Proposition E - opposition

By Catherine LeeThe Guardsman

San Francisco’s Proposition E was placed on the ballot with the best of intentions: increasing voter turnout. According to the proponents’ argument, over the last 10 citywide elections the average voter turnout was only 37 percent.

While this statistic may be embarrassingly low, it's no reason to spend approximately $424,000 per election on the theory that instant registration could increase participation.

There are many suggested methods for improving turnout, such as increasing the hours of polling stations, moving elections to weekends and allowing voters to cast ballots from anywhere in the city.

The instant voter method is just one idea. Should we really change the city charter if there are other ways to increase voter turnout at a lesser cost, both fiscally and socially? Given that Prop E suggests an increase in voter turnout of 3-7 percent based on other states turnouts, can we rescind this amendment if the city only gets a 1-2 percent increase?

Prop E proponents argue that, ‘Every eligible San Franciscan who wants to vote should have the opportunity!’  This implies citizens are being disenfranchised under the city's current system; that’s not the case.

The current San Francisco election system already uses "provisional voting" to accommodate voters with special considerations, according the Department of Elections Voter information.  Provisional balloting lets voters cast ballots under so many circumstances that it acts almost the same as Prop E.

Everyone needs to register to vote in the city at least once, which can be done online, at the DMV and by any one of the hundreds of non-profits who register people in the places we work and live.

Vote no on Prop E because it's throwing money at a problem which needs to be addressed at the highest levels of voting protocol (i.e voting on Tuesdays), not with some Band-Aid solution.