The Real Lesson of San Francisco’s D.A. Recall
Sonari GLINTON: San Francisco is a breeding ground for progressive politicians. Harvey Milk. Dianne Feinstein. Nancy Pelosi. Kamala Harris. There is, though, a politician who was hoping to carry on that mantle. His name? Chesa Boudin. This was never about one vote count. It was never about one election night party. This is a movement, not a moment in history. Chesa Boudin is the soon to be former San Francisco district attorney. Boudin lost his job last week after voters overwhelmingly turned him out of office in a special recall election.
Speaker 2: This recall of D.A. Boudin started the day that voters put him in office.
Sonari GLINTON: That’s Jessica Brand. She’s a political consultant who focuses on the criminal justice system through her organization, The Wren Collective. She’s worked with progressive candidates around the country, and few places are more linked to progressive causes than San Francisco, a city that, as of late has come under the spotlight for homelessness and crime. Two of the issues that propelled Boudin is lost.
Speaker 2: People are afraid. People’s lives have been destabilized. People’s lives are upended. I think that’s a really, really important factor in that city. And so you have a lot of people who are already have anxiety and and they have anger at their government because policies have been ineffective and they’ve been looking for an outlet for that anger.
Sonari GLINTON: The San Francisco district attorney race became the target for much of the city’s anger. Chesa Boudin says opposition was backed by big money from Silicon Valley. And his opponents were able to pin the city’s current homelessness problem and a perception of crime increasing on the incumbent D.A.. Now, progressives are worried that Boudin defeat could spell trouble for other days across the country. Many of them came into office in 2015 promising to use their powers to combat mass incarceration and reform the criminal justice system. Today on the show is the defeat of the San Francisco district attorney, a harbinger of doom for other progressive ideas across the country. I’m Sonari GLINTON, in for Mary Harris. You’re listening to What next? Stick around.
Sonari GLINTON: While Chesa Boudin is relatively young and this is its first elective office, he has a family history in politics.
Speaker 2: So do you, Boudin. You know, it’s sort of well known, I think, in leftist circles, because his parents were very, very famous members of the Weather Underground and they went to prison when he was a young child. And so he was raised in Chicago by friends of his parents, by very, very famous intellectuals on the left side. But he, you know, really spent his life thinking and learning about the impact of the criminal legal system on families and also the harm that can be caused to other people by people who, you know, hurt other people. And I think that’s one of the things that makes David in a really, really interesting leader as he sort of has grappled with this from both sides of the equation.
Sonari GLINTON: He gets elected to a very slim margin a few years ago. Tell me, what are the issues that get him over the hump in San Francisco?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, this is, I think, really important. San Francisco has what’s called ranked choice voting. Right. So it’s different then. And, you know, you pick one candidate or the other candidate, right. So, well, I may have picked DIA Boudin, for example, as my second choice. If my first choice didn’t get enough votes, they get kicked off the ballot. And then all of a sudden, my first choice for it goes to Boudin. It’s kind of a confusing system. But what it meant was that actually during the recall, the Boudin actually got 10,000 more votes or so than he did when he was actually elected. So that set up a system where he could be recalled a lot more easily, I think, than in the normal electoral state.
Sonari GLINTON: What were his main agenda items coming in?
Speaker 2: I think the biggest one for him was police accountability. You know, in San Francisco, there really hadn’t been police officers who had been prosecuted for causing harm. And he promised he was going to change that. And he did. He did hold officers accountable. He brought cases that really, by the way, drew the ire of the police union and the San Francisco Police Department, which is played a role in this recall process. So but I think that is was very popular. It still is very popular in San Francisco.
Speaker 2: Right. By the way, people in San Francisco still say they support criminal justice reform and police accountability. He promised to really take a look at loud sentences. Right. We know that long sentences don’t actually reduce crime at all. They’re totally ineffective at that. But we’ve allowed those sentence lengths to just absolutely explode over time. And he promised to really take a look and reduce those. So people weren’t basically dying in prison. That was a big part of his platform. The end of the use of money bail was something that he promised to try to implement. And then, of course, increasing support for survivors. Sexual assault survivors have long been ignored by the criminal justice system. It’s something tough on crime rates don’t like to talk about and treating kids like kids.
Sonari GLINTON: When we talk about what a district attorney does, they essentially prosecute crimes. They don’t arrest people. Right. They help me understand what role of the DA’s office in San Francisco has in, say, what could it do potentially crime wise and homelessness wise?
