All candidates for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors support fixing potholes and improving city schools — but where do they stand on divestment from Israel?
The Jewish Community Relations Council thought voters ought to know the answer, so in August the S.F.-based organization sent a questionnaire to all 43 supervisorial candidates in Districts 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 — the districts up for re-election this time around.
Nineteen candidates responded to the 11 questions. A complete list of the results is available in the San Francisco Jewish Voters’ Guide on the JCRC website, www.jcrc.org.
“This is a very important election,” said Jessica Trubowitch, JCRC’s director of legislative affairs and inter-group relations. “So we decided we need to know where they stand on issues of importance to the Jewish community.”
She noted her disappointment that more candidates opted not to complete the survey, which covers a lot of political ground.
Candidates were asked questions about same-sex marriage, Iran, anti-Semitism, undocumented workers and whether local legislative bodies should weigh in on international affairs, among others.
According to the guide, 18 of the 19 respondents favor same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, five support the prospect of local legislatures taking a position on international affairs, and 17 out of 19 oppose the use of public pension fund investment policy as a means to oppose the Israeli government.
On the issue of speaking out against bigotry, which JCRC defined as including anti-Semitism, 18 of the 19 respondents expressed support. One did not respond.
The candidates also weighed in on an open-ended question: In lean fiscal times, what would you be willing to cut from the city’s budget in order to fulfill your other spending priorities?
Answers included having city employees pay for pension benefits, opening safe injection sites to save on health costs and cutting Muni wages.
Trubowitch says that in coming up with questions, she and her colleagues “put together a committee of JCRC members who were from an array of political perspectives. We tried to be very bipartisan, and get an overall view of important issues.”
— dan pine