Green Revolution on the Golden Gate

Reader mode

big-click

I like this a lot, and I'll keep an eye on it. I haven't come across too many other timelines on here which focus on local and state-level politics.

I'm particularly interested in seeing how the Greens deal with housing, if you end up covering that. San Francisco's probably been the worst casualty of the rising rents and gentrification that are sweeping West Coast cities in OTL - perhaps a new party in power in the mid-2000s will head that off.
 

wilcoxchar

big-sick said:
I like this a lot, and I'll keep an eye on it. I haven't come across too many other timelines on here which focus on local and state-level politics.

I'm particularly interested in seeing how the Greens deal with housing, if you end up covering that. San Francisco's probably been the worst casualty of the rising rents and gentrification that are sweeping West Coast cities in OTL - perhaps a new party in power in the mid-2000s will head that off.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Yeah, I haven't seen many TLs focusing on a more state and local level except for oneshots.

At the moment I'm having trouble finding info on what Matt Gonzalez's housing policy plans were, but I'm definitely going to have the Greens try to tackle the housing issue in San Fran.

Vornado said:
Thanks for writing this. I never see anything written about where I'm from.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you like it so far!
 

bookmark95

Banned
I like this thread a lot. The idea of an influential Green Party is political gold, and you found a very plausible way to make it happen. I'll be watching.
 

wilcoxchar

Accurateworldwar said:
How will Jill Stein fall into this?
Click to expand...
Right now her career probably hasn't changed much so she's still running for the Massachusetts State House in 2004. She probably does have a future running for higher office again, considering she did rather well for a Green in the 2002 gubernatorial election and she'll get at least her OTL 21% in the 2004 State House election.
 

wilcoxchar

Curses, Spoiled Again!
November 4, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC - What a doozy of an election night folks! The dust has finally settled, and the national vote has been decided. While the vote was contentious throughout the night, we can now say for certain that the United States has gone much more favorably for the Republicans and President Bush than expected, with the President securing a much greater electoral college victory than the nailbiter four years ago. And again, it looks likely that the Democrats will place the blame, rightly or wrongly, at the feet of the Green Party and specifically Ralph Nader.

President Bush won a slim majority of the popular vote with over 62 million votes cast for the sitting President, but the electoral college gives the President a much wider margin of victory over his Democratic opponent John Kerry. After a number of states were too close to call going late into the night, worries began circulating that we might be seeing a repeat of 2000 with recounts lasting into the weeks and months. It was not to be, however, and much of the nation can breathe a sigh of relief. Senator Kerry called the President to concede early this morning, as the election count entered its thirtieth hour. The vote was expected to be tight in several states, but the main focuses of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida turned out to not be the tipping points as expected by both campaigns. Rather, it was the Upper Midwest that provided the most excitement of election night. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa proved especially close and flipped between Bush and Kerry throughout the count through the last day and a half. Now, we can confidently project that President Bush has won the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota, while Senator Kerry has taken Iowa. The difference in these states is undoubtedly due to the presence of Green candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in Minnesota and Wisconsin. In both states, Nader received more votes than the difference between Bush and Kerry. In Wisconsin, Nader and the Green Party won just 22,157 votes, but Bush defeated Kerry by just 8,208 votes. In Minnesota, one of Nader's strongest states, Nader more conclusively dragged down Senator Kerry's performance. Nader received 5.2% of the Minnesota vote in 2000, and he was able to retain just under half of that percentage two days ago. Nader received 72,554 votes in Minnesota, while Bush won by a margin of just over 4,500 votes after a thorough count[1]. While there are calls by some Democrats for a recount in Minnesota and Wisconsin, it would not be enough to overturn the election, and Senator Kerry declined to request one. President Bush received 294 electoral votes, while Senator Kerry received 244. Minnesota and Wisconsin would provide Kerry with just 20 of the 26 electoral votes he would need to win the election outright.

While much of the performance by Green candidates Ralph Nader and David Cobb can be said to have hurt Senator Kerry, there is one state where the Green Party has possibly tipped the state to the Democrats. In New Mexico, it is likely that the presence of Peter Camejo on the vice presidential line in the ballot helped to carve some of the Hispanic vote away from President Bush and tip the state in Senator Kerry's favor. The Greens may have also been aided by former lieutenant governor Roberto Mondragon, who briefly campaigned in the state, including making a few appearances with Peter Camejo. Mondragon ran for governor on the Green Party line ten years ago in 1994 and received 10.4% of the vote. It remains one of the best performances by a Green Party candidate in a prominent race. While Nader and Camejo did not do nearly that well this year, only receiving 9,001 votes total in New Mexico, that was still more than the 3,880 vote difference which gave New Mexico's 5 electoral votes to the Democrats.

