San Francisco Republican Party
November 5th, 2024 Presidential Election Endorsements
Endorsements will be made on a rolling basis until October and are made with a 60% vote of members present and voting.
If a 60% vote was not made by the members present and voting, SFGOP’s position is neutral on that issue.
To provide guidance to voters, we will post a comparison of candidates in contests where SFGOP has declined to make an endorsement and links to candidate forums and debates if available.
STATE AND FEDERAL CANDIDATES
President of the United States of America
US Senator
State Senate District 11
Assembly District 17
Congressional District 11
Congressional District 15
STATE INITIATIVES
CITY CANDIDATES
Mayor (comparision)
Sheriff
City Attorney
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
District 1: Jeremiah Boehner
District 5: Autumn Looijan
District 7: Stephen Martin-Pinto
District 11: Oscar Flores
Board of Education (School Board)
A note on the School Board race
The reason why the recall of the three members of the Board of Education was necessary two years ago was that the three Board members were the hand-picked endorsed candidates of the United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) and as such were completely out of touch with the aspirations that parents wanted for their children in our public schools -- to reopen the schools after a year of "remote-learning" and to set high standards for our students, including offering Algebra in the 8th grade, and not going down the "Politically Correct" rabbit holes such as removing the mural at George Washington High School, renaming a quarter of the districts' schools because they didn't reflect the wokish standards of a panel of so-called “experts” or were just factually wrong, and the elimination of merit-based admissions to Lowell High School.
If voters want to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself, then this November not one Republican vote or the vote of any San Francisco voter concerned about the future of our schools and the education of our kids should be cast for any UESF-endorsed candidate, including Alexander, Jersin, Huling, and Gupta
City Initiatives
Prop A: Schools Improvement and Safety Bond
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-schools-improvement-and-safety-bond
OPPOSE:
SFUSD has significant unspent money from previous bonds, is in the process of closing schools, and is currently facing a large deficit. So why do they need yet another general obligation bond?
Prop B: Community Health and Medical Facilities, Street Safety, Public Spaces and Shelter to Reduce Homelessness Bond
OPPOSE:
Enough already! Why would we spend more money when the City has not wisely spent the hundreds of millions we already allocate each year?
Prop C: Inspector General
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-c-inspector-general
OPPOSE:
The new Inspector General would be subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. As a result, he would be no more likely to go after corruption than the BOS and Mayor are, and it will turn out being just another patronage position. While the goal is admirable, cleaning up SF can’t be done until the Democrats are voted out of the positions of power.
Prop D: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-d-city-commissions-and-mayoral-authority
SUPPORT:
Currently, the un-elected and unaccountable Police Commission sets police department policies.
This returns oversight power and accountability to the police chief.
It also reduces the number of useless city commissions (SF currently has twice as many as LA or Boston) by half.
Prop E: Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions
OPPOSE:
This is a poison pill measure to defeat Proposition D put on the ballot by the progressive wing of the Board of Supervisors.
Prop F: Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-f-police-staffing-and-deferred-retirement
SUPPORT:
Keeps veteran police officers on the beat – cheaper than paying overtime. Experienced street savvy officers are invaluable.
Prop G: Funding Rental Subsidies for Affordable Housing Developments Serving Low Income Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities
OPPOSE
There are many vacant subsidized rental units in the city today – let’s fill those first.
The more that our government interferes with the markets, the more they distort them.
This program is a literal lottery with winners and losers.
Charity should be paid for by private citizens and foundations–It shouldn’t come from the tax dollars of those who would rather spend the money on their own family’s housing.
Prop H: Retirement Benefits for Firefighters
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-h-retirement-benefits-firefighters
OPPOSE:
In 2011, San Franciscans approved Proposition C, designed to ensure the financial viability of San Francisco’s pension system while preserving competitive benefits for public employees. Let’s stick with fiscal discipline, folks.
Prop I: Retirement Benefits for Nurses and 911 Operators
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-i-retirement-benefits-nurses-and-911-operators
OPPOSE:
Per-diem nurses are paid at a much higher rate than salaried nurses.
The controller says this could cost $6.7 million in the first year, while the city is nearly $1 billion in debt.
The 911 operators as both full-time City employees and as designated First Responders deserve to be made part of the miscellaneous safety retirement plan by our future Supervisors.
Prop J: Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth, and Families
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-j-funding-programs-serving-children-youth-and-families
OPPOSE:
As the Controller notes: “…it would have a significant impact on the cost of government of up to $35 million in FY 2024-25 and increasing to up to $83 million in FY 2037-38 in that it would reallocate funding that would otherwise be available to the General Fund.”
Good government principles call for the BOS to be given sufficient discretion to allocate funds without them being tied up in unneeded set asides.
This prop adds bureaucratic positions – nominally for “monitoring”-- more likely for patronage.
Prop K: Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space
OPPOSE:
Roads are for cars. What K does is simply close the Great Highway to all cars except official Government vehicles.
THIS PROPOSITION DOES NOT PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A FUTURE PARK.
It will increase pedestrian and vehicle accidents on roadways near the Great Highway as well as on the streets and avenues of The Sunset and Parkside. Contrary to the claims of the Yes on K folks, closing the Great Highway will NOT be better for the environment and decrease greenhouse gases.
Prop L: Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation
OPPOSE:
San Francisco already collects enough taxes to fund its needs.
Moreover, Muni ridership has shrunk dramatically since the pandemic; service needs to be right-sized. Fix MUNI first. We get a new tax for MUNI every election; do one funding bill.
Prop M: Changes to Business Taxes
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-m-changes-business-taxes
OPPOSE:
If we keep taxing these medium-sized and large class businesses, they will leave or never come here in the first place. Large companies drive the local economy and are the wealth creators.
San Francisco already collects enough taxes to fund its needs. Moreover, Muni ridership has shrunk dramatically since the pandemic; service needs to be right-sized.
Prop N: First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund
OPPOSE:
Unnecessary; we should be streamlining city government.
There is already a federal program for student loan forgiveness.
WIll this encourage city employees to take on extra training and debt?
This could open the door to demands from other civil service employees.
Pay the first responders more to begin with.
Prop O: Supporting Reproductive Rights
https://www.sf.gov/information/proposition-o-supporting-reproductive-rights
NEUTRAL:
We agree with President Trump that we should be neutral on this issue. So say we all.