A proposed measure backed by two Southern California Republicans would require voters to use identification at the polls and by mail, and local election officials would be expected to regularly verify voter rolls.

The proposed state constitutional amendment authored by Assembly Member Carl DeMaio of San Diego and state Senator Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach would require voters to present a government-issued ID at polling places, matching current registration requirements, as the Chronicle reports.

Mail-in voters would need to write the last four digits of that ID on their ballot envelope. The measure would also require election officials to verify that voter rolls include only US citizens and report annually on citizenship confirmation rates.

Supporters reportedly submitted more than 962,000 valid signatures, exceeding the 874,461 required to qualify for the November ballot. According to the New York Times, a campaign committee backing the measure reported collecting over 1.3 million signatures and raising nearly $9 million, with donations from high-profile backers including billionaire twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss and Nicole Shanahan, who was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s running mate in the 2024 presidential election.

DeMaio said the measure is aimed at restoring trust in elections and improving accountability, citing concerns about outdated voter rolls and lack of citizenship verification, per the Times. A UC San Diego survey found 60% of respondents said they believe votes will be counted accurately in this year’s midterms, down from 77% after the 2024 presidential election.

Democrats and voting rights advocates say the proposal could make it harder for eligible Californians to vote, particularly people of color and low-income residents. Jenny Farrell of the League of Women Voters of California said it would create new barriers, raise privacy concerns, and add unnecessary costs.

Angelica Salceda of the ACLU of Northern California said ID requirements would disproportionately affect students, people with disabilities, and elderly voters who may not have current identification, per the Chronicle. Richard Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, said most voters have some form of identification, but the measure’s proof-of-citizenship requirements could create added burdens for election officials, as the Times reports.

President Donald Trump has tied federal wildfire aid for California to the adoption of voter ID requirements and limits on mail-in voting. Trump has also been pushing Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register, mandate photo ID at the polls, and penalize officials who fail to enforce the rules. The Chronicle reports that the bill passed the House but is unlikely to clear the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

On the state level, Florida lawmakers approved a voter registration law set to take effect next year, while an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship was partially blocked by the US Supreme Court, which reportedly allowed voters without documentation to still participate in federal elections.

DeMaio’s proposal stops short of changing registration requirements but would require ongoing citizenship verification of voter rolls and annual reporting by state election officials. He argued current rolls are outdated and rely too heavily on self-attestation, per the Chronicle.

According to the Associated Press, studies have found very few cases of non-citizens voting. Reviews in several states between 2016 and 2022 identified fewer than 50 such cases per state out of tens of millions of ballots cast, while a Brennan Center analysis of 23.5 million votes in the 2016 election found 30 suspected instances.

Image: Assembly Member Carl DeMaio/Facebook

We've got a long way to go before Caltrain's first electric train cars hit the tracks — until 2021, at least. But like that person on a house flipping show who starts picking out bathroom tile before they manage their new property's need for new piping and insulation ("but tile is funnnnnn" that person inevitably whines), Caltrain is hoping you'll ignore worries over funding and infrastructure to help them pick out the colors for their new seats.

It came via Twitter, the news that "The Time Has Come To Choose Your Seat." The options, to be voted on by interested parties here, are a thrilling blue headrest/teal piping combo and a dark grey/red piping option. In both cases, the majority of the seat would be grey.

Voters had better pick something they think they'll still be into several years from now, as from a ceremonial groundbreaking ceremony for the $1.98 billion project Friday, the Chron reports that "new rail cars are scheduled to start arriving in 2019, and the electrified trains are expected to start running by 2021."

Funding for the project was so imperiled earlier this year that Caltrain launched an online petition intended to allow citizens to urge their representatives to support the project, after California's Republican delegation had convinced the Trump administration to block funding for the project.

Led by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the delegation "opposed the grant because they said it would help the state’s high-speed-rail project, which they are trying to stop," the Chron reports. In May, the Federal Transit Administration pushed past those objections, agreeing to supply the $647 million needed to get the electrification show on the road.

The new electric cars, Caltrain says, "will have two main levels with between 85 and 100 seats per car. There will be some flip seats, in addition to the regular fixed seats. Most seats will face one direction and if there are any seats facing each other, there will be a table in the middle. There will be one bathroom per train." I'm already looking forward to the toilet paper poll!

