for an election night watch event at The Blue Light in Cow Hollow

November 2022: SFYR Org. Election Discussion + Discussing how the national elections went, and the beginning of the 2024 primaries at the Final Final in the Marina

December 2022: SFYR Members attended the SFGOP Christmas Gala at Marines Memorial Club in Nob Hill

December 2022: SFYR Christmas Fundraiser

January 2023: Discussion Night on What Brought Us to Urban Conservatism at For the Record in the Marina

February 2023: Relationships, Marriage, and the Urban Milieu at Sacred Taco in Cow Hollow

March 2023: Speaker Night with Author Bill Shireman at Maybeck’s in the Marina

March 2023: SFYR Members had a table at the SFGOP Spring Dinner hearing from the speaker, political comedian “Primetime” Alex Stein at Far East Cafe in Chinatown

April 2023: Speaker Night with Author Tony Brasunas at Toy Soldier in the Financial District

May 2023: SFYR BBQ at Sunnyside Playground in West of Twin Peaks

June 2023:  SFYR Members had a table at the SFGOP Summer Dinner hearing from speakers Author Michael Shellenberger and RNC Committeewoman for California (and former SFYR Officer), Harmeet Dhillon at Marines Memorial Club in Nob Hill

June 2023: SFYR Social at Savoy Tivoli in North Beach

June 2023: SFYR Members took part in the Leadership Institute’s California Conservative Candidate Development School, a day long training held at the Marines Memorial Club in Nob Hill

It has been a busy year, and the above isn’t even all that we’ve been involved with.  We hope you join us for the next year, as the exciting primary season continues to heat up.

We’ve had the following educational events so far this Summer, with a few more on deck:

June: We held a discussion on law & order in San Francisco, including a debate about restorative justice.

July: A long-time SF police officer led a discussion on crime in San Francisco and on which Mayors have done a better job at letting the police do their job.  (Long story short: Willie Brown was good, while Frank Jordan wasn’t & the latest Democrat, London Breed hasn’t been.)

August: We will be having a discussion about the pros and cons of the candidates and ballot propositions on the November ballot.

We have also had a separate event series of book readings and discussions.  SFYR’s Culture Club spearheads educational discussions about works of literature from the 1800s and earlier. Drawing upon past classics helps ground modern conservative thinking upon solid deep rooted foundations. Past discussions have been about Milton’s Paradise Lost, Tolstoy’s Kreutzer Sonata, Voltaire’s short story Zadig, and this month we covered Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

California Races:

SFYR has endorsed the following California constitutional amendment, proposition & referendum positions:

Proposition 1: Would Permit 3rd Trimester Abortions: Vote No
Proposition 26: More Gambling on Certain Tribal Lands: Neutral Position
Proposition 27: Sports Gambling Outside of Tribal Lands: Vote No
Proposition 28: More of the Excessively-High State Budget Going to Public School Teachers: Vote No
Proposition 29: Biannual Dialysis Clinic Negotiating Tactic: Vote No
Proposition 30: New Tax to Subsidize Car Companies: Vote No
Proposition 31: Ban Certain Flavored Tobacco Products: Vote No

 

The following additional Republican candidates will be on the ballot for San Francisco voters this November:

Controller: Lanhee Chen (endorsed by SFYR and by California Young Republicans Federation “CYRF”)

Attorney General: Nathan Hochman (endorsed by SFYR)

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Lance Ray Christensen (endorsed by SFYR)

Governor: Brian Dahle (endorsed by SFYR)

Lt. Governor: Angela Underwood Jacobs (endorsed by SFYR)

Secretary of State: Rob Bernosky (endorsed by SFYR)

Insurance Commissioner: Robert Howell (endorsed by SFYR)

Treasurer: Jack Guerrero (endorsed by SFYR)

Board of Equalization Member District 2: Peter Coe Verbica (endorsed by SFYR)

U.S. Senate (special election): Mark Meuser (endorsed by CYRF and SFYR)

U.S. Senate (regular election): Mark Meuser (endorsed by CYRF and SFYR)

House of Representatives District 2 (Angel Island): Douglas Brower

House of Representatives District 11 (most of SF): John Dennis (endorsed by SFYR)

House of Representatives District 12 (Alameda Island): Stephen Slauson

California State Senate District 2 (Angel Island): Gene Yoon

California Assembly District 18 (Alameda Island): Mindy Pechenuk

California Assembly District 19 (west half of SF): Karsten Weide

Local Races:

SFYR has endorsed:

San Francisco Community College Board: Jason Zeng

San Francisco K-12 Board of Education: Ann Hsu

San Francisco District Attorney:
Rank #1 Joe Alioto Versonese
Rank #2 Brooke Jenkins

Proposition A: Retiree Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment; Retirement Board Contract with Executive Director: Vote No

Proposition B: Merging City Depts: Vote Yes

Proposition C: Homeless Oversight Commission: Vote No

Proposition D: Housing: Vote Yes

Proposition E: Housing: Vote No

Proposition F: Locking in Funds for Libraries: Vote Yes

Proposition G: Locking in Even More Funds for Only Public Schools: Vote No

Proposition H: Giving Democrat Mayor London Breed an extra year in office: Vote No

Proposition I: Great Highway/Golden Gate Park Closing: Vote Yes

Proposition J: Golden Gate Park Opening: Vote No

Proposition K: Was removed from ballot.

Proposition: L: Transit Funding: Neutral Position

Proposition M: Broad Vacancy Tax: Vote No

Proposition N: Underground Museum Parking Garage: Neutral Position

Proposition O: Extra Parcel Tax for CCSF: Vote No

 

Judge Retention Elections:

California Supreme Court:
Martin Jenkins: Vote Yes

Patricia Guerrero: Vote No
Goodwin Liu: Vote No
Joshua Groban: Vote No
Therese Stewart: Vote No

California Court of Appeal, First District:
Ioana Petrou: Vote Yes

Alison Tucher: Vote No
Victor Rodriguez: Vote No
Carin Fujisaki: Vote No
Tracie Brown: Vote No
Jeremy Goldman: Vote No
Teri Jackson: Vote No
Gordon Burns: Vote No

 

Additional note:

SFYR also endorsed an additional candidate not listed above, however, shortly after they received our endorsement they announced that they were leaving the GOP.  As such, our Board has decided to not list them here.  We have not rescinded such endorsement.  We will assess based upon their campaign platform whether they are still in line with Republican values, and may list them at a later time.