California General Election
U.S. House California District 11
By vote of our membership, Indivisible SF endorses Connie Chan for CA-11 House Representative.
Connie Chan’s platform is supported by a multi-generational, diverse coalition whose voices she will bring to the halls of Congress. She has been a consistent champion and ally of labor unions and the working class, participating in civil disobedience, strikes and peaceful protests.
Connie is an ardent defender of San Francisco's sanctuary city status and policies. She is a frequent critic of federal overreach by agencies like ICE and CBP, advocating for strict local alignment with California's sanctuary state laws to protect Fourth Amendment and due process rights of undocumented individuals. As an immigrant herself, she routinely makes the connection between working class safeguards and immigrant protections, and is an advocate for our City’s most vulnerable neighbors. She has stood for ICE Free Zones, secured legal aid and emergency funding including for ISF’s rapid response network. She promises to pursue policies to abolish ICE and restructure DHS around humane values and due process. Her policy platform calls for a Pathway to Citizenship and permanent legal residency, and to stabilize the legal status of Dreamers.
Connie’s leadership on the SF Board of Supervisors includes protecting public financing of our elections and oversight of outside donations received by BOS members.
As Board of Supervisors Budget & Appropriations Chair, she:
• Defended essential services, such as Free City College, assured reserves to protect healthcare access from Federal cuts for young people, the working class, and for the well-being of all San Franciscans.
• Drove the budget process to finalization throughout her tenure.
• Stood firm to restore over $28 million in cuts to crucial social safety net programs in the current Fiscal Year budget, in the face of draconian proposals from team Lurie.
This is San Francisco’s first Congressional race in 37 years. Whoever wins the CA-11 race will likely be a major voice and influence for San Francisco and the entire country. This is our opportunity to elect a representative who is accountable to everyday working people, not billionaires. Connie does not take corporate PAC money and has consistently stood against the billionaire agenda, pushing legislation to support dignity for working families where all of us can thrive, not just survive.
The Indivisible SF membership recognizes the threats of the billionaire agenda to our democracy and the urgency of this moment to take a stand for our future. We believe Connie Chan is exactly who should represent us in our push toward a multi-racial, multigenerational, equitable and accountable democracy.
Source (https://indivisiblesf.org/blog/2026/9/8/indivisible-sf-endorses-connie-chan)
Measure D: Changes to Ballot Measure Process
NO on Prop D, Mayor Lurie’s anti-democracy charter amendment: The initiative process enables we, the people, to alter our laws without having to wait for politicians to follow our will. When our elected officials get cold feet because lobbyists oppose something, it’s up to us to make it happen. Don’t let Mayor Lurie take our power away from us—vote NO on this power grab.
Measure F: Changes to Executive Branch Management
NO on Prop F, which would limit public comment and independent department head’s oversight: This would give the Mayor the power to hire and fire at will all city administrators and policy chiefs. F will consolidate more power in the Mayor. Some positions will become "deputy mayors” 100% controlled by the executive. More power at the top, makes checks and balances less durable.
Measure G: Allowing Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park
NO on Prop G, which would rip up Sunset Dunes Park: Since Sunset Dunes opened last year, it’s become the City’s third most-visited park, thanks to its children’s play areas, a skate and bike park, public art, seating, and hammocks. Nearly 60 percent of those visits are on weekdays. Prop G threatens to undo all of that and force our City to spend nearly $10 million to destroy the park and bring back the vehicular pollution we just got rid of, plus $2 million a year on a crumbling, sand-covered road. It would push families out of this beautiful recreational space and hurt the local businesses that are patronized by park visitors. Some of our members opposed 2024’s Prop K, the measure that closed the Great Highway to make way for this park, but now that Sunset Dunes is part of our lives, we think it’s in San Francisco’s best interest to keep it the vibrant public space that it is.
Measure I: Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax
YES on Prop I, the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act (https://www.fairhousingsf.com/): Six years ago, San Francisco voters said YES to a tax on large corporate real-estate sales to fund affordable housing. But three years ago, the City started diverting that money to other things in the budget. Now, we have an opportunity to require the City to use this money for its intended purpose. Vote YES on the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act.
Proposition 3: California Renew State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative
YES on Proposition 3: Our public schools rely on this vital funding source that’s set to expire if we don’t extend it. It’s time to make it permanent so it can continue to support our kids’ education.
Proposition 4: California Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure
YES on Proposition 4: This bill allows Public Financing for every city, county, district and even the State of CA. We can Fund Candidates with integrity and NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
Proposition 39: California Voter Identification, Citizenship Verification, and Registered Voter List Administration Initiative
NO on Proposition 39: California voters already prove our identity and citizenship when we register to vote. Prop 39 would add an onerous requirement that we bring photo ID when voting in person. This is the same voter-suppression strategy of adding hoops to jump through that MAGA Republicans have been rolling out across the country. Vote NO on bringing it to California.
Proposition 40: California One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food Assistance Programs Initiative
YES on Proposition 40: We want California to fund more public services with more tax revenue, and it’s long past time for those with the most wealth—billionaires—to contribute some of it in tax. Prop 40 would tax 5% of every billionaire’s wealth. We need to do this at least once; Prop 40 would be a great start.
Proposition 41: California Prohibit Excluding New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Require Special Tax Audits Initiative
NO on Proposition 41: To actually fund more services, we need to get around a weird California law called the Gann Limit (officially the State Appropriations Limit (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4416)). Prop 41 would ban propositions—including Prop 40 and one or two others on this ballot—from exempting themselves from the Gann Limit. So, since we support Prop 40 and growing the budgetary pie in general, we oppose Prop 41.
Proposition 42: California Prohibit New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limit Retroactive Taxes Initiative
NO on Proposition 42: To rein in wealth inequality, we need to tax the wealth of those who have excessive amounts of it (billionaires). Prop 42 would ban wealth taxes (including Prop 40). So, we oppose Prop 42.
Proposition 45: Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative
NO on Proposition 45: This measure to amend CEQA (the environmental-review law that’s used to try to lever more affordable housing out of developers, but sometimes leads to such long review processes that developers give up) elicited a range of opinions from our members,. It’s supported mainly by developers and opposed mainly by affordable-housing advocates. What tipped us against it was a provision that would require a two-thirds popular vote to amend it—higher than to pass it in the first place. This is a bad smell and we rejected this attempt to make it harder for Californians to make further changes down the line.
