Even though there’s only one issue on your upcoming November 4 ballot, Trump’s Justice Department is calling out the cavalry of so-called election monitors to spy on polling places, perhaps as a warm-up for the 2026 midterms.  

There’s only one issue on the ballot for that election coming up in 11 days, the statewide redistricting measure Prop 50. And Prop 50 is currently ahead by 20 percentage points in the polls, so there does not seem like much suspense or intrigue around how that one’s going to turn out.    

But now there is suddenly some intrigue around the November 4 California election, and it may not bode well for the state. The Chronicle reports that US Attorney General Pam Bondi is sending federal election monitors to California polling places on November 4, maybe to sow the seeds of doubt when Republicans get shellacked in a big Prop 50 loss, or maybe to lay some groundwork for voter intimidation tactics ahead of the 2026 midterm races.  

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Bondi said in a Friday statement. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

Governor Gavin Newsom, who pretty much invented the idea for Prop 50, was no wallflower in his response. Newsom went straight to KQED for an interview once the news broke.

“They are creating the pretext that after we’re successful with Prop 50, after there is a Democratic governor in New Jersey — and will be one in Virginia, unquestionably — that they can suggest somehow these were fraudulent, these elections were rigged against them,” Newsom told KQED’s Political Breakdown podcast. “This is a preview of 2026. Wake up, everybody.”

You’ll notice Newsom mentions New Jersey, which has a governor’s race election that same day. He mentions New Jersey because the Justice Department announcement singles out only five counties in the entire US that are getting election monitors. One of those counties is Passaic County, New Jersey, the other five are in California. (And of course, both New Jersey and California are blue states getting this unsolicited federal attention.)

Though we will say it’s odd that three of the five California counties getting the election monitors went for Trump in the 2024 election. That prompts the question of why this is happening.  

According to the Associated Press, “the announcement comes days after the Republican parties in both states wrote letters to the DOJ requesting their assistance.” So the California Republican Party clearly had something to do with this, and they’re definitely well aware they’ll likely be screwed out of five US House of Representatives seats if Prop 50 passes.

So the San Francisco Bay Area does not appear to be a target of this Trump Justice Department push to monitor the election. But it’s fair for us here to wonder if it’s not more of an effort to interfere with the election, or to work on a playbook to game future elections.

Related: In Typical Fashion, Trump Now Spreading Lies About the California Vote Count In 2024 [SFist]

Image: Joe Kukura, SFist

Mayor London Breed’s clean sweep of appointees getting elected last week is now in serious jeopardy, as school board appointee Ann Hsu fell 1,700 votes behind progressive Alida Fisher in the latest vote-count batch.

The votes are still being counted from last week’s November 8 election, and per the latest 4 p.m. Monday update from the San Francisco Department of Elections. “The Dept must still process and count approximately 38,000 ballots in the Nov 8 Election.” Yet a conventional wisdom emerged in the day/days following the election that Mayor London Breed scored a royal flush with her appointed candidates who had to face the voters, with the Chronicle observing that voters were “embracing Mayor London Breed’s moderate candidates and causes and giving a boost to her political agenda, from public safety to education.”

But now we may need to slap an asterisk on the “education” part of that statement. The Chronicle now reports that Breed’s post-recall school board appointee Ann Hsu has fallen behind in the race for the third and final school board seat, ceding third place in the vote count to special education advocate Alida Fisher. (The top three vote-count winners get the three available seats in this race.)

As we see above, Breed appointees Lisa Weissman-Ward and Lainie Motamedi are the top-two by far, and have their seats in the bag. But Alida Fisher has overtaken Breed appointee Ann Hsu for the third seat, leapfrogging Hsu in Monday’s vote-count drop, and now in the lead by 1,707 votes in that race.

And this vote has been a dizzying ride since the first batch of ballots was counted last Tuesday night. Hsu and Fisher “were separated by about 2 percentage points and 9,040 votes after the first count,” last Tuesday night, with Hsu well ahead, as the Chronicle observes. “That lead dwindled to 272 votes by Sunday afternoon and flipped Monday with Fisher in the lead by 1,707 votes.”

Ann Hsu, you may remember, faced calls for her resignation in late July over a racist questionnaire response wherein she said that Black and Brown students came from "unstable family environments" with "lack of parental encouragement.” While the publicity brouhaha over the remark seemed a boon for her campaign fundraising, it also seems to have scared off major endorsements. Consider the United Educators of San Francisco flyer above, which endorses only two candidates, post-recall appointee Weissman-Ward, and Fisher, who opposed the recall.

Even some Breed backers and recall advocates have kept Ann Hsu at arm's length. Notice also the above campaign mailer from an SF firefighters union. They endorse only two Breed appointees, Weissman-Ward and Lainie Motamedi, zero mention of Ann Hsu. Yes, by and large nobody looks at these goddamned campaign mailers and they go straight to the recycling in most households. But on the margins, in a close race for a lower-tier office, snubs like these can make a difference (particularly in a teacher’s union mailer).

In the other too-close-to-call nail-biter, Joel Engardio still maintains a tiny lead over incumbent Gordon Mar. Mar has been incrementally chip-chip-chipping into Engardio’s lead with each update, but not by enough thus far. Mar is catching up by dozens of votes with each successive drop, not by the hundreds he needs to. Sure, Mar can take inspiration from Fisher’s leapfrogging of Hsu in the school board race. But school board elections get votes from citywide, the District 4 supervisor’s race gets votes only from District 4. Simply put, there are far fewer votes available for Gordon Mar to pick up traction than there are for school board candidates.

That said, there’s still another vote drop scheduled for 4 p.m. this afternoon, and you can see that update here when it’s posted.

Related: Two of Breed’s Appointed School Board Members Cruise To Wins, Ann Hsu Ahead In Race for Third Seat [Facebook]

Image: Joe Kukura, SFist

It could be a clean sweep for the three school board members Mayor Breed appointed after the February recall, with only Ann Hsu’s election somewhat in doubt.

On one hand, San Francisco Mayor London Breed had a terrible night in term of local San Francisco ballot propositions: the moving of mayoral election years that she opposed won in a landslide, the Department of Homelessness oversight commission that she opposed also won handily; and her big one, the affordable housing measure Prop E is lagging under 50% (though still too close to call). But in terms of votes with people’s names on the ballot, her appointees DA Brooke Jenkins and District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey appear to clearly have victories in the bag — contrary to a previous trend in which mayoral appointees don't fair so well.