Previously: It's Come To This: Caltrain Launches Online Petition In Effort To Save Electrification Plan

@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

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

If you don't Instagram it, did it really happen? By that logic, if you don't snap a photo of your ballot and post it on social media, does your vote even count?

Yes, of course it does, and maybe cool it with the constant photos. Still, the drive to document and share your civic engagement is real, and cool, and according to free speech advocates, a right protected by the First Amendment.

That thinking, however, is at odds with California law, which currently bans taking photos of marked ballots. Such is also the case in 18 states according to the Associated Press, and six others ban photography in polling places but allow photos of mail-in ballots.

While acknowledging that California doesn't actively enforce the ban — you've probably seen a lot of early voters violate it already with a Facebook post this election season — the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the state of California this week in federal court in San Francisco seeking an injunction to legally block the state from enforcing it. And yes, the litigation includes the colloquialism “ballot selfies.”

“People increasingly use photographs of their marked ballot as a way to express their support for candidates and issues,” senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Northern California Michael Risher said in a statement. “This is core political speech at the heart of the First Amendment.”

The suit names California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who has issued a statement on the matter. As he points out, a law allowing for ballot photography has already been passed by state legislature and signed into law, but it doesn't go into effect in time for this election. "I agree that this outdated law needs reform," he writes. "That’s why I supported AB 1494 — passed this year by the legislature and signed into law by the governor — allowing voters to take ballot selfies starting January 1, 2017.”

According to the AP, Padilla's office believes a late change would potentially result in "voter and poll worker confusion, delays at the polls, and inconsistent interpretation of the law at the thousands of polling locations across the state.” A judge will hear arguments in the case today, and Padilla says he's ready to stand behind whatever outcome. “My office stands ready to comply with any decision handed down by the court on this matter," he writes. "In the meantime, voters can still take a selfie of their ‘I Voted’ sticker.” Hey, that doesn't count!

Related: SF Billionaire Activist Tom Steyer Officially Becomes Biggest Spender In 2016 Election

Although it may be months before you're breathing clearly again and the PTSD subsides, this year's election season only goes on for a finite amount of time and will soon be coming to a close. That's right, in just over two short weeks you will be able to cast your ballot for a huge number of local and state measures (and of course the President) and then hopefully take at least a short break from thinking about this madness — if you're registered to vote, that is. If you're not, then you should know today is the last day you can register to vote in California for the November 8 election, and it's actually pretty easy to do so.

First, and perhaps quickest for those with internet access, you can register to vote online. The forms are available in a number of different languages, and with only five simple steps you can go from unregistered to a certified participant in our representative democracy in a snap. Don't have a computer? Use your smartphone. Don't have a smartphone? The SF Library lets you go online for free.

If, for whatever reason, you can't or don't want to register online (let's say there's a problem with the internet, for example), you can still register the old fashioned way. CBS 5 reminds us that paper registration forms can be picked up at the library, the DMV, the post office, or the county election office.

After you get that form and fill it out, make sure it's postmarked by today — otherwise the powers that be won't accept it.

OK, pretty easy, right? But what if you don't know if you're registered or not? There's a quick way to check that out online, so you have no excuse to show up on election day only to find out you're not on the voter rolls.

Once that's taken care of you might as well go ahead and vote. You can do so early at City Hall well in advance of election day itself. So get registered, remind your friends to get registered, and then get your voting in early. If only deciphering all the local ballot measures was that easy.

Related: Startup VotePlz Is Registering #Millennials By Printing Their Forms And Sending Them Stamps

At least 100 technology startups and venture capitol companies — many of which are run by signatories of an open letter opposing presidential candidate Donald Trump — have vowed to give employees November 8, 2016 off in an effort to encourage them to vote.

Bloomberg reports that the effort was started by Hunter Walk, a former Second Life, YouTube, and Google staffer turned venture capitalist.

Walk, who along with 145 other high-profile tech execs and investors signed a July 14 open letter to Trump that said the candidate "campaigns on anger, bigotry, fear of new ideas and new people, and a fundamental belief that America is weak and in decline."