Additionally, Nader may have had a significant down-ballot effect on Green candidates running in other races. In California, San Diego native Kent Mesplay ran for Senate against incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer and Republican Bill Jones. While Boxer was easily a favorite to win, with Jones running an especially lackluster campaign considering the Republicans occupy the governor's mansion in Sacramento, Mesplay did manage to come in third as the largest minor party in the race. In a crowded field for third, Mesplay received 237,588 votes, finishing ahead of Peace and Freedom candidate Marsha Feinland and Libertarian candidate Jim Gray. Even so, Senator Boxer easily won reelection with 56.19% of the vote. In Alaska, the Green Party performed much better relatively speaking. Senate Jim Sykes, a veteran Green candidate for statewide office in Alaska, ran once again after receiving over 7 percent in the 2002 Senate race. Alaska has been very favorable to the Green Party since its formation, and this election was no exception. Again with Nader and Camejo on the presidential ballot, the Greens won their best result in the presidential race in Alaska at 2.83%. Jim Sykes actually did better than Nader in the Senate race, receiving 3.12% of the vote. Sykes' vote share plus the significant amount of votes for both independent Marc J. Millican and Alaska Independence Party candidate Jerry Sanders helped to tip the balance of a contentious race. Republican Lisa Murkowski, appointed to the Senate in 2002 after her father Frank Murkowski was elected governor, ran for a full term. Challenging Lisa Murkowski was former Democratic governor Tony Knowles. While the seat was ostensibly safe Republican, many voters during the campaign expressed frustration with the appointment of Murkowski to her father's seat and the apparent nepotism involved. Alaska voters' disfavor toward the Murkowskis only grew when Frank broke a campaign promise to not raise taxes as governor, turning what would be a solid Republican Senate seat into a tossup. Ultimately, Alaskans have evidently decided they are growing tired of the Murkowskis, as Democrat Tony Knowles won the Senate election by just 6,020 votes.


United States presidential election, 2004
genusmap.php

George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (R): 294
John Kerry/John Edwards (D): 244

[1] While Bush winning Minnesota may seem strange, the polls going into October in OTL were closer than you might think. From this NYT article from October 15, 2004, "The average of polls in Minnesota shows 45.5 percent for Mr. Kerry, 45.5 percent for Bush and 2.7 percent for Mr. Nader."
 

wilcoxchar

Dick Murphy Wins Reelection But Questions Over Frye Write-in Continue To Cast Doubts
December 7, 2004

SAN DIEGO, CA - Trouble continues to loom for San Diego mayor Dick Murphy as concerns have been raised almost constantly over the past month since the general election in which Mayor Murphy narrowly won reelection. Write-in candidate Donna Frye, a surfer activist and city councilwoman who announced her intent to run in August after the primary and surged in the polls, won over a third of the votes in the general election, turning a two-way election between two Republicans into a hotly contested three-way election. When the final ballot count was returned several days after the election, it appeared that Dick Murphy had won reelection by less than one hundred votes. Mayor Murphy received 156,422 votes. Donna Frye, a Democrat, came in second with a final total of 156,358 votes. County supervisor Ron Roberts, who came in second in the June primary and qualified for the runoff, came in third with 143,067 votes[1]. The difference between Murphy and Frye’s votes came down to a margin of less than 0.02% of the vote, which created much consternation in the past month as the pension scandal continues to deepen.

However, while mayor Murphy’s reelection was officially certified today, big questions remain in the prospects of whether he will actually serve another term as mayor. In the count of the ballots, officials discovered that 3,108 ballots had Mrs. Frye’s name written in the write-in field, but they did not have the oval next to the name filled in and thus were not counted. Under California elections statutes, it is necessary for both the write-in bubble to be filled in completely and a name to be written on the blank space for the write-in vote to be counted in the official tally. The League of Women Voters had already filed a suit with San Diego County registrar of voters Sally McPherson in November to mandate that the “unbubbled” Frye votes be counted in the official count. However, a judge rejected the suit. The case of the unbubbled Frye votes is compounded with the another revelation on December 5th that 603 write-in votes were also discounted due to listing the name “Donna Fry” on the write-in field[2]. This has created a conundrum for city officials in several ways. Local newspapers including the Los Angeles Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune and several local television affiliates have already filed to examine the ballots under a release of public records. This has brought a question of impartiality of the press into the already complex equation, muddying the waters even further.