And similarly, her three appointed school board members whom she named after the February school board recall election had very good nights Tuesday. The Chronicle projects that two have definitely won, and her appointee Ann Hsu has a pretty solid grip on the third seat, though with thousands more ballots yet to be counted.

The school board race’s current results are seen above, and Breed appointees Lisa Weissman-Ward and Lainie Motamedi have insurmountable leads for the top two spots. They are presumably safe in their seats until the 2024 election (unless there’s another recall?).

But the third available seat is not yet determined. Breed appointee Ann Hsu currently holds the third spot, and by nearly 7,000 votes. On the slate of challengers to Breed’s appointees (which includes recalled member Gabriela Lopez in a distant fifth place), only Alida Fisher has a realistic chance of overtaking Hsu.

“For now let’s keep our fingers crossed and knock on some wood,” Hsu told the Chronicle Tuesday night. “But I think we know what the result is going to be.”

Hsu had faced calls for her resignation over a racist-comment scandal involving a campaign questionnaire in July, but paradoxically, she raised the most in campaign donations after being admonished by the board for the offending remarks. That extra campaign contribution money may have made a difference, but at this point, only holding that lead as more ballots are counted can save Hsu's seat.

Related: Ann Hsu Way Ahead of the Pack in School Board Race Donations, Despite (Or Because Of?) Racist Comment Scandal [SFist]

Image: Joe Kukura, SFist

Big victories in local SF propositions for car-free JFK Drive, moving the mayoral election year, and a vacant homes tax, but the affordable housing propositions D and E are still locked in battle.

While Tuesday’s elections left control of the U.S. Congress still completely up in the air, and a couple San Francisco Board of Supervisors seats are still yet to be determined, we’ve definitely got a sense of finality on pretty much every San Francisco ballot measure, and some good, meaty, final results to chew through. But there’s one major exception, as the dueling affordable housing measures Props D and E remain too close to call, and will have people refreshing the SF Elections results page come the next update on Thursday.  

Yet pretty much all the other local SF ballot measures have clear winners and losers at this point. Let’s roll the tape and see how it all shook down.

A resounding victory for car-free JFK Drive, as voters rejected Prop I by about 61%, tossing out the proposal to bring cars back to that stretch of Golden Gate Park plus the Great Highway on the weekends. The companion (actually enemy) measure Prop. J also crushed it with about 60% approval, essentially codifying April’s board of supervisors vote to keep JFK Drive car-free into law.

And the SF mayoral races will move into presidential election years. The Prop. H measure to move the mayoral election (plus DA, City Attorney, Sheriff, etc.) to presidential election years passed with nearly 70% approval, according to the Chronicle. That means Mayor London Breed gets an extra year in office, and won’t face reelection until 2024, instead of November 7, 2023.

But as you see above, the dueling affordable housing measures Props D and E are still dueling. Both are below 50% as of this morning, as the SF Standard explains, “Either needs more than 50% to pass, and if both pass, whichever gets the most votes would go into effect.” But there are still some 14,000 uncounted votes, so either could still wriggle ahead.  

And the vacant homes tax Prop M looks to be in very good shape, with a 53%-47% lead as of the latest results. This proposed tax on homes kept vacant could technically be swayed by those 14,000 uncounted ballots, but those would have to break in a statistically improbable way to make up the current deficit of nearly 10,000 votes.

And sorry Matt Haney, but Proposition B’s elimination of the Department of Sanitation and Streets did pass, by an overwhelming 74%-26% majority. That’s a pretty stunning turnaround, considering SF voters just voted to create the department with a 60% majority two years ago.

And we will indeed get a Department of Homelessness Oversight Commission, as voters approved the creation of that commission by a 64%-36% majority.

And again-overwhelming majorities on other lower-profile measures: The Library Preservation Fund (Prop. F) passed by a gigantic margin, Rec and Parks will get control of the Music Concourse Garage (Prop. N), the SF Employees’ Retirement System got a cost-of-living increase (Prop. A), and the 0.5% sales tax to fund transportation projects (Prop. L) looks well ahead of the two-thirds majority it needs to pass.

You can see all SF election results here.

Related: Rob Bonta Keeps AG's Job; Malia Cohen Is CA Controller [SFist]

Image: @PeopleProtected via Twitter

The latest SF political mailer drops a provocation in the old San Francisco street poop debates, and it’s largely paid for by a union that may gain some members under a Department of Sanitation and Streets.  

The San Francisco street poop discourse has long been effective clickbait for the local and national media, and poop has popped up in politics too. In a 2018 District 6 supervisors candidate debate, poop zingers featured prominently in the debate between Matt Haney Sonja Trauss, and Christine Johnson. Haney would win that election, and after the Mohammed Nuru-DPW scandal broke, he rode that poop-complaint powered sentiment to establish a Department of Sanitation and Streets.

Yet in July, a post-Haney Board of Supervisors puzzlingly put forth a November ballot measure to cancel the as-yet unformed Department of Sanitation and Streets, even though voters just approved the department with a 60% majority vote in November 2020. That ballot measure to eliminate the department and fold it back into Public Works is called Prop. B, and it’s strongly opposed by labor unions,

Which leads us to the shitty political ad above, which is now being dumped into mailboxes all over town. “Don’t kill the Dept. of Sanitation!,” the ad declares, alongside comical but highly charged images of a pile of poop (complete with a fly) and a syringe. The above-named CleanStreetsNow.com website cleverly places a rat next to its Mohammed Nuru-referencing “FBI Idictments [sic] for Bribes” section.

And well, well, well, the fine print on the back of the ad tells us that the No On B campaign is financed to the tune of $59,228 by San Francisco Laborer’s Local 261 PAC.  

That $59,000 is chump change in this local election. As seen above, the tech-bankrolled YIMBY housing measure Prop. D is rolling in $2 million in donations. Heck, Dede Wilsey wipes poop off the sidewalk with $59,000 checks.

But it is darned curious that every penny of the current $104,929 that No On B has raised is from labor unions. There are a few cropped out in the image above, but the donors are still all labor unions or labor advocacy groups, like San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council Issues Committee and Laborer’s Local 67 PAC.

Yet if their opponent Oversight Done Right, Yes on B were to criticize them for getting all their contributions from special interests, that would be like Eddy Street calling Turk Street “shit-covered.” All of Yes on B’s current $99,499 in contributions comes from large real estate developers, or PR firms that represent real estate developers. Again, the above image crops a few donors out, but there are sizable donations from Boston Properties ($10,000), Seven Hills Properties LLC ($10,000), and the San Francisco Apartment Association PAC ($5,000).

