A file photo shows boxes of ballots waiting to be counted at the Department of Elections at San Francisco City Hall in 2022.
Like it or not, election season is once again upon us; California’s primary election is only two months away on March 5.
For members of the Chronicle’s editorial board, that means it’s time to dive into the endorsement process, which culminates in us making recommendations as to who we think are the best candidates — as well as whether we think voters should say yes or no to various state and local ballot measures.
Why do we feel it’s important to offer up this guidance to voters?
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Let’s be honest — you probably don’t need much help from us to make an informed choice for president. Those candidates will have been under a microscope for months or years by the time your ballot arrives, receiving more coverage than you could possibly need to make a decision that fits your values.
But what about judges? Or state insurance commissioner? Or Board of Equalization members?
The further down the ballot you go, the trickier things can get. It’s in these races that reliable information is tougher to come by. In some cases, unqualified candidates and their supporters are counting on you being uninformed.
Not long ago, voters in Los Angeles County nearly elected as judge a white supremacist who had written about his desire to strip nonwhite Americans of their voting rights — because his candidacy flew under the radar. This is exactly the scenario the Chronicle’s endorsement process is trying to prevent.
But elections matter beyond worst-case-scenarios, too. It’s our job to dig into them as deeply as we can, tell you what we find, and be honest if we think a candidate has the potential to make government work better for the Bay Area — or worse.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
We can do this because, unlike news reporters, the editorial board and its writers are on the opinion side of the paper. Though we often use the same reporting techniques as news writers, it’s our job to interpret the facts we gather and turn them into informed recommendations.
Just because we’re in the opinion section doesn’t mean we arbitrarily pick favorites.
Members of the editorial board — which is composed of myself, publisher Bill Nagel, editorial writers Emily Hoeven and Nuala Bishari and editors Zeba Khan, Harry Mok and Pete Wevurski — spend hours researching each race, interviewing candidates, looking into their backgrounds, and speaking to policy experts about the wisdom and feasibility of the candidates’ ideas.
We don’t care if a candidate is moderate, progressive, Democrat or Republican. Here in California, these distinctions are becoming increasingly meaningless, anyway.
Instead, our ideal candidates have a deep understanding of the problems Bay Area communities face, offer innovative solutions to those problems, and have the experience and competence to execute on those ideas.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
No, we do not consider empty ideological promises that sound good on paper, but have no basis in reality, to be good ideas.
So, how do our deliberations work?
To begin with, we try to figure out what races our recommendations will be most useful in. We don’t have the bandwidth to endorse in every race in the state. Nor, frankly, should we. We don’t live in Kern County, nor do we follow most of its issues or the politics. It makes no sense for us to endorse there. Instead, we try to keep our focus on what we know — the Bay Area and its public officials at the local, state and federal levels.
Yes, we may also weigh in on key national races, such as president. When we do, our goal is to keep a local focus — to inform voters on how these candidates and their ideas would impact California and the Bay Area.
All members of the editorial board participate in endorsement interviews with candidates — some more than others. Editorial writers do most of the writing of our endorsement pieces while the editors edit.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
This election cycle, editorial writer Emily Hoeven will largely focus her research and writing on candidates for statewide office and state ballot measures, while editorial writer Nuala Bishari will prioritize local measures and races.
It’s worth noting that reporters from the news side of the paper — whose job, unlike ours, is to dispassionately gather and present facts — can and do sit in on our interviews with candidates. We value these reporters’ expertise and their ability to ask tough questions. But news reporters do not have a say in who the editorial board selects for its endorsements — nor are they a part of our internal discussions about the candidates.
As for the endorsements themselves, we don’t just check a box next to a candidate’s name and call it a day. Our goal in all cases is to explain in-depth why we believe our preferred candidate and is the right person for the job, while being honest about their liabilities. Even if you don’t agree with our conclusions, our hope is that you’ll enter the voting booth more informed about the races and candidates you’re voting on than you were before you read us.
One important thing that differentiates us from many other editorial boards in California: We don’t guarantee that a candidate will secure our endorsement in each race. They have to earn it. If we go through the endorsement process and decide voters have a terrible, impossible choice before them, we’re not going to sugarcoat it. We will do our best to only endorse candidates that are worthy of your vote.
Matthew Fleischer is editor of the editorial pages.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
