elections

Progressives in San Leandro Should Vote for Jeromey Shafer for Mayor and Eva Arce and Victor Aguilar for City Council

Progressives in San Leandro Should Vote for Jeromey Shafer for Mayor and Eva Arce and Victor Aguilar for City Council City Hall, Politics No Responses »

Oct 092018

San Leandro, like many cities in the Bay Area, is in crisis. About half of our community members are renters and skyrocketing rents are pushing them out of their homes, either displacing them out of the Bay Area or putting them on the streets. This lack of community stability is affecting neighborhoods and schools, as the challenges of facing an ever-changing student population are significant. Yet the City Council has done nothing to address this situation. This is not surprising because the Rental Owners Association and landlords have poured money into the incumbents’ campaigns.

Lack of ethics and integrity is, indeed, a generalized problem in San Leandro city government. The former City Manager, fearing that accusations of sexual harassment by the head of a local nonprofit would become public, sent out a rambling and utterly unprofessional letter to the press, in which he detailed how he’d have business meetings with his accuser in the front seat of her car and play ping-pong with a local lobbyist. In the letter, he also discussed the contents of private conversations with Council members. Rather than fire him on the spot for unprofessional behavior, the Council put him on paid leave for months while he looked for a new job and and gave him a $350K parting gift.

What San Leandro needs is progressive and ethical leadership, thus our recommendations below. Note that San Leandro has ranked choice voting (RCV) for its Mayor and City Council races.

Jeromey Shafer

Mayor: #1 Jeromey Shafer, #2 Dan Dillman

Incumbent Pauline Cutter has been a disaster as Mayor of San Leandro. She seems to have approached her job as a money-making scheme. Early in her term, her daughter was hired by the City (with the approval of the City Manager) for a highly-paid position in the Parks and Recreation department – despite nepotism being explicitly forbidden by the Charter of the City of San Leandro. Cutter would later defend the City Manager against sex harassment accusations, resist efforts to ask for his resignation after he wrote an unprofessional and incoherent public letter, and later vote to give him a $300K farewell gift on his way out.

Cutter has spent much of her time traveling at tax-payer expense, but she can’t point to any concrete accomplishments from her tenure. The promise of San Leandro becoming a high tech center based on our fiberloop never materialized, and instead our industrial area is filled with warehouses that pay low wages. Moreover, Cutter has supported police militarization and despite her promise that the counter-attack armored vehicle she voted to buy for the police would not be used on demonstrations, it’s been deployed twice for such purposes. Cutter is a supporter of mass surveillance, including sharing this data with ICE.

Her opponent City Council member Benny Lee has basically the same record and positions. He demonstrated his lack of ethics by taking large campaign contributions from a garbage company that was bidding for a contract with the City of Oakland, and lobbied the neighboring City to award that contract to his contributor. The competitor was based on San Leandro, so his move could have cost San Leandro $2 million. Lee’s major “contribution” to San Leandro has been to propose honoring the genocidal Chinese government by flying its flag over City Council. As Tibetans burn themselves to bring attention to their plight and a million Ughyurs are imprisoned in China, Lee’s loyalty seems to be foremost with the Chinese government.

Fortunately, San Leandro has another choice: Jeromey Shafer. The co-founder of San Leandro for Bernie and leader of Our Revoution San Leandro, Shafer is intelligent, hard working, thoughtful and unapologetically progressive. He is committed to human rights and social justice. If elected, he will champion rent-control in San Leandro and will take an innovative approach to solving our other social ills. He will stop the militarization of our police forces and actually make the police department accountable to the city, not the other way around as it seems to be now. He is running a clean money campaign, rejecting all funds from corporations and developers and limiting contributions to $99. Shafer will also restore transparency and accountability and a sense of ethics to the office. Really, San Leandro can do no better than to support him.

Dan Dillman is our second choice because, whatever his faults, he cares about San Leandro.

Eva Arce

District 1: #1 Eva Arce, #2 Ken Pon

Incumbent Deborah Cox is another white-moderate who supports police militarization and mass surveillance and opposes rent-control. She drew controversy for not returning the financial contribution of a politician who used the “N” word in a public meeting.

Eva Arce, a newcomer to politics, is a strong progressive who has seen her community fall apart by the Council’s regressive politics and wants to restore it. She is a big supporter of rent control, police accountability and fixing potholes. She is running a clean money campaign, rejecting all funds from corporations and developers and limiting contributions to $99. She is an intelligent woman, who does her homework and will tackle issues with a fresh, yet progressive perspective. She is just what we need in San Leandro.