It’s obvious why labor unions want a Department of Sanitation and Streets. More public employees means more dues-paying public-sector union members. But why are developers and their PR firms against the Department of Sanitation and Streets? Are they just trying to cozy up to Mayor Breed, who supports Prop. B? Are they pining for the old Nuru-style “pay-to-play” days to come back?

If you have theories on why the developers don’t want this street cleaning department, feel free to talk shit in the comments below.

Related: Poop Complaints Are Down 30% In the Tenderloin! [SFist]  

Images: Joe Kukura, SFist

This November you will vote on which November will be the time you vote on who will be San Francisco's mayor, as the Board of Supervisors approves Sup. Dean Preston’s ballot measure to move the SF mayoral election to presidential election years.

Below we see District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston at this afternoon’s Board of Supervisors meeting, presenting a chart that shows a striking disparity. The average turnout in odd-year San Francisco elections is a dismal 43%. But turnout in even years, when we elect the president and/or our congressional representatives, is nearly twice that turnout at 80%. Preston wants to change that, and the board agreed, voting 7-4 Tuesday afternoon to approve a November ballot measure where SF voters could potentially move mayoral elections to the same year as presidential elections.

If it were passed, that means we would elect the San Francisco mayor, district attorney, and sheriff in 2024, instead of their currently scheduled dates in the November 7, 2023 election.

“This is a basic civil rights issue, it’s a voting rights issue, and I believe very strongly that our city should be encouraging voter participation, not limiting it,” Preston told the board before Tuesday’s vote. “It is really, I think, shameful that we as a city are part of this dwindling number of cities that cling to odd-year elections.”

Los Angeles and San Jose have already made this change. But more importantly, it addresses the disparity that voters of color vote far less in the odd-year elections; per Preston, Chinese voters had 81% turnout in 2020 compared to 41% in 2019, and for Latinx voters the disparity was even larger, at 82%-32% in those same respective years, “It is the same for all communities of color.” Preston said.

And that’s what motivated Supervisor Ahsha Safai to support this. "We are a city of immigrants, we always have been," Safai said before the vote. Safai, in particular, has always had to run in a presidential election year. “I was never drowned out, in fact, it was a major benefit. I didn’t have to spend any time convincing people to go out and vote. All I had to do was convince them to vote for me.”

Those who voted against Preston's measure objected to the timing, saying it was unfair for people and causes who were already gearing up for November 2023. “Many people, agencies, individuals, have been planning around the notion there would be an election next year,” Supervisor Rafael Mandelman pointed out. “I’m uncomfortable with getting rid of the election next year.”

Despite those objections, moving the mayoral election to 2024 will now be on your November 8, 2022 election ballot. Mayor Breed has opposed the measure (even though it gifts her an extra year in office!). And while it is a charter amendment, it will only require a simple 50%-plus-one majority to pass.

Related: There Could be Four Elections for This Same D-17 State Assembly Seat in 2022 [SFist]

Image: SFGovTV

Your mail-in ballots will start arriving next week (!) and voter guides are already in the mail as yet another election looms, with primary elections for Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi and Alex Padilla, plus eight SF ballot measures, including a DA recall you may have heard about.

Wait, yet another voter guide is now hitting mailboxes? (Yes, SFist received the one seen above today). And early voting starts in just five days, on Monday, May 9? Didn't we just do this barely two weeks ago? We did, and welcome to the election-palooza that is the year 2022 in San Francisco, complete with recalls, and an attempt to recall the recall process.

All the big statewide offices have a primary election that day (governor, senator, etc.) plus U.S. Congress and state Assembly seats. That means Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, and Alex Padilla are all up for primaries, in a top-two primary election that will determine which lamb they will go on to slaughter in the November 8 general election. (Senator Dianne Feinstein, regrettably, does not face an election this year.)

In the state Assembly, freshly elected Matt Haney will essentially run unopposed, though his vanquished April 19 rival David Campos’ name will still appear on the ballot, as will the name of a little-known Republican. Over in the city’s other Assembly district, AD-19, Phil Ting also faces a Republican with little name recognition who might only get a few votes from the Lake Merced area. SF City Attorney David Chiu is also basically unopposed. With respect, the outcomes here seem very predictable.

But lordy, have we got barnburner June 7 ballot measures here in San Francisco. The Chronicle reports on the eight local June 7 ballot measures, many of which are divisive enough that we will likely exceed the low turnout affairs we had in February and April special elections this year. Most of these measures are related to the highly charged issues of recalls, and Mohammed Nuru/Recology scandal fallout.  

Proposition A : Muni Reliability and Street Safety

I cannot for the life of me figure out why tech companies like Lyft, DoorDash, and Salesforce are putting tens of thousands of dollars into Prop A, a Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond measure. Are they just being good citizens now? Is there some profit motive here? I’ll go with the latter! Prop A is a standard sounding Muni upgrade and street redesign bond measure, but being a bond measure, it needs a two-thirds majority to pass.

Proposition B: Building Inspection Commission

This is your second Mohammed Nuru and DBI scandal reform measure (last November we voted for a new public works commission), which was introduced by a gaggle of supervisors, according to the Examiner. If passed, the Examiner explains that “seats on the [Department of Building Inspection] commission designated for specific industries or stakeholder groups would be eliminated. Additionally, a nomination and confirmation process for all nominees would be required as part of the appointment process.”

Proposition C: Recall Timelines and Vacancy Appointments

Here’s an attempt to recall the recall process in San Francisco, or at least tighten it up so we don’t have as much recall-mania. Recall petition campaigns would have to wait until the official were in office for a full year (as opposed to the current six months), and you could not hold a recall election within a year of the next scheduled election for that office-holder’s position. Further, if an official is recalled, the mayor’s replacement would not be allowed to run for that office in its next scheduled election.

Proposition D: Office of Victim and Witness Rights; Legal Services for Domestic Violence Victims

Another City Hall office would be created by this ballot measure from Supervisor Catherine Stefani, which per the Chronicle, would “create a new city office pulling together a range of victims’ services currently spread across multiple departments,” which would act as a “a one-stop shop outside of law enforcement where survivors can go to navigate a currently complicated system.” It would also initiate a pilot program that hopes to provide free legal counsel to domestic violence victims.

Proposition E: Behested Payments

This is another ethics measure in the wake of payment solicitation scandals at City Hall, ahem Nuru. City officials would be banned from seeking donations from contractors who have business before City Hall, even if the official claimed the donation was for something innocuous-sounding like the Lefty O'Doul's Foundation for Kids.