As for a recount, it is almost inevitable that one will occur. However, as of yet requests for recounts have been stymied by the narrow circumstances under which a recount request is permitted. The LA Times and Union-Tribune have already filed requests for recounts as part of the public request to examine the ballots, but were rejected. According to a statement issued by Deputy County Counsel Dennis Floyd, the California State Elections Code mandates that any request for a recount must be made on the behalf of a California voter. Even if a request is granted, the opening and public examination of the ballots would take months to complete, extending the process of the election for even longer than it already has been. And with San Diego already mired in the ongoing pension fund appropriations investigation, a victory for Mayor Murphy would have to be pyrrhic with the investigations heavily undercutting Murphy’s legitimacy going into his second term.

***

California Ballot Measures Affirm Political Party Rights, Stem-Cell Research, Health Insurance Mandate
December 10, 2004

SACRAMENTO, CA - Among the many impact of the recent election are the numerous ballot measures that get voted on throughout the country. In California, three significant ballot measures were approved that will have an impact on the state going forward. First, there was an oddity in the list of measures in which two propositions, Prop 60 and Prop 62, conflicted with each other. Proposition 60, the Political Party Election Rights Act, would guarantee that each political party that held a primary for statewide and state legislative offices would have a right to be on the November ballot. Proposition 62, the Voter Choice Open Primary Act, would establish a blanket primary for statewide offices, state legislative elections, and federal House and Senate elections. In the aftermath of the election of the Green Party’s Matt Gonzalez as mayor of San Francisco, the dueling electoral system measures were thrust into the spotlight. In November, both Prop 60 and Prop 62 were passed by the voters. However, according to California election law, because the two laws conflict, only the bill with the highest voter approval would pass and become law. Proposition 62 just barely passed with a vote of 5,811,970 votes or 52.4% of the total vote. Proposition 60, however, was passed with a total of 7,340,206 votes for 66.2% of the total vote. Since Proposition 60 was passed with a higher vote total, it goes into effect while Proposition 62 does not. As a result, even though a blanket primary was passed by a majority of California voters, the existing party system will remain in the state for all would-be affected offices.

Second in the significant ballot measures is Proposition 71. Proposition 71 was a highly controversial measure in California that proposed a state constitutional amendment as well as amendments to the Health and Safety Code to advocate the pursuance of stem cell research. On the face of it, Prop 71 was a partisan measure with Democrats and pro-choice groups supporting it and Republicans and pro-life groups opposing it. However, in October, Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his support for the proposition which affirms stem cell research as a constitutional right in California and establishes a California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, which could make California at the forefront of stem cell research. Prominent opposition to the amendment came from state and national pro-life groups and particularly State Senator Tom McClintock, who came in third in the 2003 recall election. California voters passed Proposition 71 with 59.1% of the vote or over seven million votes.

Lastly, and possibly the proposition this year to have the largest effect on the state, is Proposition 72. Proposition 72 was actually a veto referendum, which was put to the voters in an attempt to veto the California Health Insurance Act (SB 2) passed in 2003 by the legislature and then-governor Gray Davis. SB 2 broadly requires employers to provide state-approved health insurance coverage to employees with the employer paying at least 80 percent of the cost of coverage, or the employer must pay a fee to the state. The bill has faced many challenges from opponents, ranging from legal challenges to a mandate to employers to provide coverage to arguments about loss of jobs and health benefits as firms attempt to comply with the Health Insurance Act over the coming years. Proposition 72 has been the most successful challenge so far, putting the law, which is set to go into effect starting in 2006, at risk of a veto by California voters. However, the attempt to veto the act just narrowly failed in November. 5,889,936 voters or 50.8% of California voters voted “yes” on retention of the California Health Insurance Act[3]. As such, the first phase of the act will go into effect in approximately one year. Businesses employing over 200 employees in the state of California must provide coverage to their employees by January 1, 2006 or pay a fee to the state. Businesses employing between 20 and 49 employees in the state must comply by January 1, 2007, while businesses employing fewer than 20 employees in the state are exempt.

***

Dick Murphy Confirmed as San Diego’s Mayor In Contentious Recount
February 25, 2005

SAN DIEGO, CA - Democrats in California will be dismayed at the final findings of the recount today in the ongoing battle following the contentious San Diego mayoral election three months ago. After an extensive recount was called for the November results of the mayoral election that purported to reelect embattled mayor Dick Murphy, the margin prior to the recount was so slim - under one hundred votes - that many San Diegans and Democrats nationwide hoped that councilwoman Donna Frye would upset mayor Murphy and come in first after the recount was over. However, the recount has now been completed and Mayor Murphy has been duly certified as the winner of the 2004 San Diego mayoral election. Following the findings of the recount, the results certified in December have been upheld by the court with the previously found margin standing. Thus, Mayor Dick Murphy has been returned to office for a second term as mayor of San Diego.

