DISTRICT ELECTIONS & DEMOCRATIC CLUBS: An Uneasy Courtship
HOW THINGS STAND
In November 1996, San Francisco voters approved one of two election reform plans which were placed on the ballot: a return to district election of Supervisors. The adoption of districts, which takes effect with the Year 2000 election cycle, is going to present the Democratic Party, and the city's Democratic clubs, with issues that may very well change the way these groups do business. Many clubs may disappear, new ones will start up, and others will change their shape.
This sea change in the way the clubs interact with the electorate will lead to one of two outcomes: either Democrats will adapt to the new environment and become more powerful than ever, or they will fail to adapt, continue to succumb to the divisive ego-based politics of past years, and as such, become increasingly irrelevant to San Francisco's electorate.
HOW WE GOT HERE
The late 1980's and early 1990's saw the beginnings of the overproliferation of Democratic Clubs in San Francisco, a direct result of the rise of political consultants, and the increasing reliance on the collection of organizational endorsements in order to market political candidates. This, combined with the growing popular political apathy of the Reagan-Bush era, caused many clubs to suffer from a lack of membership, attendance, and activity, as the activist community spread itself thin.
Currently, there are well over 30 chartered Democratic clubs in the City, as well as many more, which, for one reason or another, are unchartered. Many of these clubs, whether chartered or not, are personality-driven and are products of the often fractious, ego-dominated environment which pervades local Democratic politics. Many clubs have large memberships, hold regular meetings, participate in GOTV efforts, publish slate cards, raise money for endorsed candidates or measures, and register voters. Many more, however, are just names on campaign endorsement lists.
The transition to District Elections provides the Democratic Party with an opportunity to rectify this situation. If it does not, then the situation could actually become worse.
THE NEW DISTRICTS
While similar in overall procedure to the districts plan which was abandoned in 1980, the new district lines themselves have been redrawn, presumably to keep in step with the City's changing demographics. This more than anything else will affect the relevance of certain regionally-oriented Democratic clubs. For one thing, the District 8 Democratic Club will, at the very least, have to change its name to the District 11 Democratic Club. (UPDATE: as of April 2000 this has in fact happened. Elements of the old District 8 Club, along with the District 11 Council, formed this club in September 1999. A central figure in the new organization is its president DOUG MORAN, who is running for Supervisor against incumbent AMOS BROWN and GERARDO SANDOVAL.)
Also as an example, a candidate for Supervisor representing District 3, which includes The Embarcadero, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, Russian Hill, and Chinatown, will in all likelihood not be seeking the endorsement of (or giving slate money to) the Richmond District Democratic Club. That candidate will, however, definitely be seeking the endorsement of the citywide Chinese-American Democratic Club, and it's likely that a candidate running in District 1, which includes the Richmond, will be seeking the endorsement of both RDDC and also CADC, because that area boasts a large Chinese-American population as well. This means that the regionally oriented clubs will have to change their fundraising and endorsement strategies.
It may actually become easier for some of these clubs to put out slate or endorsement mailers that it has been in the past, because of smaller universes and therefore smaller mailing costs. The complication here is how to generate voter universes tailored to district lines, which tend not to jell with the zip code lines. Once voter data services implement new search technology, this should not be a problem. In the past under the at-large system, it has generally been more difficult for neighborhood clubs to put out slates, compared with the citywide and special constituent clubs.
Only District 8, RDDC, and the Noe Valley Democratic Club have regularly raised and spent funds on slate promotion, either for a traditional slate mailer or for placing ads in community newspapers. This means that the pressure will be on to create similar structures in the other districts, which currently do not exist. This also means that many neighborhood clubs which prefer to place most of their energies in voter registration, such as the Northside DC, which is based in what is now District 3, may find themselves pressured to give more resources to the endorsement promotion game, or end up competing for members and resources with a new district club which plays by the new rules. (UPDATE: Members of the Northside DC, along with progressives who volunteered for the Ammiano campaign in 1999, have formed the District 3 Democratic Club. This club appears to have coalesced around Telegraph Hill Dwellers president AARON PESKIN as well as other elements of the Ammiano Machine.)
This brings up the dilemma of using the clubs for increasing voter registration; you would think that clubs could do both voter registration and voter education, but historically that's proven not to be the case.
Another factor is that many of the new districts have borders which have been gerrymandered in such a way that very divergent demographics have been placed together. Examples are District 6, which places the Tenderloin together with the South of Market and Civic Center areas; District 5, which combines parts of the Western Addition and Inner Sunset; and District 3, which combines Russian Hill and North Beach/TelHi with Chinatown and the Wharf.
HOW WILL THE CLUBS REACT?