"We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year," the letter reads, "and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation...We stand against Donald Trump’s divisive candidacy and want a candidate who embraces the ideals that built America’s technology industry."

Some state laws mandate that businesses must offer employees paid time off to participate in elections, with numerious stipulations. None allow the latitude these companies say they'll offer, with as much as the full day allowed for employees to cast their ballots.

By getting his fellow bosses to offer employees the day off, Walk says, he hopes to encourage "the tech industry to be literate as citizens.” And so far, his fellow employers have agreed, with 100 companies (as of publication time) adding themselves to a Google Doc listing companies that have vowed to give employees "as much time as they need" off to vote.

You'll see some company names on both the anti-Trump letter and the day-off list, including Wikipedia and Walk's own Homebrew. Other listed companies, like Thrillist and Flexport, have CEOs that have been vocal regarding their distaste of Trump, with the former's head tweeting in June that "The ones who stand up and stop Trump will be remembered," and the latter's CEO saying that if he's known that company investor Peter Thiel "was going to back Trump, he might not have accepted his funding," Techcrunch reported last month.

According to Walk, business leaders are joining the list either directly through the Google doc or by tweeting their commitment @hunterwalk.

"Given the stark choices," in this year's presidential campaign, Walk told Bloomberg, "people are activating themselves more so than in the past." And based on his and his colleagues' open letter to the Republican candidate, it's clear that many in Silicon Valley are hopeful that on November 8, their staffers will take the day to activate themselves toward Hillary Clinton and away from the Republican candidate.

Were you one of the roughly 185,000 people that, according to the SF Department of Elections, voted in San Francisco yesterday? If so, when you entered the voting booth you were presented with a host of state and local propositions that could potentially have a huge impact on everything from police accountability to affordable housing. Let's take a look at the results.

Proposition A — Public Health and Safety Bond (Passed)
Passing with just shy of 80 percent of the vote, local measure A means San Francisco will issue $350 million in general obligation bonds with the multifaceted goal of making seismic improvements to both SFFD buildings and homeless service centers, and building an ambulance deployment center. This measure easily cleared the two-thirds majority of votes threshold it needed to pass.

Proposition B — Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund (Passed)
San Franciscans loves their parks, and despite recent apparent missteps, it appears they also love the Recreation and Parks Department. Local measure B, which give Rec and Parks "each year a minimum baseline amount from the General Fund," passed with 60 percent of the vote and means more money for the department. The Chron informs us that the measure amounts to a $3 million increase, per year over the next ten years, on top of Rec and Parks' current $64 million budget.

Proposition C — Affordable Housing Requirements (Passed)
Prop C was a local measure designed to "increase affordable housing requirements for private developers of new market-rate housing projects of 25 or more units." With the current requirement at 12 percent, the passing of the measure with over 67 percent of the vote means the amount of affordable housing developers will be forced to build into their units has more than doubled. What's more, the measure removes the requirement from the City Charter and places it in the control of the SF Board of Supervisors — meaning they can now pass ordinances to adjust the percent of affordable housing required in future developments. The measure was written by Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim, and according to the Chronicle ups the 25 percent number to 33 percent if the affordable units are built at a separate location.

Proposition D — Office of Citizen Complaints Investigations (Passed)
With numerous high-profile police shootings in the city's rear-view mirror, the overwhelming passage of local measure D with 80 percent of the vote is perhaps not a huge surprise. The proposition requires that "the Office of Citizen Complaints investigate any incident occurring within the City in which a San Francisco police officer fires a gun killing or physically injuring someone," and was the work of Supervisor Malia Cohen. The Chronicle observes that prior to the passage of this measure, a complaint had to be filed for there to be an investigation. The police union came out in support of this measure.

Proposition E — Paid Sick Leave (Passed)
This local measure brings San Francisco's paid sick leave policy in line with state policy, "without reducing the Paid Sick Leave Ordinance’s coverage." The passage of E expands the legal uses of paid sick leave for San Francisco employees — it passed with 78 percent of the vote.

Proposition 50 — Suspension of Legislators (Passed)
This state measure passed with almost 84 percent of the vote, and allows the state legislature to suspend fellow members — without pay or benefits.