Ken Pon is also a moderate, but to the left of Cox. He opposes the militarization of police and favored marijuana dispensaries when Cox was ranting against them at City Council meetings.

Victor Aguilar

District 3: Victor Aguilar

School Board member Victor Aguilar was a progressive back when people didn’t want to admit to being progressive (his opponent, incumbent Lee Thomas, has never claimed himself as one). He supports rent control, police accountability, clean money (he is not taking any corporate or developer money), and free speech. As a commissioner, he refused to agree to the City Council’s demand that he forgo his first amendment rights and agree to no disparage the City Manager.

Incumbent Lee Thomas takes money from landlords and opposes rent controls while supporting police militarization.

District 5: Maxine Oliver-Benson (with reservations)

Both candidates are problematic. Incumbent Corina Lopez supports police militarization and has done painfully little to bring accountability to the police and remained a supporter of the City Manager even after he showed himself to lack professionalism, but at least she may vote in favor of rent control if someone else brings it up to the table. She also was the impetus behind the sanctuary city declaration, but would not go a step further and make it an ordinance with some teeth – this allowed the Police Department to continue sharing data with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, which in turn shared it with ICE. Moreover, Lopez can be difficult to work with, she easily gets offended and needs to have her ego massaged lest she retaliate over perceived slights.

Her opponent, Maxine Oliver-Benson, is an African American woman who has spent her life in East Oakland as an activist. She is corporate free and has many strong progressive values – she favors rent control and police accountability, for example, and is rejecting all money from corporations, developers and other special interests (unlike Lopez). However, she supports increasing mass surveillance in San Leandro – which Lopez says she does not.

Find more progressive voter recommendations in Progressive California.

Margarita Lacabe Runs for Re-Election to Alameda County Democratic Central Committee

Margarita Lacabe Runs for Re-Election to Alameda County Democratic Central Committee ACDCC 2 Responses »

Apr 192016

Plus: Who Else to Vote for in AD 15, AD 18 & 25

Update: I was re-elected to the Committee. Thanks to everyone who voted for me.

Once again, I’m running for re-election to the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee. I’m running for one of the ten seats in AD 18.

I am an unapologetic bleeding heart liberal, committed to pushing the Democratic party towards adopting an agenda that includes the respect and promotion of all human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural. I am fully committed to cleaning up the Democratic party from the corrupting influences of money and cronyism.

Currently, the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee is suffering from a numbers of ills. One of the main jobs of the Committee is to give the Democratic endorsement to candidates for non-partisan local races. Unfortunately, several Committee members are either paid campaign consultants themselves or have close relationships with such people – and they take advantage of their position in the Committee to lobby to get their clients the Democratic endorsement. This has resulted in the Democratic endorsement being given to candidates who do not have particularly progressive ideas. Indeed, the Committee has endorsed candidates that support the militarization of police, the widening of the school-to-prison pipeline, mass surveillance and impunity for police brutality. While as one of the few liberals in the Committee, my effect over the last four years has been limited, I have been able to stop the Democratic endorsement from going to at least some of the worst candidate – including one that wanted to raise the Chinese flag over San Leandro City Hall paying homage to a government that has imprisoned and disappeared countless critics, members of religious minorities and human rights defenders, while brutality occupying Tibet and other lands.

My other main reason to run for re-election is that I believe that if Bernie Sanders manages to win the nomination and then the presidency, he will need supporters working at all levels with the Democratic party in order to push his agenda forward. If he doesn’t win, and instead decides to lead a revolution from the Senate, then the support of Democratic grass root activists is even more important. But let me be clear: as a liberal Democrat I cannot support Hillary Clinton and her neo-liberal/neo-con agenda which imperils America and the world.

Over the last four years, I’ve written from time to time about my experiences as a Committee members, please read further if you want to know more about me and my candidacy. Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions or comments.

In addition to me, I encourage you to vote for the following candidates:

Other candidates I support running for ACDCC in AD 18 (Oakland flats, Alameda & San Leandro – 10 seats available):

Pamela Price, a civil rights attorney

Mike Katz-Lacabe, my husband and a privacy rights advocate.

Guillermo Elenes, a housing rights organizer and staunch liberal

Marlon McWilson, an appointed incumbent and County Board of Education trustee

In AD 15 (Oakland Hills & North Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley and Albany – 9 seats available) I recommend you vote for the following candidates.