Proposition F: Refuse Collection and Disposal

Recology’s monopoly on waste collection in San Francisco would still remain intact if this local Recology oversight measure were to pass. But there would be more oversight of any future Recology rate hikes, which would have to be approved by the city controller rather than the head of Public Works. Additionally, a Refuse Rate Board would have more powers to regulate rate increases.

Proposition G: Public Health Emergency Leave

Under this paid-leave measure, companies with more than 100 employees would be required to provide up to 80 hours of paid time off. That sounds kind of pandemic-specific, and may not have broader implications once (if?) we ever get finished with COVID-19. But the Chronicle adds that “Members of vulnerable populations who can’t work outside during air quality emergencies — such as an extreme amount of wildfire smoke — would also be eligible.”

Proposition H: Recall Measure Regarding Chesa Boudin

Last but certainly not least controversial, your recall vote on District Attorney Chesa Boudin now has the official ballot name Prop H. You’ve seen plenty of coverage on the topic, and the eyes of CNN, Fox News, and the whole national media apparatus will be following this one closely when the polls close at 8 p.m. PT the night of June 7.

Again, you can vote starting Monday at City Hall, as early voting begins May 9.

Related: Breed Proposes $400 Million Ballot Measure to Make Muni Less Rickety, Hopefully More Reliable [SFist]

Image: Joe Kukura, SFist

"If you can dream it, you can do it," people frequently claim Walt Disney famously said. And when it comes to allegedly aspiring baby blood consumer and Trump-loving billionaire Peter Thiel, his newest dream might be to run the state of California after Jerry Brown's final term ends.

Politico reports that the "diversity"-providing Facebook board member "is considering a 2018 bid for California governor, according to three Republicans familiar with his thinking."

They say he has been "discussing a prospective bid with a small circle of advisers, including Rob Morrow, who has emerged as his political consigliere."

Before you get as excited as I did, we're not talking about the star of Northern Exposure: This Rob Morrow is a one-time staffer at Thiel's Clarium Capital investment management and hedge fund company.

According to Politico, "Thiel has conspicuously yet to rule out a bid and that those around him continue to discuss it," citing his recent insane interview with Maureen Dowd as a sign he's readying himself for the public eye.

But just as Walt Disney didn't actually make that famous inspirational statement after all, Thiel's rumored run at Sacramento might be similarly poppycocked. Noting that "Those who have been in touch with the 49-year-old entrepreneur are skeptical that he’ll enter the race," Politico points out that in July of 2015 Thiel contributed over $56,000 to Gavin Newsom’s 2018 campaign for the seat.

Yes, the same Gavin Newsom who's vigorously opposed Thiel's President Elect bestie via the demagogue's platform of choice and who sent the donations his campaign got from Trump to immigration charities. (A call to the Newsom camp to see if he's kept Thiel's cash was not returned at publication time.)

Needless to say, Thiel wouldn't need any donations for his rumored campaign, as he's worth $2.7 billion and, like previous wannabe CA gov and Meg Whitman, could self-fund. Of course, we all know how things ended for Whitman, with a crushing defeat at the hands of Jerry Brown.

Would Thiel suffer a similar fate to his fellow tech billionaire Whitman? Perhaps she was just ahead of her time, as former Republican Governors Association executive director Phil Cox says that “With Trump's victory, we're going to see even more nontraditional candidates — with backgrounds in business, not politics — enter the political arena.” Then again, entering the arena and emerging triumphant are two very different things...and California might not be ready to be led by a guy who says, apparently sincerely, that "Mr. Trump seems fine."

Previously: In Bizzaro Interview With Maureen Dowd, Peter Thiel Says Fake Wrestling Is Real And No One Cares About The Supreme Court

San Franciscans are reminded this morning that ours is a city in a bubble, and not just the real estate/tech one usually invoked here, but a bubble of the liberal kind we too rarely acknowledge. That reminder came in the form of general election results that were so wildly at odds with (most of) our own votes. But just a bit farther down the ballot was an alphabet of local propositions whose results are pertinent to our bubble today. With all 597 precincts reporting as of 2 a.m. this morning and a local turnout of 513,573 people with 114,000 mail-in and provisional ballots still to be counted by the Department of Elections, here are the results of those.

Proposition A passed, giving the San Francisco Unified School District a $744 million facilities bond. $100 million is slated to be spent on building perhaps two schools in Mission Bay and the Bayview, the Examiner reminds us, and $100 million of it will go toward moving Ruth Asawa School of the Arts to the Civic Center area. Prop A got 79 percent of the vote and needed 55 percent to pass.

Measure B also passed, renewing the existing parcel tax for City College. That's $99 per parcel for 15 years with annual audits and oversight, and it won the two-thirds vote it needed with nearly 80 percent of the vote.

Prop C passed, meaning that $261 million will go toward acquiring and updating at-risk multi-unit housing to create affordable units. Prop C amends a 1992 ballot measure to basically transfer unused bond money from an earthquake-related fund. It needed a two-third majority to pass and got nearly 76 percent of the vote.

The progressive bloc of the Board of Supervisors narrowly lost out with Prop D, which received a "no" vote on changing how the mayor could appoint supervisors to vacant positions. The measure asked if mayoral appointees to the board should just serve as placeholders, not allowed to run for reelection as incumbents. This was one of the measures that moderate board members and former mayors warned of. The decision on D came down to a difference of just a few thousand votes, with about 53% voting "no," meeting the necessary simple majority.

The city will once again be responsible for maintaining trees and sidewalks with the passage of Measure E. That responsibility had shifted from the Department of Public Works to local property owners in 2011, but trees will be spoken for by the city by July, with $19 million set aside by the measure. This won't affect taxes and was unanimously supported by supervisors and essentially across the board — including with voters, 79 percent of whom said yes to the transfer.

Youth voting in local elections lost as San Franciscans rejected Local Measure F. Apparently people think 16- and 17-year-olds, who had organized to ask for the right, shouldn't vote, because people over the age of 18 are smart and know better than children, having just demonstrated our capacity for reason beyond repute. The "no vote" came narrowly with about 53 percent of the vote. Prop F's goal was to foster a new generation of voters, instilling in them good civic habits and encouraging participation, but like, whatever.