Proposition AA — San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Program (Passed)
The passage of this district measure allows for a parcel tax of $12 per year, with the goal of funding protections for the San Francisco Bay in the form of "reducing trash, pollution and harmful toxins, improving water quality, restoring habitat for fish, birds and wildlife, protecting communities from floods, and increasing shoreline public access." Twenty-five million is expected to be raised annually over the course of the next 20 years.

Related: How Are San Francisco's Homeless Voting Today?

Over the course of the last six months, we've heard a lot about what politicians think of the homeless who live on San Francisco's streets. What we haven't heard so much of, on the other hand, is what those experiencing homelessness think of their elected officials. Well, Vice took the time to ask a few people living on the streets how they'd be voting in today's election, and while unfortunately the questions were limited to the national election and didn't address local politics, the results are still fascinating.

The publication spoke with six different people representing a wide range of backgrounds. There's 51-year-old Christine Saulsbury, a San Francisco native who became homeless after being evicted from her home; 60-year-old Megan Sue Belafonte, who has been homeless since she lost her home six months ago to foreclosure; 39-year-old Allier Rodriguez, who works but can't afford to live in SF and therefor stays in a shelter. These people and others shared with the publication and eloquently spoke of the challenges they face.

In response to a question asking who 58-year-old Linda Jones, a former social worker and current sex worker, believed would best be able to help the homeless, she made her support for Clinton clear. "Hillary," she noted. "Democrats, one of their platforms has always been to help the homeless."

Thirty-nine year old Daniel Aldrich, on the other hand, is a Sanders man. "Even though Sanders may have some different viewpoints than I do, he is trying to reach across the social Grand Canyon in this city," observed Aldrich. "There is no middle class in this city, and there's no bridge in the social gap in this city."

"It's like we're moving toward a caste system," he added. "Sanders would be a representative for homeless people. We're a nation of exiles."

Rodriguez also backs Sanders, noting that he thinks "Sanders will be more for the low-income [people] than Hillary. Hillary seems more mainstream, meaning that if [the] mainstream doesn't think it's cool to help the homeless, then that's what she'll side with."

Galandrahon Shambhala, 29, is backing no one. "Trump, Clinton, Sanders— it's the same thing," he told Vice. "You can't vote for anyone to bring you the salvation you want."

While that may be true, elected city officials do have a say on how the roughly $241 million a year the city spends to combat homelessness is spent — you can bet those living on the streets are paying attention.

Related: Are You Going To Vote Today? Here's What You Need To Know.

Though multiple established news organizations have declared the presidential primary process over and a Trump v Clinton matchup inevitable this November, that's no reason not to get your ass over to your polling place and vote today — after all, there are all sorts of local issues to settle, and by "settle" I do not mean "comment regarding on various local news websites."

If you've somehow managed to avoid all the information on San Francisco's local races, Mission Local has a nice, accessible, and non-endorsey explainer and roundup (this is what I sent my husband this morning) of the local candidates and issues you'll be deciding today. And if you do want endorsements, here's the SF Bay Guardian's (long may they occasionally be revived) list, perfect to either follow or do the diametric opposite of, depending on your sentiments regarding that publication's politics.

San Francisco's polling places are all open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Department of Elections Director John Arntz tells us, suggesting that you check to make sure your polling place before heading out at this link or by calling the DoE at (415) 554-4375.

If it's easier, you can vote at the City Hall Voting Center, which is located on the ground floor of City Hall. (Remember, when you go to City Hall you have to go through a metal detector and submit to a bag search — while it's not as bad as the airport, it can still be a hassle.)

If you're a vote-by-mail person who hasn't managed to get to that "mail" part, you can drop your ballot off at any SF polling place (it doesn't matter if it's your polling place, they'll take it) or at the DoE's Ballot Drop-off Stations, which are located outside both entrances to City Hall. You can still mail the ballots, too, as long as you make sure they they are postmarked with today's date. "Anyone uncertain about whether his or her mailed ballot would reach the Department in time," Arntz says, "is encouraged to instead bring the ballot to the City Hall Voting Center, the Department's Ballot Drop-Off Stations, or any San Francisco polling place before 8 p.m."