Speaker 2: Not a whole lot, I think, is the answer to that. You know, the district attorney’s office handles cases after they happen. Right. And so there’s no prevention mechanism in these cases. Now, there are some things Diaz do, right? A case might come in. You might offer what’s called a diversion program to address the root causes of a crime. So you might say, like, I’ll dismiss your case if you go through a drug treatment program. But, you know, that’s a that’s a small effect that the DA’s office can have on those issues. Right. These problems are so big, they’re so systemic. You need public health policy. And that is not at all within the purview of the D.A..
Sonari GLINTON: Now, there are many other social issues out of reach as well.
Speaker 2: There is no question that homelessness is out of control. And San Francisco, that is the worst for the unhoused population. Right. But we’re not very good at having empathy for the unhoused population. But it is also it’s okay to say this. I think it’s anxiety producing, right? When you walk through your neighborhood and you see there needles are big encampments. That should be a solution for the mayor, right? That’s who people should be angry at.
Speaker 2: But what happened here is there was a $7.2 million campaign to equate problems with homelessness, with crime. That is so in our DNA and our muscle memory. To think every solution for every problem should be to lock people up when that has never worked. That doesn’t solve the housing population, right? You need a supportive housing system. You need to spend the money there. But we that is just into the fabric of how we feel about solutions in our society. And so if you have that much money, you can take advantage of that. You can get people to target. Anger at de Boudin. So you had people who didn’t like him, who wanted him recalled and figured out how to sort of prey on people’s current anxieties and target that at him. It’s going to be really interesting to see how people react to the London breed. Now to Mayor Breed, because this is all at her feet now. Right. This is now all her problem and there’s no one else to blame.
Sonari GLINTON: So let’s talk about the people who have the money, who are the primary donors or where did this money come from?
Speaker 2: So $7.2 million is a lot of money in a low turnout race. And it was largely funded by Republican donors, people who supported Donald Trump and continue to support that party. And there’s been a lot of pushback on that narrative by people who say, well, San Francisco is a Democratic city. What are you talking about? But in a low turnout election, right. Messaging and turnout is so important. So if Republicans are controlling that narrative and what gets into people’s mailboxes and what gets on people’s TVs. Right. You can take advantage of that fear, whether the voters are Democratic or Republican or whoever it is. But the motives of the funders, I think, are really important there.
Sonari GLINTON: So we see that there’s Republican money going into San Francisco and there’s this perception of a worse city. Let’s can you help me break down where things actually are better or worse in terms of, say, homelessness or crime?
Speaker 2: So the perception of crime in San Francisco is really, really different than reality. You know, violent crime across the city is actually you know, we’re still continuing a largely downward trajectory. Right, some increases in certain categories, but, you know, it’s largely decreased. What I want to say about that, though, is that we talk a lot about crime rates up, down like that. It’s like good or bad. Violent crime is a problem always. Right. And we should always be concerned about violent crime. And I think it’s really telling when people choose to publicly care about it. And it tends to be during elections, but not at a time when we can really do anything about it. So I would just encourage your listeners to look at people who talk about violent crime during an election year and be skeptical about whether they really care about solving it.
Speaker 2: You know, then we have property crimes. They spike in San Francisco like they did everywhere during the pandemic, but now they’re starting to go back down to pre-pandemic levels. Larceny, theft was always down. So, you know, those are just a couple of examples. Shoplifting was the one that really, really went up in the last couple of years. So that is all to say. It’s complicated. San Francisco is actually a much safer city than in most places. And that’s, again, why I think homelessness really played such a big role in this race, because that’s the thing that’s visible in San Francisco wherever you go and people wrongly equate that with crime.
Sonari GLINTON: We’ll be back after a quick break.
Sonari GLINTON: Let’s then step back to the general world. I mean, I live in Los Angeles. A couple of years ago, we had a D.A. turned out of office for a progressive D.A. in Chicago. There’s Kim Fox. There’s Larry Krasner. These are people who rode in with a mission of, you know, being a day to help change criminal justice. Now, these politicians are drawing a lot of ire. Is this an anomaly? And how how sure are these positions as the years and statistics? Roland.
