Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Ballot Arguments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee backs ordinance to bar multiple official ballot-argument submissions and require author certification
Summary
The Rules Committee voted to forward to the full Board an ordinance that would limit any person to one official proponent or opponent ballot argument per measure and require authors to certify they are not paid advocates for the opposite side; committee accepted a technical amendment clarifying consent requirements for named endorsers.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee on June 5 recommended that the full Board consider an ordinance to tighten rules for official ballot arguments in the voter handbook.
Supervisor Wiener, the ordinance’s author, told the committee the change is aimed at stopping what he described as ‘gaming’ of the lottery that selects official proponent and opponent arguments. Wiener said the current process allowed individuals to submit dozens of nearly identical arguments to overwhelm others in the lottery. He recounted a recent incident in which, he said, a campaign manager submitted many opposing arguments and was briefly selected as the official opponent before withdrawing the submission.
Wiener proposed two primary reforms: limit any person to a single official proponent or opponent submission per ballot measure, and require authors of official arguments to certify under penalty of perjury that they are not officers or paid advocates for the contrary campaign. "If you want to submit an official proponent or opponent argument, you should submit one argument and get it right," Wiener said.
John Arntz, Director of Elections, told the committee the Department can implement the ordinance and recommended a targeted clarification to Section 5.30(E): require consent when a person is named as supporting or opposing a measure, not only when named as supporting. Deputy City Attorney John Givner suggested language to add the words "opposing" and "endorsing" where the code currently refers to "supporting." Wiener said he would offer those changes as an amendment.
During public comment, Corinne Woods — who said she was an official opponent of Proposition B — described the previous election’s process as frustrating and supported the ordinance to stop deceptive practices. Peter Warfield of the Library Users Association urged caution on the perjury certification and the one-argument limit, asking how a person's position would be measured and warning that people change their minds.
Supervisor Katie Tang moved to accept the election department’s technical changes and forward the item to the full Board with a positive recommendation; with no objection, the committee approved the motion.
The ordinance will appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda for further consideration.