If you're a wonk like me, you'll be following the results as they roll in tonight. There are a couple ways to do that — the DoE will start making their reports at 8:45, and posting them to their site. You can also turn on SFGTV (they're online here, and broadcast on cable channel 26) which "will report summary results throughout the night as a banner during SFGTV programming," the DoE says.

If you're really dorky, you can go to City Hall! For every election, the DoE sets up a screen in the North Light Court that will display summary results, and workers will hand out printed copies of results at 8:45 p.m., 9:45 p.m., 10:45 p.m., and 11:30 p.m. (You can also pick up those printed copies at the DoE's front counter, which is in Room 48 of City Hall.)

And, of course, you can follow the DoE at @sfelections on Twitter and on Facebook at Facebook.com/sfelections.

So now I want to know you're voting experience. Are you a (stickerless) mail-in person, or did you head out to your polling place today? What's it like out there?

Related: Mainstream Media Calls Democratic Nomination For Clinton, Outraging Sanders Supporters

As the June election approaches, so does the time of election mailings, campaign fliers, and voter information packets. All that stuff appearing in your mailbox (or hanging from your door) can be infuriating, we know. But you can opt out of a fraction of it (just not the fraction you might prefer)!

Though there have been efforts (the most recent one we can recall was in 2014) to allow San Francisco residents to opt out of mailings from campaigns, worries about First Amendment right tussles likely prevented them from moving forward. So, per our survey from that year, 73.21% of you take those mailings straight "from mailbox to recycling bin, no stops in between."

But what about your voter information pamphlet? While many likely enjoy having the paper copy in hand, receiving that oft-substantial booklet by mail is by no means mandatory. In fact, the Department of Elections encourages you to "Save Paper! Get Your Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot Online!" on their very website.

You can, they say, read everything that would be in the pamphlet online, and if you decide you miss the paper version, you can always restart print delivery "at least 50 days prior to an election."

The deadline to opt out of getting the pamphlet for the June 7, 2016 election is April 18 — opt out after that, and you'll be un-enrolled for the following election.

You can see the DoE's FAQ on ending print delivery here, opt in or out here, and see all the June 7 election information here. Then sit back and bask in the glow of self-righteousness! Sure, the average election might kill over 1400 worth of trees in campaign mailings, but you just saved a couple by getting your voter intel online. Good work!

Previously: Just How Many Trees Have Died For This Year's Election Mailers?
Do You Bother To Read All Those Campaign Mailings?

[h/t ABC 7]

This one goes out to all my election nerd homies! Though we all know what and who won and lost in San Francisco's November 3 election, it wasn't until Thursday evening that SF's Department of Elections certified the final results. Want to take a look at the final numbers? Of course you do!

According to DoE Director John Arntz, his people "applied a SHA-512 cryptographic function to all results reports associated with this election" before "concluding the official canvass of election results" Thursday night. So this is it, kids.

Out of the 446,828 voters registered in SF, 203,069 came out for this election, making for a turnout of 45.45%. Which was better than expected, as only 20-30% was predicted. It's still worse than in presidential election years, though — in 2012, turnout was 72.56%.

2014's abortive soda tax still managed to beat Ed Lee in popularity (55.59% to his 55.3%), but them's the breaks. I'll leave it to SFist commenter Michael Petrelis to tell us if his third-person Disqus campaign was worth the 36 votes.

SF Department of Elections

John Robinson, whose display ads are still running on Geary, did a lot better in the Sheriff's race than I expected!

SF Department of Elections

16,665 is a surprisingly good turnout for the D3 Supe vote, given that only 10,000 or so votes were expected in the extraordinarily expensive race.

SF Department of Elections

And then we have the props! The most interesting thing here is that I guess some people just choose not to vote on some, but marked others? I'm fascinated by this behavior! When I'm in the booth, I sort of feel like "well, hell, I'm already here..." and vote on everything. (Edited to clarify that that I vote even on issues about which I am not particularly passionate, not that I "did not take the time to educate" myself before voting! Geez, man.) But I guess there are several thousand folks who abstained one one or more.

Unsurprisingly, Prop F (that's the Airbnb one) garnered the most votes either way, with 200,293 ballots cast (out of the 203,069 total). H, which got the lowest traffic, was intended to ensure that the energy used in CleanPowerSF is "green." It managed to scare up 184,708 ballots, 148,213 in its favor.