Meet the new Department of Police Accountability (DPA), everybody: measure G passed, renaming the Office of Citizens Complaints and then some. It's not the world's biggest reform, but with nearly 80 percent of voters in favor, it will allow the DPA complete independence from the Police Department to audit and review SFPD policy. The Mayor gets the authority to set the group's budget. The Examiner recalls that the Office of Citizens Complaints has investigated police misconduct for nearly 40 years and was mandated by voters last June to investigate every fatal police shooting in the city.

It was a close call, but we won't be getting a Public Advocate, as voters rejected Local Measure H. The position was proposed by Supervisor Campos and was to be modeled on similar jobs in cities like New York and Seattle. It would have come with an office of 25 people, and it was roundly opposed by the political establishment as the main thrust of a progressive effort to sap power from the Mayor's office. 53 percent of San Francisco voters said "no, thanks" to Prop H, preferring that our existing public advocates just do their jobs, or maybe redouble their efforts to do them.

Local Measure I was passed to set aside $38 million annually from the city's General Fund until 2037 for assistance to seniors and people with disabilities. That's a pretty serious chunk of change, and the Chronicle opposed the proposition, writing that "the money is an untouchable sum that will be cemented into the city charter with yearly adjustments... It limits future financial decisions, should the city want to adjust priorities." 66 percent of voters passed the measure.

Prop J passed, amending the City Charter to give us a Homeless Housing and Services Fund with $50 million per year for 24 years and Transportation Improvement Fund with $101.6 million per year for 24 years. 66 percent of voters who've been counted gave the measure their approval.

That said, Prop J was sorta counting on a boost it won't be getting from Local measure K, which was rejected by voters who didn't want to raise sales taxes. K would have increased those by 0.75 percent to 9.25 percent and buoyed the city's General Fund. It was endorsed by a majority of supervisors and the Chronicle, who point out that our 8.75 percent tax is among the Bay Area's lowest, and would have still been that way even with the modest increase.

MTA appointments and budgets will remain unchanged: Voters rejected Prop L. The Examiner explains that this is a win for the mayor's office, who currently makes all seven appointments to the SFMTA's board. L would have split those appointments, giving some to the Board of Supervisors (another progressive play) and demanded supervisorial approval for others. "No" on L had 55 percent of the votes that have been tallied, leaving the status quo on the SFMTA's board of directors and also not tinkering with voting and budget systems for the SFMTA.

There will be no new Housing and Development Commission thanks to a rejection by voters of the proposed Measure M, a charter amendment. That would have governed two other new commissions, a Department of Economic and Workforce Development and a Department of Housing and Community Development, but like, now it won't though. Progressives wanted it, the Guardian and the Examiner did too, but the Chronicle endorsed a "no" vote, with which 56 percent of voters agreed.

With the passage of Prop N, non-citizen parents and guardians can vote in School Board Elections, even if their 16- and 17-year old kids can't. 52 percent of voters said "yes" on N, which some critics worry isn't on firm legal ground and could wind up in court.

Prop O passed to exempt Candlestick Point/Navy Shipyard office space from existing city limits. In the Chronicle's editorial, the paper writes that "Prop. O is less a reflection of the shipyard project than it is a reflection of how tangled San Francisco’s development policies are," calling the office space "once-in-a-lifetime," meaning it should be spared the usual annual limit on ew office space, which is 950,000 square feet. This is all part of a plan for a new Bayview neighborhood, and with 52 percent approval for the office development exemption at Candlestick Point/Hunters Point, it looks closer to reality.

A 67 percent "no" vote means that Prop P has failed, and the city won't be forced to get at least three proposals for affordable housing projects on City property. The SF Tenants Union and the SF Democratic Party led the opposition to Measure P, which was supported by Supervisors Farrell and Tang and backed by a realtor PAC — the idea there being that realtors might benefit from a system that put up more barriers to affordable housing, which would incentivize market-rate and luxury construction projects. Shady, and shot down.

San Francisco will expressly prohibit tents on sidewalks, providing for their removal with 24-hour notice and an offer of shelter: Prop Q passed, a highly politicized take on the city's homeless epidemic. The proposition was criticized as cruel and unfair by homeless advocates, who — far from condoning tents on streets — saw the measure as redundant with existing sit-lie laws and an effort to criminalize homeless people's attempts to shelter themselves. Backed by wealthy tech interests in an effort to promote Prop Q's proponent Supervisor Farrell, Prop Q was also backed by Supervisors Cohen, Farrell, Tang, and Wiener. Capitalizing on citizens who are concerned by the recent visibility of tent encampments, Measure Q appears to have won with a 53 percent majority.

Prop R failed, meaning that there won't be a Neighborhood Crime Unit which was proposed by Supes Wiener, Cohen, Tang, and Farrell to create a single command with a mandatory minimum staff to investigate low-level crimes like vandalism and car break-ins. Such duties are currently split across multiple SFPD units, and they'll stay that way because voter's shot down Measure R with a 54 percent "no" vote.

62 percent of voters indicated their support for Measure S, which passed would channel our 8 percent base tax on hotel room rentals toward arts programs and homeless services. Correction: Measure S failed to meet the two-thirds threshold it needed, so it didn't pass. The Chronicle counseled voters against S, specifically dedicating some of the annual millions from our overall 14 percent hotel tax, writing that "Given the other San Francisco ballot measures seeking to dedicate revenue to homeless services — Proposition J, a $50 million homeless service set-aside for 24 years, and Proposition K, the sales tax increase that proponents say will be partly invested in homeless housing — yet another dedicated revenue stream is unwarranted, especially when the city is in the process of an overall assessment of its homeless programs." Well, Prop K failed, sooo....

T passed, restricting gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists. Lobbyists, you're on notice — 87 percent of voters wanted to impose limits on y'all, meaning that you can't make campaign contributions to local elected officials or bundle those contributions somehow.

Prop U failed — The amount of income people can make and still qualify for subsidized housing won't change. The income eligibility limit for rental units in affordable housing units in market-rate development projects would have been upped to 110 percent of area median income under Prop U, which was backed by the Board of Realtors. The Chronicle cautioned in an editorial that Measure U "will only worsen tensions because a larger pool of housing hunters will be competing for a very limited supply" while more units won't necessarily be created, and voters agreed, rejecting U with a roughly 65 percent "no" vote.

Soda and sugary beverages will be taxed at one cent per ounce because Prop V passed. About 62 percent of voters in San Francisco approved the measure, smeared by the soda industry as a "grocery tax." It's a rebuke to the massive spending Coke, Pepsi, et al. pumped into this election, and with Oakland also joining Berkeley in its soda tax, the Bay Area just delivered a serious blow to sugar-peddlers.

