Until 1977, San Francisco was one of the largest cities in the country which elected its governing body "at large." That is, in order to win a seat on the Board of Supes, candidates had to have citywide recognition and plenty of money. This suited the city fathers -- real estate developers and haute-capitalists -- just fine. But people from all over the city agitated and organized for less attenuated representation. In 1976, we passed Proposition T, instituting elections to the board from smaller, neighborhood districts where we might know our Supervisors.
The effect was immediate: in 1977, we got more women; we got Harvey Milk; we got a whole new cast of governing characters. It was a near revolutionary moment of deep polarization -- district Supervisor Dan White murdered district Supervisor Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1979. In an obscure August election in 1980, the old timers persuaded the tiny segment of people voting to repeal district elections. Progressives tried to reimpose the districts that November, but lost 48 to 52 percent.
And so the organizing to return to district elections began again. This took more than a decade and a half of patient and impatient agitation. Finally, in the November election of 1996, San Franciscans voted to return to district elections, to begin in 2000.
That meant that the city had be redistricted into 11 electoral areas. The progressives who had agitated for district elections feared they could loose the neighborhood power they had been working for if the boundary drawing went badly. We organized some more and built racial, language, and economic coalitions. (I consulted with several groups on this effort.) The redistricting commission largely listened to the organized people. The resulting districts were much like what we've lived with until this year. Then as now, District Six emerged as an arena of contention that, I was once told privately by one of the commissioners, "got most of the leftovers." Also Treasure Island, where, then as now, hardly anyone votes. That map took effect in 2000 and remained little altered by redistricting in 2010.
If I'm to believe the Chronicle, the map that this year's divided redistricting taskforce has come up with won't make much political difference. If I'm to believe Joe Eskenazi in Mission Local, the new map is a power grab by San Francisco's "moderate robber" barons. I have a long history of believing Eskenazi.
And because this is a real fight over political power and spoils in the city, we can be sure this isn't over. Look for a struggle to change the outcome by way of law suits and ballot propositions. This may go on for a few years. For as long as I've lived here, San Franciscans have rallied to local democracy. I don't see us giving up on this because some big wigs cooked the deal.
6 comments:
Until 1977, San Francisco was one of the largest cities in the country which elected its governing body "at large." That is, in order to win a seat on the Board of Supes, candidates had to have citywide recognition and plenty of money.
We had at-large elections for the Hawaii County Council until 1990. See this article: page 1 and page 8 Do you know if there were attempts to bring back at-large elections to San Francisco?
Hi Brandon -- yes, I was on the Big Island for a month in 1996 and caught the resonance of the effort to win district while there. Periodically, we do get efforts to revert to a form of "at large," but nowadays they focus more on drawing the districts to disempower marginalized communities. But we're a noisy bunch, of all sorts.
Did you write about your Big Island trip here? And did you get over to the Hilo side?
Hi Brandon -- this blog was an early adopter of the medium -- but I didn't start til 2005. :-) We stayed in Hilo for most of a month, on the bluff, overlooking the Bay. And hearing stories of earthquake and tsunami. Loved the place.
BTW, I miss Marianne!
I do too. This November it will have been five years since she passed away. I know she'd have a lot to say about what's happened since.
At-large elections got us many Supes from West of Twin Peaks (wealthy district); not great at all. District elections and redistricting are fractious; I can live with that compared to the old way that disenfranchised poor folks and people of color. I wonder if some version of citywide proportional voting would help us — thinking of Scotland’s local and parliamentary elections as an example. But maybe that’s too complicated. We have a serious wealth divide, which is hard to navigate. And dysfunctional, too often corrupt, politics, on all sides.
Post a Comment