At first glance, Prop F’s failure to pass on Nov. 2 was just another voter referendum, a political contest to determine whether non-citizen parents of children in San Francisco’s public schools should be allowed to vote during school board elections.
But step beyond the election returns (51 percent, no; 49 percent, yes), and you’ll find a ballot measure that became the accidental victim of one wealthy San Francisco business mogul’s bizarre political games.
“One reason we feel this didn’t pass was the negative campaigning from our opponents,” said David Chiu, an immigrant rights attorney and Prop F author. “During the week before the election, there was some very nasty, negative campaigning from our opponents.”
The negative campaigning Chiu is talking about came from the Yes on Citizenship, No on Prop F organization. As both the Chronicle and the Examiner reported the week before the election, GAP co-founder and former chairman Don Fisher sank $49,000 into the organization which, in turn, distributed dubious campaign mailers throughout incumbent Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval’s D11.
Those mailers, as well as a slew of other negative campaign literature attacking Sandoval and D1 incumbent Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, put Sandoval on the defensive. According to Chairman of the Immigrant Rights Movement and Frontlines Editor Carlos Petroni, Sandoval was too busy fending off his critics to fight for Prop F.
“I think in the case of McGoldrick and Sandoval, they dropped the ball because they didn’t want to give the opposition ammunition against them. They were about their own candidacies,” Petroni said.
The mailers depicted John Ashcroft thanking Sandoval for handing him a handy list of illegal immigrant names. The message was clear: allowing illegal immigrants to vote during school board elections would only document their names and open them up to deportation.
From the mailer, one might conclude that Sandoval was one of Prop F’s only supporters when, in fact, nine supervisors voted to place the measure on the ballot. Not only was there widespread support for the measure among city supervisors, the measure was also supported by the San Francisco Board of Education, San Francisco Democratic Party, the San Francisco Green Party, the Labor Council, the Asian Law Caucus and many others.
That the Fisher-funded Yes on Citizenship, No on F campaign literature targeted Sandoval makes perfect sense in the highly cynical political landscape at work during this year’s election.
According to Adriel Hampton’s Oct. 27, 2004 Examiner article, “Hit Pieces Halted,” Sandoval fell out of favor with Fisher last year after voting to place restrictions on chain stores in San Francisco. Presumably, when election time rolled around this year, Fisher seized his chance to slam Sandoval for his disloyal ways.
Fisher’s money funded a dual campaign against Prop F and Sandoval, a campaign that both Petroni and Chiu say contributed to the proposition’s failure. Fisher’s desire to remove Sandoval from office may have turned the tide, but it would be false to say there weren’t any other criticisms of the ballot measure.
Opponents like the San Francisco Republican Party opposed the measure because it extends voting, a privilege reserved for U.S. citizens, to non-citizens. And though the Yes on Citizenship, No on Prop F organization was really established to sink Sandoval’s candidacy, it was ostensibly formed to preserve citizenship and all its perks.
When it comes to the question of citizenship and voting rights, there were several important factors at play in Prop F. First, even if the proposition had passed, opponents pointed out, it would have met legal challenges on the grounds that it violates the California Constitution. The state courts would have had to unravel that mess, though Prop F supporters argue that the U.S. Supreme Court has never denied immigrants the right to vote when their local governments have voted for their enfranchisement.
Second, opponents seem to have somewhat hysterically believed that extending voting rights to non-citizens would suddenly give them enough power to trump the rights of citizens. But major cities in Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland and New York have allowed immigrant parents to vote in school board elections without such drastic consequences.
Third, even some moderates say extending voting rights to non-citizens somehow diminishes the effort and time other immigrants have expended to become citizens. Unless citizenship offers something San Francisco residents can’t otherwise have, why would anyone go to the trouble to achieve it? School board elections are a special case, of course, because they directly affect children, many of whom are legal citizens with non-citizen parents. Without their parents’ involvement, these children won’t have a voice in the system until they are almost out of high school and can vote themselves.
Despite its opponents, Prop F rallied significant support, especially for a campaign whose manpower came largely from non-voting immigrant parents. Reflecting on the final outcome, David Chiu said that he was pleased with the results. With more voter education, he’s optimistic that a similar ballot measure will pass in the future.
“A lot of voters were initially skeptical when they heard about Prop F, but literally if you were to tell them any facts, they would become supportive,” Chiu said.
You can reach the author at lorraine@lorrainesanders.com.