Prop W passed, so the city will increase the transfer tax rate for sale of property, especially on high-end homes, ensuring that city college will be free. It's a tiered system and ups taxes according to properties' worth. The revenue goes to the city's general fund, although supporters intend for the money to go to free City College tuition for all residents. The Examiner calls this a big win after a three-decades long fight to make the college free, and writes that Prop W could bring in $45 million a year. It passed with 61 percent of the vote.

X won, requiring some Mission and SoMa neighborhood developments to preserve neighborhood arts, business, and community services. Developers will have to replace certain types of zoned spaces if they're demolished for new development, as 60 percent of local voters mandated by voting yes on X.

Related: SF Candidate Races: Ronen Crushes Arce In D9, Other VIctories Far Tighter

My boss @Scott_Wiener speaking at his election night party. "If Trump wins, we have to fight." pic.twitter.com/ND5natHRVF

— Rashad Alaiyan (@rashadalaiyan) November 9, 2016

Supervisor Scott Wiener is celebrating a hard-fought victory today after narrowly defeating his rival Supervisor Jane Kim in a highly contested race for the District 11 state Senate seat. While The Examiner reported last night that the race was too close to call, the LA Times was able to make the call early this morning. The not yet finalized election tally has Wiener winning 142,059 votes to Kim's 128,431.

The race between the two shaped up to be the most expensive local assembly race in history, and was a nail-biter from the start. Kim actually eked out a tiny lead in the primary, making it clear that it would be close regardless of who ended up winning. The LA Times reports that outside groups (like strip clubs) spent close to $3.6 million on the race — with business groups backing Wiener and unions supporting Kim.

The campaign's occasional lighthearted moments, like when the two candidates played Pokemon Go, were mostly overshadowed by the bitter ones. Wiener's rejection of Kim's efforts to get him to pledge to run a campaign devoid of negative advertising, for example, was more typical of the race's tenor.

And despite the win, Wiener doesn't appear to be celebrating. Instead, he seems just as shell shocked at the election of Donald Trump as the rest of us. "Bitter-sweet night," he tweeted early this morning before the race had been called. "I'm up 5 points w votes to count & optimistic. Yet U.S. elected crazed president & right-wing Congress. We must fight."

“I’m deeply depressed about what’s happening in the country,” the Ex reports him as adding.

Wiener will take the seat of outgoing state Senator Mark Leno. As for what happens right here at home? Because Prop D appears to have lost, Mayor Ed Lee will need to appoint a replacement to fill the soon-to-be vacated District 8 Supervisor seat of Wiener. As Wiener was considered a moderate, and Mayor Lee will likely replace him with one, the balance of the board will not change because of Wiener's election to state Senate.

Related: Jane Kim Beats Scott Wiener In Pokémon Go Contest

In a post-election landscape where nearly all local victories has been eclipsed by the results of the presidential election, it might be hard to gin up the energy to care who won San Francisco's contested seats. But the world continues to turn, the sun just rose, and votes continue to be counted in all the SF races (Update: as of 10 a.m., the DoE says they have about 114,000 uncounted). Here are the current results for San Francisco candidates seeking local roles, including those on the Board of Supes, CCSF and the SFUSD Boards, and more.

District 1
With a current count of 38.61% of the vote, Sandra Lee Fewer appears to have beaten Marjan Philhour (35.53%) for the seat being vacated by Eric Mar.

District 3
Incumbent Aaron Peskin has currently nabbed 73.02% of the vote. He's not going anywhere.

District 5
Incumbent and current Board of Supervisors President London Breed appears to be hanging on to her seat, beating challenger Dean Preston with a current 53.42% to his 46.58%.

District 7
Incumbent Norman Yee handily bested SF Examiner columnist Joel Engardo, with a current 39.38% of the vote to the scribe's 21.5%.

District 9
Hillary Ronen, who before the election was perhaps best known as current D9 Supe David Campos' legislative aide, appears to have slid into her departing boss's job with a current 57.14% of the vote. Joshua Arce came in at a distant second with 30.65%.

District 11
Ahsha Safai appears to have triumphed in a tight and expensive race against Kimberly Alvarenga, with a current 38.81% of the vote over her 32.17%.

Besides those races, there's the matter of D8 Supe Scott Wiener's seat. Though the race is remarkably tight, the LA Times this morning declared him the winner, so he will be replaced by an appointee chosen by Mayor Ed Lee. So the makeup of the next BoS still remains unclear for now.

And in other SF candidate races:

Superior Court Judge, Seat 7
SF Police Commissioner Victor Hwang has easily bested former prosecutor Paul Henderson, with a current 63.77% of the vote (143,341 votes) over Henderson's 36.23% (81,426 votes).

SFUSD Board
A mix of new and incumbent candidates sought the four seats available in SF's Board of Education. Based on current results, that means that longtime board member Jill Wynns is out, coming in fifth behind incumbent President Matt Haney (a current 119,763 votes for 18.84%), former board president Mark Sanchez (106,744 votes for 16.79%), newcomer Stevon Cook (102,506 votes for 16.12%) and current board member Rachel Norton (89,756 votes for 14.12%).

CCSF Board of Trustees
The vote is close on the four available seats on this board, so brace for possible changes. But at present it appears that voters' top pick is former Student Trustee Shanell Williams (a current 129,291 votes for 23.53%). Next is Board President Rafael Mandelman (122,131 votes for 22.23%), current board member Alex Randolph (107,720 votes for 19.6%) and newcomer Tom Temprano (96,743 votes for 17.61%).

BART Board
BART's new rep in their District 9 (which covers much of SF) is Bevan Dufty, with a current 63,576 vote count for 61.1% of the vote. In District 7, which includes portions of Alameda, Contra Costa counties as well as a southwestern piece of San Francisco counties, Lateefah Simon came out on top with a current 47.78% of the vote.

Again, though these counts are based on results from all SF precincts at their last count at 2 a.m., SF Department of Elections John Arntz warns that there are still about 114,000 ballots left to count. So for especially close races, the game might not be over yet...but for most, the writing is on the wall.

@SFist Marina at 7:30 this morning. #ElectionDay #IVOTED pic.twitter.com/DDviCyFu9V

— KWolf (@Wolfkenn) November 8, 2016

Though early voting was at an all time high in San Francisco this year, that doesn't mean that your polling place will be empty but for some tumbleweeds. With a voter turnout as high as 80 percent predicted in some Bay Area cities and a long-ass set of state and local propositions to connect the lines on, lengthy lines of folks eager to cast their votes are expected. So, to all you day-of voters — have you ventured out to vote yet today? What was it like?

