By Thomas K. Pendergast
Sunset District voting statistics for the last election are similar to citywide totals, except for the choice of San Francisco county sheriff and a lot of support for Proposition H, the call for local schools which was narrowly defeated.
San Francisco Department of Elections numbers show Paul Miyamoto got 33 percent of the District 4 vote for the office of county sheriff, more than San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who got 29 percent. Chris Cunnie placed third, capturing 27 percent of the district’s vote.
In District 7, 38 percent of the ballots were cast for Miyamoto, Cunnie received 32 percent and Mirkarimi got 26 percent.
District 7 also had the distinction of producing the largest voter turnout in the City, with more than 50 percent of registered voters casting ballots. Of San Francisco’s total registered voters, more than 42 percent cast ballots.
On the other hand, the Inner Sunset neighborhood (part of District 5) gave Mirkarimi 46 percent of its votes, while Cunnie received 27 percent and Miyamoto got 23 percent.
San Francisco voters gave Mirkarimi the office with 38 percent of their ballots, while Cunnie got 28 percent and Miyamoto got 27 percent.
Jason McDaniel, an assistant professor of political science at San Francisco State University, said there are several factors that account for this, one of which is the name recognition of Mirkarimi, which worked both for and against him.
McDaniel said Mirkarimi is generally seen as a “progressive” politician. In a liberal city like San Francisco this perception generally helped him, but in the west side – which McDaniel describes as less progressive, with higher income levels and more moderate or conservative voters – it was not an advantage.
But not every voter may have heard of either candidate or had any pre-conceptions about them.
McDaniel suggested that Miyamoto’s name might have been a “voting cue,” which gave him “pan-ethnic Asian voting appeal.” In districts with large Asian populations, Miyamoto’s name alone could have been just the edge he needed.
“If you combine the sense of upper income and more moderate voters, plus you include ethnic considerations, I think that explains that,” said McDaniel of Miyamoto’s good showing on the west side.
The other electoral contest that defied the overall city trend was the district’s strong support for Proposition H, the school district student assignment measure that, as a policy statement, asked the SF Unified School District to change its student assignment system to give local neighborhood schools priority, instead of the current lottery system in which geography is just one of several factors.
Proposition H was defeated by a razor-thin margin, with 50.03 percent of San Francisco voters rejecting it and 49.97 percent in favor.
In District 4, it received 67 percent of the vote. In District 7, it got 60 percent. But, it was rejected in the Inner Sunset neighborhood with 53 percent voting against it.
Corey Cook, an associate professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, said he is not surprised that the measure did better in the Sunset than the rest of the City.
Cook said that throughout San Francisco only one in six voters have school-aged children, which might explain the Inner Sunset’s rejection of it because residents there tend to be younger and single, or at least without families.
“A lot of voters don’t have a kid in school so they have no idea what this lottery system is and how it works,” Cook said.
Throughout most of the City’s west side, however, voters are much more likely to have kids in school and so they are more likely to understand how assigning students to schools actually works compared to those without school-age children. If you combine that with the quality of neighborhood schools on the west side, which, Cook said, are generally considered some of the best in the City, then it is easy to see why the measure did well here.
Cook attributes voter confusion to the way the ballot measure was written because it was not clear how it would change the current lottery system, which does take into account the desires of parents for schools close to home.
“I found H to be utterly confusing in terms of how the voters looked at it,” he said. “They would use the same arguments for both sides, whether they were voting yes or no. They were confused about what the current school assignment system does and how (Prop. H) changes what we have now. It was unclear to many of them if they would be forced to send their kids to neighborhood schools.”
In all other respects the choices of district and west side voters resembled the rest of the City, although with some variations.
Incumbent and appointed Mayor Ed Lee won his first election by garnering more than 30 percent of the citywide vote; Supervisor John Avalos placed second with 19 percent and City Attorney Dennis Herrera came in third with 11 percent.
In District 4, Lee got 44 percent of the vote, state Sen. Leland Yee came in second with 11 percent and Avalos got 10 percent. Citywide, Yee came in fifth with 8 percent of the vote.
In District 7, Lee received 35 percent of the vote, Avalos placed second with 11 percent and Herrera placed third with 10 percent.
In the Inner Sunset neighborhood, Lee just barely topped Avalos, receiving slightly more than 25 percent of the vote while Avalos got just under the same percent. Herrera placed third with 13 percent.
In the district attorney’s race, incumbent George Gascon won with 42 percent of the citywide vote, David Onek placed second with 24 percent and Sharmin Bock was third with 21 percent.
Gascon also won in District 4 with 44 percent of the vote, Bock placed second with 24 percent and Onek placed third with 14 percent.
In District 7, Gascon won with 46 percent of the vote, Bock placed second with 19 percent and Onek third with 16 percent.
Proposition A, a $531 million bond measure to fund repairs at SFUSD school facilities, passed with 71 percent of the vote citywide. In District 4 it passed with 60 percent. In District 7 it passed with 63 percent.
Proposition B, a $248 million bond to fix potholes and repave streets, passed decisively with 68 percent of the vote citywide. In District 4 and District 7 it passed with 58 percent of the vote.
Proposition C, the pension reform measure pushed by Mayor Lee and city worker unions, passed with just under 69 percent of the vote citywide. In District 4 it passed with 66 percent of the vote and in District 7 it passed with 65 percent.
A competing pension reform measure, Prop. D, lost the citywide vote with 66 percent voting against it. In District 4 it lost with 63 percent and in District 7 it was rejected by 62 percent.
Proposition E, which would have amended the City Charter to allow the Board of Supervisors and the mayor to amend or repeal ordinances and policies that the voters have approved, lost citywide by 67 percent. In District 4 it lost with 69 percent voting against it and it lost in District 7 with 68 percent against.
Proposition F, which would have changed lobbying rules, lost the citywide vote by 56 percent. In District 4 it lost by 59 percent and in District 7 it lost by 55 percent.
Proposition G, which would have raised the city sales tax by one-half of a percentage point, lost the citywide vote by 54 percent. In District 4, it was defeated by 61 percent and in District 7 it lost by 63 percent.
Westside San Francisco 