However, Mayor Murphy reenters his office not only with an electoral controversy at his back, but with an ongoing investigation into the city’s pension fund appropriations nipping at his heels. The investigation has already claimed several city officials. Longtime San Diego City Auditor Ed Ryan resigned in January 2004, and in April City Manager Michael Uberuaga also resigned following the beginning of a federal investigation into San Diego’s finances. Now, newly elected city attorney Michael Aguirre has begun his own investigation into the pension scandal, has released a report claiming that Mayor Murphy and other officials covered up irregularities and, along with the growing SEC investigation, violated securities laws. The recent report from Aguirre prompted Treasurer Mary Vattino to resign yesterday[4]. These new allegations add credence to findings that on November 19 of last year, pension trustee Diann Shipione was escorted out of a closed meeting of the pension board trustees by San Diego police after a citizen’s arrest, though police let her go following her leaving the building[5]. Shipione, who has long warned of irregularities in the bond issuance for the pension program and the growing pension deficit, which now tops $1.4 billion, was commended earlier this month by the San Diego County board of supervisors for her whistleblowing on the growing scandal. Mayor Murphy has denied any knowledge of the citizen’s arrest of Shipione in November and continues to deny involvement with the city officials complicit in the SEC, FBI, and city investigations.

[1] In OTL Frye lost the November 2004 San Diego mayoral election to Dick Murphy by 2,108 votes.
[2] The "unbubbled" votes and the "Donna Fry" votes were also controversial and thrown out in OTL. However, in OTL there were over 5,000 of them and like here, would have given Frye the election had they been counted.
[3] By far the biggest change from OTL so far. In OTL, California voters overturned the California Health Insurance Act by a similar margin. This gives California some sort of mandated employer health coverage two years before Romneycare.
[4] Mary Vattino resigns about two months earlier than she did in OTL.
[5] During this meeting in OTL, the pension board of trustees did actually have a plan to perform a citizen's arrest on Diann Shipione and have her escorted from the building, at which time the San Diego police could have arrested her if they wanted. Shipione in OTL agreed to leave the building of her own accord however.
 
Last edited:
Full Election Results Compilation
  • Index

    • wilcoxchar

    I've compiled a full run-down of all relevant elections so far. I'm going to keep those post threadmarked as a full list of the relevant elections and their results to help both myself and all of you keep track of things. Because this is the master election post, I'm going to put the list in spoilers.

    Master List of Election Results
    United States Presidential and Congressional Elections​

    United States Presidential Election

    2004
    Republican, President George W. Bush (TX)/VP Dick Cheney (WY): 294 EVs, 62,016,774 (50.7%)
    Democrat, Senator John Kerry (MA)/Senator John Edwards (NC): 244 EVs, 58,973,302 (48.2%)
    Green, Ralph Nader (CT)/Peter Camejo (CA): 775,830 (0.63%)
    Green, David Cobb (TX)/Pat LaMarche (ME): 465,151 (0.38%)

    United States Presidential Election in California

    2004
    Democrat, Senator John Kerry (MA)/Senator John Edwards (NC): 6,321,555 (51.6%)
    Republican, President George W. Bush (TX)/VP Dick Cheney (WY): 5,509,994 (44.9%)
    Green, Ralph Nader (CT)/Peter Camejo (CA): 153,927 (1.3%)

    United States Senate Election in California

    2004
    Democrat, Barbara Boxer: 6,761,905 (56.1%)
    Republican, Bill Jones: 4,555,622 (37.8%)
    Green, Kent Mesplay: 247,588 (2.0%)
    Peace and Freedom, Marsha Feinland: 225,861 (1.9%)
    Libertarian, Jim Gray: 196,374 (1.6%)

    2006
    Democrat, Dianne Feinstein: 4,886,568 (55.1%)
    Republican, Dick Mountjoy: 3,001,444 (33.8%)
    Green, Peter Camejo: 420,729 (4.7%)
    Libertarian, Michael Metti: 164,133 (1.9%)
    Peace and Freedom, Marsha Feinland: 147,530 (1.7%)

    United States House Election in California, District 1

    2004
    Democrat, Mike Thompson: 183,774 (65.5%)
    Republican, 80,013: (28.5%)
    Green, Pamela Elizondo: 16,943 (6.0%)

    United States House Election in California, District 8

    2004
    Democrat, Nancy Pelosi: 214,030 (79.7%)
    Republican, Jennifer DePalma: 32,074: (11.9%)
    Green, Terry Baum: 13,008 (4.8%)
    Peace and Freedom, Leilani Dowell: 9,566: (3.6%)