"San Francisco polling places citywide are open for voters from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m." today, SF's Department of Elections reminded the media in an email sent this morning. And if you arrive at 7:59 p.m., don't worry, as "any voter who is in line when the polls close at 8 p.m. is allowed to vote," they say. Just make sure you're in the right line, and confirm the location of your polling place at sfelections.org/pollsite or by calling (415) 554-4375.

All voters, regardless of voting place, can also cast their ballot at the City Hall Voting Center on the ground floor of City Hall. Early voters who still haven't mailed their ballots can also drop theirs off at the DoE's Ballot Drop-off Stations outside the entrances to City Hall or at any SF polling place. (You can still mail them, too, but they need to be postmarked with today's date and arrive by Monday November 14.)

The DoE tells the Chron that "More than 30 percent of registered voters in San Francisco have already submitted their ballot, the highest percentage of early voting in the city’s history." By Sunday night, 154,007 of the city's 513,444 registered voters had already sent theirs in. 345,575 total vote-by-mail ballots were issues, they say.

"I think we'll have the second highest number of people voting in the city's history in this election, November 2008 was the highest," DoE director John Arntz told ABC 7, with 81 percent voting that year.

Arntz tells the Chron that he expects turnout to "be above 73 percent but I don’t know if it gets to 81 percent."

Preliminary local election results will start rolling out at 8:45 tonight, with updates ongoing until the races are called. You have a multitude of options to follow the SF race, the DoE writes:

sfelections.org - all results reports will be posted on the Department’s website, with a link to statewide results on the Secretary of State’s website

San Francisco Government Television - SFGTV, Channel 26, will report summary results throughout the night as a banner during SFGTV programming

City Hall, North Light Court - a large screen will display SFGTV programming that will show summary results; printed copies of the summary results reports will be available at approximately 8:45 p.m., with updates available at approximately 9:45 p.m., 10:45 p.m., and 11:30 p.m.

Department of Elections, City Hall, Room 48 - printed copies of results reports will be available at the Department’s front counter (due to their length, the preliminary Statement of the Vote will not be printed).

On Twitter @sfelections and Facebook.com/sfelections

But I'm getting ahead of myself — right now, I'm wondering what things are like on the ground for voters casting ballots in their local polling places. How was it where you voted? Tell your tale in the comments, drop me a line, or send pictures (no ballot selfies, please! Keep it legal!) to eve@sfist.com, and I'll continuously update this report with what I'm hearing.

Related: Here's What You Need To Know Before Voting For The Dozens Of State And Local Propositions

[Update: This post has been updated with additional detail on whether you can keep a pot plant on your front porch.]

Fans (and foes!) of marijuana, soda, cigarettes, plastic bags, and pornography have a lot riding on Tuesday’s election. But if measures regulating or deregulating these particular vices are passed, it’s a little unclear and inconsistent when the various measures take effect.

While some of the state measures take effect “immediately” (midnight on November 9), the reality is that each of the 58 counties in California has to send certified election results to the Secretary of State before the results are official. In a close election, some of these certifications might be delayed by a few days. But we’ve compiled this list of when various high-profile local or state ballot measures would take effect, if passed.

When The Soda Tax Would Go Into Effect
Let’s begin with the only City of San Francisco measure on this list, but the one that probably affects the most of us. If passed, the one-cent-per-ounce tax on soda and sugary beverages Measure V would go into effect on January 1, 2018 according to the controller’s statement in the SF Elections Voter Guide. So we have a little while!

When Recreational Marijuana Would Go Into Effect
Since the Prop. 64 Adult Use Of Marijuana Act is a state measure, you would indeed be able to toke right up the day after the election was certified or even put that marijuana plant on your front porch. (CORRECTION: According to the text of Prop. 64, your marijuana plant must be "locked and not visible from a public place".)

However! You would still need a California medical marijuana card to buy from a cannabis dispensary, as they are only licensed to sell medical marijuana. "Adult use sales would commence Jan. 1, 2018, contingent on local government licensing," according to a statement from CA NORML (and several dispensaries I visited with my expired card).

But you are not going to be able to buy weed at your local corner store. “Californians would be able legally to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and smoke it the minute they wake up on Nov. 9,” the San Jose Mercury News reports, but “it may be as late as 2018 before additional pot sellers are licensed to sell it under Prop. 64.” So, don't get too excited about Budz 'R' Us opening on your block just yet.

When the Cigarette Tax Would Go Into Effect
The California Tobacco Tax Increase known as Prop. 56, which would slap on extra $2 tax on every pack of cigarettes sold in the state, would not go into effect until April 1, 2017 if passed.

When the Condoms in Porn Measure Would Go Into Effect
This one’s a little complicated. If passed, the Prop. 60 Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative would take effect immediately after the election is certified (November 9th, or later depending on how close the vote is). But there’s a whole new set of regulations that Cal/OSHA is going to have to determine, and they haven’t even started.

“The Proposition provides that Cal/OSHA will make new regulations consistent with the vague and ambiguous Proposition,” business attorney Karen Tynan said. “That's future regulations to be implemented in addition to this law.”

When the Plastic Bag Ban Would Go Into Effect
The proposed Prop. 67 statewide ban on single-use plastic bags, technically known as the Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum, would immediately go into effect at Midnight on November 9 or as soon as the election was certified.

However! If the Prop. 65 Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund also passes, you would be able to buy a plastic bag and the money would go to “a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board”.

Related: Will San Francisco Burn On Tuesday No Matter Who's President?

This year’s election has not yet even taken place yet, but we already have a chorus conspiracy theories claiming that the process will be rigged and a presidential candidate who’s threatening to not accept the election’s results. The roster of most frequently bandied-about voter fraud theories includes illegal immigrants voting, people voting “eight and ten times” in “the inner cities”, and even secret collusion with the Russians to hack voting machines.

“Child’s play!” chortles the City and County of San Francisco, while throwing uncounted ballots into the ocean, calculating the votes of dead people, and air-dropping Ron Conway election guides about town via Airbnb-branded drone delivery. San Francisco is not quite on the corruption echelon of Chicago, New Orleans, and New York, but we’ve certainly got a colorful history of Election Day chicanery spanning the last few decades.

“Every election I’ve ever participated in has included a suspicion of shady doings,” Willie Brown wrote in the Chronicle this weekend, with words that surprise absolutely no one. Brown’s Sunday column is an interesting read, harkening back to the ‘good old days’ when free meals and bus rides were considered fair-play voter turnout efforts. But a few vote fraud scandals stand out, as San Francisco history shows a regular pattern of election irregularities.