SF Department of Elections

You can see all the final numbers here. Have fun!

Previously: 2015 Election Wrap-up: Peskin In, Mirkarimi Out, Props F And I Go Down

Share a #coke, get #type2diabetes. Instead, #drinkwater ! Stay healthy #truth #SF & #Berkeley #sodatax #yesonE pic.twitter.com/2Sjc7OUMH5

— Janna N Cordeiro (@jncordeiro) October 27, 2014

Though the San Francisco Department of Elections doesn't expect to have the final final count of all votes cast during the November 3 election until the end of today, one number doesn't lie: Mayor Ed Lee is less popular with voters than 2014's controversial (and, ultimately, abortive) proposal to tax sugary beverages.

According to John Arntz, the Director of the DoE, the Department still had "a few hundred cards" to count, but will "complete the tabulation" today. At the latest count, Mayor Ed Lee was hanging onto Room 200 with 105,263 votes cast, for a total of 55.33% of the vote.

In their coverage of a dispute over beverage company rights to sell their wares at San Francisco State (a wonky but interesting issue that's been ably covered by the Golden Gate Xpress for nearly a month), the Chron connects the present issue to Supervisors Scott Wiener and Eric Mar's 2014 proposal to enact a tax of 2-cents-per-ounce to cola and other sugar-fueled beverages.

The soda tax proposal "got 56 percent of the vote in the November 2014 election, but needed two-thirds to win," the Chron points out, saying that "123,475 San Francisco residents voted for the soda tax — nearly 20,000 more than voted for Mayor Ed Lee for re-election," giving the failed tax a slight edge over Lee with 55.59% of the vote.

It's only fair to note that when I looked at the stats for the 2014 election, I saw that the turnout in 2014 was also slightly higher than this year's, with 231,214 total ballots cast compared to this year's current total of 202,914. Plus, Prop E voters only had two choices, compared to mayoral voters' six options (plus write-ins). So maybe the Chron's parallel is less Pepsi Challenge than apples and oranges...but if I were the 1-2-3 folks, I'd be having a Coke and a smile at the comparison.

Californians will now be automatically registered to vote the next time they get their drivers license renewed.

On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB1461, also known as the California New Motor Voter Act, which will automatically have each eligible voter's information sent to the Secretary of State's office when he or she applies for or renews their driver's license or state ID at the DMV. Around 6 to 7 million Californians eligible to vote are not registered, and officials expect this to improve voter participation in the state. "In a free society, the right to vote is fundamental," said Secretary of State Alex Padilla in a statement. "Government should not impede a citizen's right to vote."

Padilla said the new law "will make our democracy stronger by removing a key barrier to voting for millions of California citizens."

Critics say the move is unnecessary and that automatic registration could lead to voter fraud. Applicants will have the option to opt-out when applying for their license or ID card. According to the AP California is the second state in the country to have automatic voter registration, after Oregon passed a bill in March.

The bill has been heavily pushed by voting rights groups like iVote and the Brennan Center for Justice. As HuffPost Politics points out, the United States is one of the few developed countries where the burden is on the voter to register to vote.

"Citizens should not be required to opt-in to their fundamental right to vote," said Padilla. "We do not have to opt-in to other rights, such as free speech or due process. The right to vote should be no different."

The day you've been waiting for is here at last! OK, not really, but there is an election today. Have you voted in what the Chronicle predicted might be "the lowest primary election turnout in state history"? Are you going to?

As of 10 AM, my polling place in the Outer Sunset was free of voters, and it appeared it had been that way all morning (in person voting began at 7 AM). "Maybe they all voted by mail?" my election worker said, hope in her voice.

But it's not too late (assuming you're registered to vote). If you've set to vote by mail, you can drop off those ballots at at any polling place (not just yours) in San Francisco or at City Hall. If you want to vote in person, you can find your polling place here. If you still need an overview of the issues, here's the voter information packet to get you going.

We know you're on the edge of your seat, just dying to know the results of today's races. The early results will be posted at the Department of Elections site at around 8:45, with periodic updates thereafter.

Did you vote in person today? Please do share your tales of polling place thrills and excitement, we're dying to hear them.