The challenge for clubs in these districts is therefore to become larger and more diverse, while at the same time managing under smaller resources. The alternative is for campaigns and voters to be beset with multiple competing and ineffective clubs within a district, an all too likely scenario given the preponderance of egos among local Democratic activists and the historical ineffectuality of the County Committee with respect to managing the number of chartered clubs. Other districts, such as District 2, which includes Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, the Marina, and Cow Hollow, seem a bit more homogenous, and will present fewer problems, egomaniacs notwithstanding.
The citywide and special constituent clubs will have to adapt as well. With regard to slate mailings, it would be problematic for a citywide club to print five or six versions of every slate mailer every two years. It is not impossible, however; printing costs would go up only by a moderate amount, and postage costs, always the largest factor, would remain about the same. The major obstacle would be the labor intensity of the project. Indeed, it seems unlikely that the County Committee would produce district-targeted slates, since its mailer goes out to every Democrat in any case. Commercial slates, such as Robert Barnes' Informed Voter, would more likely be up to the task.
It may be more practical, however, for citywide clubs to be a source for contributions for endorsed candidates. It would certainly increase their value to those candidates above and beyond a name on an endorsement list and a slate mailer. The citywide clubs can also be a conduit for "soft money"-fueled independent expenditures, and for fund raising. This would represent a major change in the way the average citywide club, including the City Democratic Club, does business.
Dues would have to go up, and sponsors would have to be sought. Such a club would have to maintain a treasury of around $10,000 per election cycle to be truly effective, based on a budget of $7000 for candidate donations, $1000 for regular (non-slate) postage, and another $2000 for newsletter production and facilities rental. These figures, of course, do not include "soft money" transfers. Most of the basic treasury funds would have to come from higher dues levels, as well as organizational and corporate sponsorship.
Also likely to achieve this goal are the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian & Gay Democratic Club, the Chinese American Democratic Club, and the Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club - should they choose to do so. Within the African-American and Latino communities, there is a question as to whether or not the many activists in these communities can get their act together and produce similar Democratic organizations.
There is also the question of whether some citywide clubs may morph into regional clubs, or break up into a group of allied district clubs. One such club likely to take this route is the Harvey Milk Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered Democratic Club, which has always been more "grass-roots" oriented than their perceived rivals, the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian & Gay Democratic Club. In doing so, such a movement could clearly pose a threat to the relevance of other local clubs. Milk could definitely make the transition to an "elite" citywide recipient committee club via the help of the civil service unions which currently dominate the Labor Council, however.
THE FUTURE
Such a situation leaves the club movement, such as it is, in a quandary. Given the way the district lines are drawn, we can count on fractured or weak Party representation in many of them to begin with, unless activists act now with 2000 in mind. That is not likely to happen, because of a major citywide race coming up in 1999 - the Mayor's race.
If Willie Brown continues to remain unopposed by a serious candidate, some activists may have the forbearance to start making the right links. History does not provide us with an optimistic picture for either possibility, however. The end result could very well be what some Democrats consider the unthinkable - Republicans on the Board of Supervisors. The presence of Republican elected officials in San Francisco will drive Democrats further to the left, putting them even further from the mainstream of the national Democratic Party, making our Democratic representatives in Congress less influential, and eventually threatening the Democratic lock on the California delegation to the Senate.
This could very well happen at a time when Democrats have dominated the scene nationally. Apart from partisan concerns, such deficits do not bode well for good or proper public policy or fair representation in San Francisco, or California.
Consider, however, the alternative: if the County Committee were to set fixed guidelines for the issue of a charter to a club which represents a district, and fairly enforces those guidelines, then the likelihood of additional rival clubs sprouting up within a district shrinks. The justification for such imprimatur would be that such clubs would be the official representatives of the County Committee for that district. Such guidelines would include a commitment to voter registration and education efforts directed to all communities within a district, and as proportional a representation of those communities among the club's membership and leadership as possible. Leadership crises arising from personality conflicts could be adjudicated by the County Committee. Citywide issues- or constituent-oriented clubs could choose to charter or not charter based on their own goals, or have a relationship (or lack thereof) with the County Committee similar to that between the State Party and the California Democratic Council.
The end result of such a scheme, if successful, would be increased Democratic registration, increased voter participation in the public policy process, and, hopefully, a maintenance of the Democratic hegemony over city and county government, which, this writer would argue, is required for many reasons which are albeit self-interested, but nevertheless in the public interest of all San Franciscans. The problem is that it will take vision, talent, and hard work to pull off. Got any to spare?
(NOTE: This article as originally posted contained information on emerging district-oriented political organizations as of July 2000. This information has been deleted, in part due to the continuing and fluid evolution of some of these organizations, but also due to the fact that the author, in describing some of the people associated with certain organizations, used language, which while meant as innocuous, could have been interpreted as offensive. I sincerely regret any misunderstandings which the use of that language may have caused. - Michael Ege, Club President.)