    2006
    Democrat, Nancy Pelosi: 142,435 (76.9%)
    Green, Todd Chretien: 20,112 (10.9%)
    Republican, Mike DeNunzio: 19,786 (19.7%)
    Libertarian, Philip Berg: 2,760 (1.5%)

    United States House Election in California, District 11

    2006
    Republican, Richard Pombo: 89,948 (44.7%)
    Green, Pete McCloskey: 56,122 (27.9%)
    Democrat, Steve Filson: 55,156 (27.4%)

    United States House Election in California, District 12

    2004
    Democrat, Tom Lantos: 171,852 (68.0%)
    Republican, Mike Garza: 52,593 (20.8%)
    Green, Pat Gray: 23,038 (9.1%)
    Libertarian, Harland Harrison: 5,116 (2.0%)

    United States House Election in California, District 29

    2004
    Democrat, Adam Schiff: 133,670 (63.4%)
    Republican, Harry Scolinos: 62,871 (29.8%)
    Green, Bill Paparian: 9,088 (4.3%)
    Libertarian, Ted Brown: 5,021 (2.4%)

    2006
    Democrat, Adam Schiff: 91,014 (63.5%)
    Republican, William Bodell: 39,321 (27.5%)
    Green, Bill Paparian: 8,197 (5.7%)
    Peace and Freedom, Lynda Llamas: 2,599 (1.8%)
    Libertarian, Jim Keller: 2,258 (1.5%)

    United States House Election in California, District 50

    2006
    Democrat, Francine Busby: (48.2%)
    Republican, Brian Bilbray: (47.4%)
    Libertarian, Wayne Dunlap: (2.6%)
    Gree, Lawrence Rockwood: (1.9%)


    --------------

    California State Elections​

    California Gubernatorial Election

    2002
    Democrat, Gray Davis: 3,533,490 (47.3%)
    Republican, Bill Simon, 3,169,801 (42.4%)
    Green, Peter Camejo: 393,036 (5.3%)

    2003
    Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger: 4,206,284 (48.6%)
    Democrat, Cruz Bustamante: 2,724,874 (31.5%)
    Republican, Tom McClintock: 1,161,287 (13.4%)
    Green, Peter Camejo: 255,407 (2.9%)

    2006
    Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger: 4,446,934 (52.7%)
    Democrat, Steve Westly: 3,051,097 (36.2%)
    Green, Barbara Becnel: 683,336 (8.1%)
    Libertarian, Art Olivier: 134,111 (1.6%)

    California State Senate Election, District 8

    2006
    Democrat, Leland Yee: (67.7%)
    Republican, Michael Skipakevich: 50,670 (22.0%)
    Green, Kristy Keefer: 23,716 (10.3%)

    California State Senate Election, District 15

    2004
    Republican, Abel Maldonado: 190,388 (49.8%)
    Democrat, Peg Pinard: 171,671 (44.9%)
    Green, Brook Madsen: 20,440 (5.3%)

    California State Assembly Election, District 12

    2004
    Democrat, Leland Yee: 104,306 (72.3%)
    Republican, Howard Epstein: 21,339 (14.8%)
    Green, Susan C. King: 10,158 (7.0%)
    Libertarian, Chris Maden: 8,560 (5.93%)

    2006
    Democrat, Fiona Ma: 73,922, (71.0%)
    Republican, Howard Epstein: 17,020 (16.4%)
    Green, Susan C. King: 13,174 (12.7%)

    California State Assembly Election, District 13

    2006
    Democrat, Chris Daly: 96,207 (75.3%)
    Republican, Ramiro Maldonado: 16,760 (13.1%)
    Green, Lisa Feldstein: 14,730 (11.5$)

    California State Assembly Election, District 16

    2006
    Democrat, Sandre Swanson: 79,661 (78.2%)
    Green, Laura Wells: 12,035 (11.8%)
    Peace and Freedom, Edward Ytuarte: 10,071 (9.9%)


    California State Assembly Election, District 23

    2004
    Democrat, Joe Coto: 62,416 (67.0%)
    Republican, Mike Patrosso: 26,051 (28.0%)
    Green, Warner Bloomberg III: 4,750 (5.1%)

    California State Assembly Election, District 33

    2004
    Republican, Sam Blakeslee: 99,864 (56.27%)
    Democrat, Stew Jenkins: 57,673 (32.5%)
    Green, Tom Hutchings: 10,422 (5.8%)
    Libertarian, Gary Kirkland: 9,502 (5.4%)

    --------------

    California Local Elections​

    Oakland City Council Election, District 2

    2005
    Democrat, Patty Kernighan: 2,323 (26.3%)
    Democrat, David Kakishiba: 1837 (20.8%)
    Green, Aimee Allison: 1811 (20.5%)
    Democrat, Shirley Gee: 1307 (14.8%)

    2006, June primary
    Democrat, Pat Kernighan: 4,441 (43.6%)
    Green, Aimee Allison: 4,100 (40.3%)
    Democrat, Shirley Gee: 1,624 (16.0%)

    2006, November runoff
    Green, Aimee Allison: 4,733 (51.1%)
    Democrat, Pat Kernighan: 4,528 (48.9%)

    San Francisco Mayoral Election

    2003, November
    Democrat, Gavin Newsom: 87,196 (41.9%)
    Green, Matt Gonzalez: 40,714 (19.6%)
    Democrat, Angela Alioto: 33,446 (16.1%)

    2003, December Runoff
    Green, Matt Gonzalez: 131,408 (51.3%)
    Democrat, Gavin Newsom: 124,748 (48.7%)

    San Francisco County Supervisor Election, District 4

    2006
    Green, Barry Hermanson (wins IRV runoff against Jaynry Mak)

    San Francisco County Supervisor Election, District 5

    2004
    Green, Ross Mirkarimi (wins IRV runoff among 18 candidates)

    San Francisco County Supervisor Election, District 6

    2006
    Green, Jane Kim (wins IRV runoff)

    San Diego Mayoral Election

    2004
    Republican, Dick Murphy: 156,422 (34.31%)
    Democrat (write-in), Donna Frye: 156,358 (34.30%)
    Republican, Ron Roberts: 143,067 (31.4%)

    2005, July special primary
    Democrat, Donna Frye: (42.3%)
    Republican, Steve Francis: (26.8%)
    Republican, Jerry Sanders: (25.5%)

    2005, November runoff
    Democrat, Donna Frye: (52.1%)
    Republican, Steve Francis: (48.9%)

    San Diego City Council Election, District 6

    January 31, 2006 special primary
    Republican, Judy Riddle: (23.5%)
    Green, Kent Mesplay: (18.6%)
    Republican, Dean Spanos: (16.1%)

    February 28, 2006 runoff
    Green, Kent Mesplay: (55.7%)
    Republican, Judy Riddle: (44.3%)

    --------------

    Other State and Local Elections​

    Maine State House Election, District 118, 2006

    Green, John Eder: 1,596
    Democrat, Jon Hinck: 1,536

    Maine State House Election, District 119, 2006

    Green, Jason Rogers: 917
    Democrat, Herbert C. Adams: 915
    Republican, Jason LeVoie: 162

    Maine State House Election, District 120, 2006

    Green, Benjamin Meiklejohn: 1,388
    Democrat, Anne M. Rand: 1,347
    Republican, Douglas Calderbank: 87

    Massachusetts State House Election, Ninth Middlesex Distrct, 2006

    Green, Jill Stein: 7,774 (52.0%)
    Democrat, Thomas Stanley: 7,190 48.0%)

    New Orleans Mayoral Election

    April 22, 2006 primary
    Democrat, Ray Nagin: 36,851 (33.9%)
    Democrat, Mitch Landrieu: 31,327 (28.8%)
    Democrat, Ron Forman: 17,580 (16.2%)
    Green, Malik Rahim: 9,740 (9.0%)
    Republican, Rob Couhlig: 9,552 (8.8%)

    May 20, 2006 runoff
    Democrat, Mitch Landrieu: 56,987 (52.3%)
    Democrat, Ray Nagin: 51,839 (47.7%)
     
    Last edited:
  • Index

    • wilcoxchar

    Candidates Jump Into Special Election Waters Amid Embattled Mayor Dick Murphy’s Resignation
    April 30, 2005

    SAN DIEGO, CA - Five days ago, Dick Murphy announced he would resign his position as mayor of San Diego amid the ongoing pension fund scandal that has so far claimed several other members of the city government. Murphy’s resignation will take place on July 15, and is expected that Democratic city councilman Michael Zucchet will step in as interim mayor until the special election in November. However, the primary taking place in July has attracted a number of candidates. Most prominent among them is councilwoman Donna Frye, who was a surprise write-in during last year’s mayoral election. Democrats are expected to consolidate around Frye, but several Republicans have also jumped into the race.

    Three main contenders have emerged among the Republicans in the campaign. Lawyer Pat Shea is possibly the oddest of the main Republicans, arguing that the city of San Diego should declare bankruptcy to resolve the pension scandal and effectively default on the debts accrued by the public pension fund. Jerry Sanders, former police chief, is running on a campaign of executive experience based on his management of the local Red Cross and United Way chapters, and on his positive record as police chief. Lastly, CEO and founder of AMN Healthcare Services Steve Francis announced his campaign with a focus on reducing the size of city government and implementing business practices for the city’s recovery from the pension scandal. Steve Francis does have minimal government experience, having served in the Nevada state assembly from 1983 to 1987. It is difficult to say which of these candidates will enter the runoff, though Donna Frye is the clear frontrunner for the Democrats. However, pundits do not expect her to receive a majority in the July primary and expect a runoff election between Frye and one of the other candidates in November.

    ***

    Patty Kerrighan Elected to Oakland City Council to Succeed Danny Wan
    May 17, 2005

    OAKLAND, CA - The last month has certainly been one of the most interesting for the city of Oakland as an astounding nine candidates walked the streets vying for the votes of city council District 2’s voters. The election was triggered by the sudden announcement of the resignation of city councilman Danny Wan. Wan was Oakland’s first openly gay politician, but this month, halfway through his second term, resigned to take a position at the Oakland Port Authority. Wan resigned in January in order to support his retired parents, taking the higher paid position at the Port Authority and citing the councilman’s salary as insufficient to care for his family. Wan, who was himself appointed in 1999 following the election of John Russo as city attorney and won election to a full term in 2002, triggered a special election for the seat following the move from appointments to special elections for vacant city council seats.

    In a cost-saving measure, the District 2 city council election became a month long mail-in election, which meant all nine candidates were bustling around the San Antonio, Chinatown, Grand Lake, and Eastlake neighborhoods just east of downtown. The candidates were many, but few stood out amid the pack. First and foremost was by far the establishment candidate, Wan’s chief of staff Patricia Kernighan. Kernighan won the election, but the margin raises many questions about the lack of a runoff for special elections. Kernighan won with just 26.3% of the vote, or less than 2,500 votes of the nearly 9,000 cast. However, Pat Kernighan came well ahead of the second place candidate. David Kakishiba, vice president of the Oakland Board of Education and executive director of the East Bay Asian Youth Center, came second with 20.8% of the vote.

    Perhaps most interesting of all in the city council election, however, is Aimee Allison’s third place finish with 20.5% of the vote. Hot on Kakishiba’s heels, the 35 year old Green Party member quickly became a progressive voice and anti-establishment voice for many in the second district. Allison was a combat medic before receiving a discharge as a conscientious objector during the Persian Gulf War. During the month long campaign, Allison reported, many voters said she was the first city council candidate they had met, and she claimed to have earned many votes just on that[1]. Allison’s strong performance was certainly aided by the endorsements by such figures as San Francisco mayor Matt Gonzalez and long-time Green activist Peter Camejo, as well as an unprecedented endorsement for a Green Party candidate from the local longshore workers union[2]. This puts the regularly scheduled city council election just eighteen months away in a very interesting position for Pat Kernighan, who goes into it knowing that nearly three quarters of district voters voted against her this month.

    ***

    Schwarzenegger, Gonazlez, SFCTA Outline Congestion Charge Plan
    May 22, 2005

    SAN FRANCISCO, CA - Today governor Arnold Schwarzenegger met with San Francisco mayor Matt Gonzalez and heads of the San Francisco County Transit Authority today as a preliminary announcement before governor Schwarzenegger is expected to sign an executive order mandating greenhouse gas reduction in the next few days. Executive Order S-3-05, which governor Schwarzenegger will sign when he returns to Sacramento, sets gradual targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California over the next fifty years[3]. The earliest and possibly most ambitious goal of the executive order aims to reduce the state’s emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, followed by further reductions to 1990 levels by 2020. Additionally, the ultimate goal set out by governor Schwarzenegger will be to reach an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. In his speech in San Francisco today, Schwarzenegger bucked the opinion of many Republicans even in California. The governor stated unequivocally that given California’s reliance on Sierra Nevada snowpack for much of its water sources, the economic importance of the state’s coastal real estate for its economy and tourist industry, and as California companies have been world leaders in reducing carbon dioxide and other greenohuse gas emissions, California has an opportunity and an obligation to take the lead when it comes to fighting climate change.

    While the governor promoted the forthcoming Executive Order S-3-05 today, the main topic of his meeting in San Francisco was a more detailed and specific plan to combat emissions. Governor Schwarzenegger announced his intention to grant the SFCTA with $15 million in addition to federal funding for a plan to implement congestion pricing for the city of San Francisco. Citing the congestion pricing scheme that has been in place in London for the past two years, Mayor Gonzalez claimed a similar plan for San Francisco would not only reduce auto emissions in the city but also reduce traffic in the city’s most traveled corridors such as the Embarcadero and Van Ness Avenue.

    The scope of the current plan as presented by the transit authority would focus on the main road entrances. As the first phase of the plan, two trial tolls will be implemented on the two bridge entrances to San Francisco. One will be on the Doyle Drive entryway to the Golden Gate Bridge, and one will be on the Bay Bridge approach. If these are successful, the congestion toll to enter San Francisco could be expanded to the southern highways at the city limits on Highway 101 and 280. Further plans may include an additional downtown ring zone.

    The two bridge tolls will be $1.00 on Doyle Drive and $1.25 on the Bay Bridge approach, and will be implemented for six months from July through the end of 2005. Congestion tolls will be collected using the FasTrak electronic collection system, and if the program is deemed successful at reducing emissions and traffic in San Francisco during that time period, then it will continue to be in place permanently. Mayor Gonzalez and governor Schwarzenegger were optimistic about the scheme. The mayor spoke highly of San Francisco’s innovative spirit in adopting the first congestion pricing trial in the United States. “With this plan, the city of San Francisco will become a leader in urban sustainability and emissions management that other cities around the country and around the world can look to,” Mayor Gonzalez said in his announcement speech. The trial period will be a big test, however. With the Bay Area also facing a slow business recovery from the dotcom bust and housing prices in San Francisco already the highest in the nation, more costs for commuter could drive businesses elsewhere in the Bay Area or out of the region altogether.

    ***

    Transbay Redevelopment Gets Go Ahead as Mayor Gonzalez Confirms Support
    June 3, 2005

    SAN FRANCISCO, CA - Major changes are afoot in the city of San Francisco. Last week mayor Matt Gonzalez and governor Schwarzenegger announced the trial of a congestion pricing scheme on the bridge entrances to the city. This week, mayor Gonzalez shocked some observers and seemed to appease some of his critics by confirming his support for the Transbay Redevelopment project in the East Bay[4]. The mayor, a pronounced member of the Green Party, would not at first glance appear the type of mayor to support the construction of high rises in a city like San Francisco. However, Gonzalez indeed confirmed his support for the Transbay project this week as the county Board of Supervisors formally approved the plan. Mayor Gonzalez and Ross Mirkarimi, the Green councilman who replaced Gonzalez as supervisor, both supported the Transbay Redevelopment Plan, quieting detractors who have voiced concerns over the Green Party’s tendency to shoot down high density development projects.

    The goal of the Transbay Redevelopment Plan is to restore and develop the area around the old Embarcadero Freeway which were demolished following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake[5], and to orient a new high density residential and commercial zone around a new regional transit terminal. The terminal will replace the current Transbay Terminal with a vibrant, urban transit center with updated services that will connect BART with an extension of the Caltrain into downtown San Francisco. Additionally, the old freeway and ramp parcels will be reapportioned into high density zoning to extend the financial district into the East Bay area, providing greater residential and commercial opportunities for the downtown area, and “bringing some real sustainable improvement to what for years has been an underutilized section of San Francisco” according to mayor Gonzalez.

    The goals for the Transbay Redevelopment Plan’s final realization are to approve over 30,000 new housing and office units to the South of Market district. Since the 1989 earthquake, the area has been underdeveloped with a sluggish recovery, and the lifting of the height restrictions on the area will certainly speed up development. In particular, the plans for Rincon Hill[6] include nearly 3,500 residential units that have already been approved for construction over the next few years, with even more units in broader South of Market area in the years following. It is hopeful that this new development of high density housing and office space will put at least some dent in the rising housing prices in San Francisco. However, urban researchers say that it might not be enough to solve the city’s housing shortage. It is possible that San Francisco could need 30,000 units right this moment just to stabilize housing prices, and an additional 3,000 units built per year on top of that to keep prices from increasing further. Even with the development currently being approved and the future plans, the Transbay Redevelopment could still not be enough to stop the city’s skyrocketing housing prices despite the sluggish return of businesses since the dotcom bust several years ago.

    [1] Source: https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/where-did-oaklands-runoff-go/Content?oid=1077800
    [2] In OTL, Allison was in fact endorsed by the local ILWU.
    [3] Schwarzenegger issued this executive order in OTL in June 2005: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=1861
    [4] Matt Gonzalez did actually support the Transbay plan in OTL, applauding the sustainability efforts of the plan and its goal of improving transit access to downtown San Francisco.
    [5] This was one of the more interesting parts of the plan IMO. The state of California still owned the area that used to be the Embarcadero Freeway, so the land had to be transferred to San Francisco before any development could be done on it.
    [6] Article on Rincon Hill: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2005/04/18/towering-plans-for-san-francisco-neighborhood/

    --

    The full election results list has been updated. Also if anyone is interested, here’s the full Transbay Development Plan.
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top
    Top