Email Inbox Fun: Counting “In Lieu” Signatures for the Candidates in the Mayoral Race – What’s a Signature?

Now, I know what signatures are not.

Signatures are not what the Run Ed Run campaigners are getting or trying to get at a Recology breakroom* or at Avalos for Mayor HQ or at Golden Gate Park.

Nomination petition signatures need to be bona fide, right?

Would you risk breaking campaigning laws to gather this garbage? I wouldn’t:

Click to expand

All right, here it is, some unknown person’s attempt at the numbers as of yesterday’s deadline. This is a test, right? A measure of strength? I mean, if you don’t have money and you don’t have people, well, then you don’t have much. Of course, some of the campaigns want to use their resources in a different way, which is perfectly fine, of course…

(Until we found out the real numbers officially from City Hall, this will have to do. )

“For the past 8 weeks, candidates for Mayor of San Francisco and their volunteers have been asking voters for their signatures. That’s because mayoral candidates must either collect 10,096 signatures or cough up the $5,048 filing fee for their name to appear on November’s ballot.

Most of the serious contenders for Room 200 launched signature gathering campaigns in June and have been submitting their completed forms since. Thursday evening was the deadline for the signatures, and most candidates were collecting up until the last minute. Campaigns sent out a flurry of press releases in the afternoon, each claiming that their campaigns gathered over 10,000 signatures.

But before these candidates’ signatures are counted, the Department of Elections puts them through a strict validity check to assure that the signer is in fact registered to vote in San Francisco at the address they claim.

So far, only Sen. Leland Yee’s campaign has turned in enough valid signatures to get on the ballot – and did so a week early. The other campaigns will have to wait for their signatures to go through the stringent validity checks at the Dept. of Elections. Those big numbers sent out in press releases today may not translate to real signatures – and the candidates will have to pay cash to make up the difference.

For example, Supervisor John Avalos needs nearly every signature submitted on Thursday to be counted as valid in order to meet the 10,096 valid signature requirement. Today, he touted that the campaign had garnered over 10,000 signatures. But if just 7 of the randomly sampled signatures are found to be invalid, then the campaign will fall short of the needed number of signatures.

David Chiu sent an email today with the subject line “13,903!” to celebrate the large number of signatures he had collected – but his campaign had only 5,189 valid signatures at the Department today before his final submission this evening. Chiu needs 4,907 signatures of the 6,000 submitted today to be valid – but only 66% of the signatures he’s ever submitted passed the test. Unless he did something differently this time, he’s likely to fall short.

As for Dennis Herrera, his campaign only turned in a total of 8,905 signatures – and not all of them were valid. If he did collect over 10,000, as his press release claims, the signatures never made it to City Hall…”

All right then.

*SFGate now posts H. Brown YouTube videos? News to me. I’m getting a little bit of a Dennis Hopper vibe from that there. Go ahead – open two windows and play both vids simultaneously. See?    

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply