Report from Dept of Elections

Aubrey, rather than sending that email to Aaron Peskin, I suggest we call his office on Monday, with at least two of us on the line to witness, ask what his position on B is, and see what they have to say. Then ask what happened to his argument against it. Better to put them on the spot than give them time to come up with some weasely-worded excuse in writing, imho. You said he had pre-empted the opposition on some other measures too, didn't you Aubrey? Propositions B, C, E, G, S, and T are all lacking opposition arguments, and I don't see Peskin's name listed as an opponent on anything! Of course he is a proponent for C, so he would have really had to have a lot of chutzpah to file a phony pre-emption claim on that one.

  I also suggest we do it in the morning before we have to file the paid arguments. We might want to mention the incident in one of our paid arguments, noting the similarity to what Peskin's political ally Jon Gollinger did before that got the rules changed to prevent it. Anybody remember which election and ballot measure that was? For fun, I played around with the letters of the opponent-less measures, and came up with the following acronym:

B rilliant
E lection
S cam,
C redit
T o
G ollinger

  Marcy, to answer your question, I believe it does require 4 Supervisors to put a measure before the voters, but that they do not all have to list themselves as proponents on the ballot. At least I think that's the explanation – this would also be worth confirming (possibly all a Supe has to do to avoid being listed is "forget" to turn in his or her paperwork). If that's the case, I'll bet Norman Yee is the invisible co-sponsor for many of these who didn't want to leave his fingerprints on them so visibly in the Voters Handbook – he leans to the left, but is running for reelection in a moderate district. Notice that the measures where there are only 3 or fewer Supervisors listed are mostly sponsored by the progressives:

Prop. C - Peskin, Breed
Prop. E - Avalos, Wiener, Mar
Prop. G - Cohen, Breed
Prop. M - Peskin, Kim, Mar
Prop. X - Kim, Peskin, Campos

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

I don't know as I like the idea of a phone call because

(1) it will open the door to disagreements about what was actually said. We could end up claiming Peskin’s office said one thing while they could claim they actually said something else. If we get a written response, then there can be no disagreement about what was said.

(2)impromptu responses are often not well thought out. They could claim that they did not have adequate time to think about the response and then just amend their previous comment.

Les

True, Les. That's why I suggested more than one of us being on the call, to have multiple witnesses to whatever is said. I'm not opposed to sending a follow-up email, perhaps stating what we heard in the phone call in order to establish that as part of the written record, but I think calling directly would have some chance of catching them out in a contradiction or lie or something, whereas I think an email would stand relatively little chance of doing so. I think we have a pretty good idea of what actually happened and that most people looking at the situation will likely agree (we also have the comment of Greg at the Elections Department as reported by Aubrey), so getting into a "he-said-she-said" with us about what they say on the phone would not be to Peskin's advantage.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))