Vincent Casalaina: Vincent is very progressive grassroots activist, he is with PDA and was an early Bernie supporter. Vincent is running in a progressive slate with Brett Badelle, Kate Harrison and Floyd Huen

Andy Kelley: Andy sometimes plays politics to his own detriment, but his heart is in the right place and he is also committed to a progressive agenda.

Len Raphael: Len is intelligent, thoughtful and has an insurgent streak. I think he would bring a much needed non-establishment perspective to the Committee.

Ces Rosales: Ces is a very progressive LGBT and feminist activist in Berkeley. We don’t always back the same candidates (she’s a Hillary supporter), but I respect Ces’ independent streak.

In AD 25 (Newark & parts of Fremont – 3 seats available), I recommend you vote for

Raj Salwan: He has been an alternate for a number of years and is the most progressive candidate running in that district.

Relevant articles:

(Edited to add list of people I’m supporting and to add my stand on Hillary Clinton).

California Democratic Party to Automatically Endorse Incumbents

California Democratic Party to Automatically Endorse Incumbents Politics 3 Responses »

Jan 242016

The California Democratic Party has just become a little bit more undemocratic. New rules quietly enacted by the Party give Democratic incumbents for state and federal office the automatic endorsement of the Party. While in the past an incumbent would get the Party’s endorsement if he received just 70% of the votes at a pre-convention endorsement caucus or 50%+1 of the votes at the convention, incumbents will now be automatically endorsed unless 20% of all delegates from the district to file an objection. This is harder than it sounds. While delegates may punish a bad incumbent by voting for someone else, voting for no endorsement or not voting at all, filing an actual objection to the endorsement of someone who is already sitting in office, and who therefore enjoys a significant amount of political power, is not for the faint of heart. It also means that in races where the incumbent doesn’t have a challenger to organize an objection signature drive, even unpopular incumbents will receive the party’s endorsement.

This year in Alameda county, all but one of the incumbents will be receiving the party’s automatic endorsement. The exception is Congressman Mike Honda who is facing a tough re-election fight from former Obama administration official Ro Khanna. Honda has been hurt by an ethics investigation and has lost the support of several prominent Democratic politicians. Regardless of who wins the Party endorsement, it seems likely that Khanna will unseat Honda in the fall.

While it’s understandable that the Democratic party would want to solidify its support behind incumbents, a policy that benefits the establishment against what may be more popular challengers runs the risk of further damaging the party’s own standing before voters – and the weight of the party’s endorsement. Indeed, while just two or three election cycles ago, the vast majority of candidates endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic party were elected, that number fell to about 50% in the 2014 election. Part of the reason, I believe, is that too many of the party’s endorsements are based on personal relations and politicking rather than on the personal qualifications and progressive ideology of the actual candidates.

Mike Honda’s Campaign Hits New Low with Trump reference

Mike Honda’s Campaign Hits New Low with Trump reference Politics No Responses »

Dec 302015

Today Mike Honda’s campaign sent an e-mail to Honda’s supporters (and people like me, who somehow ended up in his mailing list), suggesting that his opponent, Ro Khanna, is supported by Donald Trump.

Ro Khanna

Forget the fact that Khanna is a liberal Democrat, who is deeply committed to human rights and social justice. Forget the fact that the differences in political ideology between Khanna and Mike Honda‘s are so minute that Honda has not been able to articulate them. And forget the fact that to Trump’s supporters likely consider Khanna a brown-skinned, non-Christian “anchor baby” worthy of the same type of disdain than other non-white immigrant. The simple facts are that neither the GOP nor Trump have ever, in any way whatsoever, shown any support of Khanna. Indeed, you have to embrace Trump’s method of politicking to even make such allegations.

Mike Honda

But the truth is, I don’t know that it is Honda who is channeling Trump on this campaign – because I don’t believe Honda has the mental faculties to understand what’s going on around him well enough to take such positions. Every time I have heard Honda address an issue for which he didn’t have ready talking points, ever time my husband or I have tried to engage him in a conversation about a non-trivial matter, he fumbled through it without giving any hint he understood what the issue was about. I suspect that it is his Congressional staff who decides how he votes, and his campaign staff (which may or may not be the same) who decides how he campaigns while Honda is left to smile, shake hands, make jokes and play everyone’s favorite uncle.

Voters deserve better, but so does Mike Honda. Honda is already the subject of a Congressional ethics investigation on his use of public resources for campaign purposes and for proposing to exchange political favors for campaign contributions; he does not need to finish his political career with the reputation of being a nasty campaigner. I know that like Pete Stark before him, Honda will not give up in his quest for re-election, but his staff should show respect for Honda’s past accomplishments by making sure he runs a dignified campaign.