Image: Poster by Judith Selby Lang and Richard Lang

Ballot Boxes In The Bay (2001)
Who could forget the infamous “ballot boxes in the Bay” incident off 2001? The above image of a San Francisco ballot box lid comes from artists Judith Selby Lang and Richard Lang of Marin County, who found the lid while combing Kehoe Beach in 2001. Ballot box lids were found floating in the San Francisco Bay at 7 different spots following the 2001 election. At the time, the SF Elections Department insisted that though “they made a regrettable error in accidentally letting the lids wash into the bay, no ballots were ever endangered” according to the Chronicle.

Similarly in 2010, a poll worker stole 75 ballots plus a voter roster and a ballot machine access key. The ballots were recovered from a lagoon at the Palace of Fine Arts.

I See Dead People Voting (2012, But Probably Every Year)
The phenomenon of votes being cast in the name of dead people is not just a San Francisco thing, and SF stacks up pretty well at preventing this relative to the other most populous California counties. A 2012 NBC Bay Area investigation found 25,000 dead people still on the California voter rolls, with 365 in San Francisco alone. That sounds like a lot! But that’s just the overlap of dead people with existing, non-updated voter rolls. It doesn’t contain much evidence that real votes were actively cast in the deceased people’s names. The NBC Bay Area analysis found “nearly a dozen cases of potential voter fraud” out of those 25,000 dead people whose names remained on voter rolls. In other words, dead people are indeed voting in California — in about .00048% of the cases in which their names remain on the rolls.

Asshole Trump surrogate Rudy Guiliani recently said on CNN that "dead people generally vote for Democrats rather than Republicans." But there is no evidence that this .00048% of dead peoples’ votes tends to skew to the Democratic party. Existing evidence from a Los Angeles County analysis of real votes cast in dead peoples’ names found that “86 were registered Republicans, 146 were Democrats”. We have no idea how these stiffs’ votes were actually cast, but that party identification sample is consistent with Los Angeles County party registration.

Image: HomeSpot HQ via Flickr

Microwaved Ballots (1997)
San Francisco poll workers cooked the 1997 ballot results in a microwave oven. This actually happened, people.

There was a terrible rainstorm the night of the 1997 San Francisco election. “In order to get [the ballots] dry, they were sticking them in the little office microwave at the Department of Elections, and actually cooking the ballots,” political consultant Jim Ross told The Examiner.

Image: kellinahandbasket via Flickr

Incorrect Absentee Ballots (2016, 1995)
Roughly 1,400 registered Democratic voters were sent the wrong absentee ballot for this past June’s primary, a snafu caught by the SF Examiner. Similarly, the Chronicle reports that in 1995 “Thousands of people who requested absentee ballots got the wrong ballots and voting books in a hotly contested [Willie Brown vs. Frank Jordan] mayoral election. The Department of Elections scrambled to send out the right information.”

Image: Nancy Wong - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

Jim Jones Busing In Out-Of-Town Voters (1975)
The “Donald Trump of his era” Rev. Jim Jones was alleged to have bused in hundreds of non-San Franciscans in 1975 to help his political allies George Moscone, Joseph Freitas, Harvey Milk, and — who’d have guessed? — state assemblyman Willie Brown win their local elections. “When Jones wanted someone elected, he got them elected," ex-People’s Temple member Wanda Johnson told the New York Times in 1978, though the Times also notes that “some of the candidates Mr. Jones backed were defeated.”

Image: Elvert Barnes via Flickr

Recanvas of 324,000 Votes (2000)
San Francisco had its own fucked-up footnote to the infamously contested Bush-Gore election of 2000. The-Secretary of State Bill Jones found “significant and substantial irregularities” in every single San Francisco precinct that year, and the LA Times noted that he “stopped short of calling the discrepancies fraud, but described them as the most serious he has ever seen." A runoff election was called to recanvas 324,000 votes.

Image: Commonwealth Club via Flickr

Chinatown Vote Fraud in Both of Mayor Lee's Wins (2011, 2015)
Ed Lee’s election as mayor in 2011 was marred by allegations that elderly voters were having their absentee ballots filled out for them by poll workers at a Chinatown voting station. The exact same allegation popped up in 2015, though on neither occasion was malfeasance proven.

And as discussed yesterday, Mayor Lee’s name has been floated as a possible cabinet pick should Hillary Clinton with the presidency of the United States.

Related: ACLU Sues California To Remove Ban On Ballot Selfies

So maybe you don't work at one of the (at publication time) 313 startups that will be giving employees the day off to vote. That doesn't mean you're completely denied the state-mandated benefit of paid time off to cast your ballot — that is, if you get on the ball and ask for it.

Per California Elections Code Section 14000:

(a) If a voter does not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote at a statewide election, the voter may, without loss of pay, take off enough working time that, when added to the voting time available outside of working hours, will enable the voter to vote.

(b) No more than two hours of the time taken off for voting shall be without loss of pay. The time off for voting shall be only at the beginning or end of the regular working shift, whichever allows the most free time for voting and the least time off from the regular working shift, unless otherwise mutually agreed.

(c) If the employee on the third working day prior to the day of election, knows or has reason to believe that time off will be necessary to be able to vote on election day, the employee shall give the employer at least two working days' notice that time off for voting is desired, in accordance with this section.

You got that? As long as you tell your manager two full business days before November 8 (so, basically, today) that you need time off to vote, you can come in two hours late or leave two hours early without cutting into your PTO or losing your hourly pay.

Of course, you probably knew this already, as section 14001 mandates that "Not less than 10 days before every statewide election, every employer shall keep posted conspicuously at the place of work, if practicable, or elsewhere where it can be seen as employees come or go to their place of work, a notice setting forth the provisions of Section 14000." So that's already posted somewhere in your place of employment, right? Ha ha.

These rules "apply to all public agencies and the employees thereof, as well as to employers and employees in private industry," 14002 says, so your boss can't claim that you can't duck out because your company is small, or technically based in the Caymans, or whatever.

Of course, many of you probably vote absentee, so you don't need time off work to vote. But, you guys, it's two free hours. So unless you've marched around self-righteously proclaiming that you are sooooooo efficient because already mailed in your ballot, those two free hours are yours for the taking. Your secret is safe with me.

Previously: To Encourage Voting, Over 100 Startups Will Give Employees Election Day Off