Supervisor Sherrill has put in the work for his constituents. His top priorities remain public safety and clean, safe streets, which are top priorities for ConnectedSF and our D2Unite Members. He continues to be an advocate for small businesses, cutting red tape and reducing fees. He’s creative in his approaches to meeting goals for District 2, from minor fixes (a cracked sidewalk) to major achievements, like identifying financial solutions and reform to help jumpstart stalled development.

Note: We disagree with his endorsement of Proposition H; he needs to demand more accountability of SFMTA. And we are highly concerned with his strong support of Scott Wiener. We agree with his opposition to Propositions B and I.

While Sherrill is the obvious choice in this race, rank choice voting allows for some whacky outcomes, so we are providing a second option here: Nick Berg is a real estate executive for a property management firm. His values align with those of ConnectedSF and D2Unite, as he was a volunteer on the SaferSF campaign to recall District Attorney Chesa Boudin and his top priorities include:

• Treatment-First, Shelter-First initiatives to solve the drug and homelessness crisis

-Better schools through choice

• Responsible spending. By focusing on accountability, demanding independent audits and sunsetting programs that don't demonstrate results.

Supervisor Wong has been focused on the basics, and he plans to keep it that way. He’s worked hard to reform outdated and “dumb” laws and keep his district’s streets clean and safe.

Note: Our D4 and D1 members are especially appreciative that he endorsed Proposition G, supports a compromise, and that he is opposed to Proposition B. We hope to see him be more vocal in the coming weeks in his support of Prop G.

While Alan is our top choice here, Albert is a relentless advocate and supporter of District 4. He has lived in the district for 40 plus years and is a small business owner. He was an integral part of the Engardio recall and getting Proposition G on the ballot this November. Albert is a solid #2 choice.

We have a long history of engaging with and supporting Supervisor Dorsey on public safety and recovery matters. He has been the leader on the Board of Supervisors in combatting San Francisco’s drug and homelessness crises. Having once suffered from drug addiction himself, Supervisor Dorsey’s lived experience has helped reshape San Francisco's approach to homelessness and drug policy towards recovery-first model. ConnectedSF has collaborated on many topics with Supervisor Dorsey - he is a solid public safety advocate, and a strong ally on most common sense issues.

Note: We must note that we are disappointed by his endorsement of Propositions B and G.

In District 10 there is a clear choice.

Theo Ellington stands far out front from the rest of the pack. Theo has a vision for District 10 that includes a vibrant 3rd Street commercial corridor, new housing of all income levels, and propelling major development projects, like Pier 70, Candlestick Point, and the Shipyard, over the finish line.

Theo most aligns with our stance and emphasis on public safety. He supports and is a leader in the drug-free housing movement.

He strongly supports growth in District 10, including expanded housing production and creating new jobs, while still being cautious and mindful about displacing existing residents.

His top District 10 priorities include:

• Moving proposed waterfront developments across the finish line,

• Establishing a formal community and economic development plan for the district, and

• Launching a school-to-career pipeline, so students can have clearer pathways to jobs.

Below are a few attributes that make Theo a strong candidate.

• He was a leader in spearheading “The Way Out” program at The Salvation Army

• He will prioritize developing a vibrant 3rd Street corridor that “you can plan your life around” and would include a full-service grocery store, housing, and a team of beat officers.

• He grew up and has lived in the Bayview for 30+ years; he is deeply ingrained in the community.

Where does Theo stand on this November’s ballot measures?

• Proposition B: Yes

• Proposition C: Yes

• Proposition D: Yes

• Proposition E: Yes

• Proposition F: Yes

• Proposition H: Yes

• Proposition I: No

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 2

Sacramento must prove to taxpayers they’re producing results for California before asking for any increases in funding. Proponents claim that Proposition 2 would stop politicians from overspending. Ironic, given that Sacramento’s budget is confirmed at $352 billion in FY 2026/27 and they’re asking for more handouts.

Yet another attempt to increase the insider slush fund.

Vote NO on Proposition 2

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 4

This is one of those “do they really think they can fool us" measures. And, yes, they really do. In no way should taxpayers fund political campaigns that don’t align with their values. We’re required to in SF, and it hasn't gone well.

This measure makes California less affordable.

Vote NO on Proposition 4

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 5

Stop trying to take away voters’ rights.

And stop enabling career politicians and insiders to game the system!

Vote NO on Proposition 5

Endorsement: Vote NO on Proposition 37

While this sounds great, when you actually read the law, it is a bad idea. California should not be in the banking business! Our state government needs to focus on the basics and eliminate channels that create additional bloat and leave room for potential grift.

Vote NO on Proposition 37

Endorsement: YES on Proposition 41

Hey, here’s a novel idea: let’s AUDIT where our tax dollars are going!

Proposition 41 is genius — and a rare measure that actually seeks to make life better for citizens who feel the crushing burden of high prices and increased taxes.

Yes to making life more affordable for Californians!

Vote YES on Proposition 41

Endorsement: YES on Proposition 42

California already has the highest cost of living, and some of the highest taxes, in America. Maybe let taxpayers keep a little of what they earn?

Proposition 42 stops Sacramento from running amok with your family’s financial stability.

Hey, Sacramento! Go ahead: tax our income, but not our stuff. If the government wants more money, it should first prove it can use the piles of tax dollars it currently has responsibly. (Maybe claw back some of that EDD fraud, hospice fraud, and the $25B for a non-existent high-speed rail before you double-tax us).

Stop treating Californians like an ATM.

Vote YES on Proposition 42

Endorsement: YES on Proposition 43

Why should taxes need a ⅔ vote when politicians propose them, but only 50% when “citizens” do? All the insiders are working together to take advantage of YOU. Siphoning more money from your pocket should always require a higher approval rate. And let’s be honest, when taxes are added to the ballot by “the public,” it’s often a quasi-government body that intends to benefit from the “rewards.” Shrewd, unethical, and possibly unconstitutional. California has some of the highest taxes in America. More money isn’t the solution, more effective governance is.

Let’s protect Californians from rampant waste and abuse and increase affordability.

Vote YES on Proposition 43.

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 44

This is SEIU’s fourth merry-go-round in recent years, attempting to further regulate the healthcare industry. Establishing more restrictive measures on community health clinics would penalize the clinics and increase a state escrow account. Increasing a state account to fund more pet projects is another insider move.

Vote NO on Proposition 44