This is the text of the e-mail I got today

Dear Margarita,

I’ll cut to the chase:

Mike Honda has spent his career fighting for justice and equality in Washington — and the Republicans can’t stand it. That’s why they’re aligning themselves, again, with our opponent, Ro Khanna, in attacking one of the nation’s leading progressive champions.

It’s shameful — and we can’t let Donald Trump’s Republican Party get away with.

Contribute $3 or more to our campaign before tomorrow’s deadline to help us fight back.

At a time when fear is rising again in American politics, we cannot afford to lose Mike Honda’s voice in Congress. Can you speak up today to support our campaign?

Thanks,

Michael Beckendorf
Campaign Manager
Honda 2016

Election Predictions, How Did I Do?

Election Predictions, How Did I Do? ACDCC, Politics No Responses »

Dec 052014

election2014 At the annual Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (ACDCC) holiday party this week, a colleague asked me how accurate I was on my election predictions. This post is meant to answer his question.

Truth is, I didn’t make many predictions. This year, I endorsed candidates throughout Alameda County. I thought some of them had a good chance of winning and I was less hopeful about others. Voters, however, like to go with likely winners so I wasn’t about to suggest that my endorsed candidates were going to lose.

This is not to say that I avoided calling all races. In San Leandro, there was absolutely no doubt that Pauline Cutter would be elected Mayor and that Lee Thomas would be elected to the City Council. I said as much on both cases, while urging voters to take advantage of the ranked choice voting system by choosing protest candidates as their first and second choice.

In other races, I was equally certain of the results but I tried to avoid saying so publicly. While I supported Mia Ousley for San Leandro City Council, it was clear from the start that Corina Lopez would win, and told both candidates as much. Corina started with a huge advantage by virtue of being a member both of the School Board and the ACDCC and having greater personal financial resources; that advantage only grew during the campaign as she monopolized endorsements and campaign contributions. Just as voters prefer to vote for likely winners, big time endorsers back those most likely to win in the hope of getting a return for their investment.

It was also equally clear to anyone with eyes that Leo Sheridan would be elected to the San Leandro School Board, as he was the only candidate who mounted a campaign. There is a general rule in electoral politics: if you campaign and your opponent doesn’t, you win. Incumbents can sometimes get away with not campaigning, though even then they usually do so covertly through their official functions.

Outside San Leandro, I generally assumed that the incumbents would win – a good rule of thumb when you don’t know much about an election -, so I was pleasantly surprised on several instances.

The main one, was seeing Trish Spencer beat incumbent Mary Gilmore as Mayor of Alameda. Gilmore not only had the normal advantages of incumbency (rote voting by uninformed voters, greater name recognition), but she had the support of the Democratic party, labor and the powerful firefighters union. She outspent Spencer almost 5 to 1. Yet Spencer was able to put together a large grass root campaign, united with the goal of slowing down development, and narrowly defeat Gilmore.

Similarly, I was surprised at how many incumbent school board members throughout Alameda County lost re-election. Ty Alper in Berkeley, Janet Zamudio in San Lorenzo, Dot Theodore in Castro Valley, Donn Lee Merriam in Emeryville, Gary Lym in Alameda, Tom Huynh in Newark and Mark Miller in Pleasanton all defeated incumbents. I didn’t support all of these candidates, but I wasn’t expecting any of them to win. What I have learned from these races is that the general rule that incumbents get re-elected may not really apply to School Board races – and that candidates with children have an advantage over those without.

I was unpleasantly surprised that Raj Salwan did not win re-election to the Fremont City Council. Again, I’d assumed he’d get elected on the strength of being an incumbent. I was wrong.

In some cases, while I hadn’t expected a certain candidate to win, I thought they would do much better in the election. That was the case with Mia Ousley in San Leandro, but also also with Mike Katz-Lacabe, my husband. Mike didn’t campaign at all – at least beyond going to candidate fora and endorsement interviews -, but I thought that his name recognition and ballot designation would had given him more votes. I haven’t quite figured out why I was wrong in that case; in particular, I wonder if his reputation as a strong civil libertarian actually hurt him with voters.

Alejandro Soto-Vigil in Berkeley is so energetic, and had such a solid grass root campaign behind him, that I thought he would do much better than he did. I feel similarly about Dan Siegel‘s race. Of course, in both of those situations I really wanted them to do well, and that desire might have colored my inner prediction.

Isobel Dvorsky won her race for re-election to the Chabot-Las Positas Community College Board, but I was surprised at how close her opponent got.

Older Entries