By Calvin Welch, HANC Board 

In the lowest national turnout in 70 years and the lowest governors’ race turnout in modern history, Haight-Ashbury voters swam against the rising tide of voter cynicism in numbers that exceeded city, state and national levels-56% of us cast our votes in the November, 2014 elections.

In the chart below (click on the "read more" link) voter turnout is given for  each precinct in the three “sub areas” of the Haight-Ashbury:  the North Panhandle (N PAN), that area from Fell to Fulton, Stanyan to Baker; the “Flatlands” (FLATS), Oak to Frederick, Stanyan to Baker and the “Hills” from Frederick to 17th, Stanyan to Clayton/BV West.

Voter Turnout Haight-Ashbury, D5, San Francisco and California

Source: SF DOE, 12 Nov and CA SS, 13 Nov

HANC’s Election Efforts

As readers of the Voice know HANC  board and members felt the 2014 election included  important local issues and it devoted three meetings to various aspects of the election and helped form a “voter education” effort aimed at getting a maximum number of folks out to the polls not only in the Haight-Ashbury but also in District 5.  HANC joined with D5 Action and the San Francisco Human Services Network to distribute some 20,000 door hangers urging voters to turn out and support living wage increases ( Prop J) , a children’s fund budget set aside (Prop C), an anti-housing speculation tax (Prop G), and protection for the western portion Golden Gate Park and against its “poison pill” counter measure  (Prop. H and Prop I) . 

Our Voter Education  Slate Card door hanger did seem to have some impact on voters in District 5  as shown by the following:

Slate Card Recommendations Vote Compared D5 and Citywide

Looking at three of the measures and how they did here in the Haight-Ashbury the slate card seemed to have an impact in parts of our neighborhood, but not in others:

Props G, H and I compared HA,D5 and Citywide Votes

DOE 9 Nov count

Yes on G and No on I, the cards recommended votes, were strongly supported in the N Pan and Flats.  There was no real impact on Yes on H, however.  Equally, significant was the divergence of the more affluent “Hills” portion of the neighborhood from the voting preference of the other two sub areas.  But also the fact that the Hills portion cast more of its vote by mail (52% VBM) lessened the impact of the door hanger because it was distributed after many of the votes in that area were cast, a problem that was of City wide importance as well .  New techniques must be devised in educating voters when significant numbers vote before election day.

Negative Campaigning Suppresses Votes Even When Voters Show Up!

One of the most significant and disturbing trends seen at the national level but also visible in the local Assembly District 17 race between Supervisors Chiu and Campos was the  impact of well funded “attack” mail.  A pattern visible in this election cycle was the role of large donors buying negative adds which paid for huge attack mailings.  Nowhere was this more visible than in the Chiu campaign against Campos.

Look at the  “ Uv” (under vote) column on the right of the chart below:

Haight-Ashbury Vote Chiu /Campos 17^th AD

DOE 12 Nov Count                                                                                       BOLD  winner

As is shown  10,755 voters went to the polls YET DID NOT VOTE IN THE 17^TH ASSEMBY RACE!  That’s is a ratio of more than 2 to 1 greater than occurred in the Govener race in the 17^th AD!  What this shows, it seems to me,  is that people were so turned off by the negative mailings in that race, more often than not from Chiu supporters attacking Campos, that they showed up to vote but did not vote in that race.  Campos lost by 2,600 votes or just over one fourth of the votes NOT CAST by voters who refused to vote on that race.