Speaker 2: We’ve had a lot of reelections and we’ve had a lot of people run unopposed who are reformers. So the big referendum on this, I think, was actually Larry Krasner’s race last year. He ran against a very well-funded opponent. Crime in Philadelphia is no joke. Right. Homicides are through the roof and violent crime. It’s complicated, but it’s also very bad there. And people are afraid. And the narrative was it’s all due to Krasner’s fault, for which there was no evidence. But that was the message that was pounded at the streets and on television. And Dear Krasner, what is primary by 34 points, and people from the most affected of communities overwhelmingly voted for him.
Speaker 2: So what does that tell us? One, that it is that someone who believes in a criminal justice reform platform and implements it can get re-elected even when crime is high, and that people who are actually impacted by violence know that the old school policies weren’t going to help them and they want change and they want something better for their communities. And I think that was so telling. I mean, Ken Fox ran against a self-funded millionaire, you know, who could fund his campaign with no problem. She won by 14 points. I mean, we’re just time and again continuing to see success.
Speaker 2: So, sure, what happened in San Francisco feels like a blow. But I think if people thought we were going to elect progressive prosecutors and it was going to be a linear trajectory in the positive direction, have not been paying attention to the history of this country around criminal justice. And so it hurts. But I think overall, you know, the line is really, really positive.
Sonari GLINTON: Look, I mean, you can look at it that way, but then you can say this is a pretty I mean, two years in in a very, very liberal city. You know, after a big loss like this, politicians are not courageous folk. They see this happening in San Francisco. You know, maybe I tip toe a little more in South Bend or someplace else.
Speaker 2: I mean, they could do that. I think they do that at their peril because then you just don’t have answers for anything. Right. I mean, if you are a mealy mouthed Democrat and your only answer to crime. So please on accountability is, you know, more money for police and schools or oh, we’re going to kind of do more of the same and we need long prosecutions. Then you don’t look very different than your opponent and how are you going to win? The accuser leaned into what he said he was going to do and he just destroyed his opponent. It just wasn’t even close. And yeah, you know, the pundits may not like Fox in Cook County, but her constituents love her. Right. The voters love her. And so there’s a big disconnect, I think, between like what the talking heads politicos would say and what voters actually want. And we don’t listen to voters on the left, I think, at our peril.
Sonari GLINTON: So then what are the lessons for these progressives? What advice would you give to them about carrying the message going forward after this loss?
Speaker 2: The first one I would say is don’t hide. And I think this is something that D.A. Boudin suffered from at first. You know, he took office when the pandemic hit so he could not be out in the community that much. Right. There was a deadly virus that was happening. So he wasn’t as president of an elected official as he would have been if there had been no COVID. These elected officials need to be back out in the community, reminding people of who they are and what they’re doing. And I think when they do that, they’re really, really successful. I think, too, is we have to have public health solutions for the problems that we are facing, even though that’s not within the district attorney’s purview. But we have to come up with affirmative solutions that we’re asking city council or county commissioner or the mayor. Right. To be pushing. Because otherwise, you know, we look like we’re trying to pass the buck. And I think that’s a big mistake. So it’s unfair that these officials have to take on so much, but that’s the that’s just the reality.
Sonari GLINTON: Let’s go back to San Francisco as we turn the bend. There’s some of the policies stick regardless of who comes in. And help me understand the politics of who succeeds de Boudin.
Speaker 2: Well, who the politics of who London Breed appoints is well beyond my pay grade and understanding. It’s all like a smoke and mirrors to me. But you know, I don’t know how much is actually going to change because they’re good, smart policies. Right. And they’re popular. The reality is, if you took the Boudin name off of it and just like floated the policies, they’re pretty popular in San Francisco. And changing them or not changing them isn’t going to change the problem. Right? Look, you’re still going to have the substance. He’s probably still going to have almost this problem. So, you know, we’ll see how much of it actually changes in this term.
Sonari GLINTON: The night that the results were announced, he said that this was never about one vote, was never about one election night party. This is a movement, not a moment in history. Do you see it that way? And essentially how to how do other how do other progressives avoid, you know, making that same speech?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, I for sure see it that way. Maybe I’m just like a cynic, but I thought we were going to lose a lot more than we’ve won, you know, since I have sort of been in this game. I mean, for those of us who have really been in the trenches on criminal justice as a public defender for a long time, but you just lose everything, right? So all this winning is actually shocking to me and I think a really good sign.
Speaker 2: So yeah, again, one loss is really hard and you know, Chesa was the face of a lot of criminal justice, but he’s not the only one. Right. There’s tons of other people out there all across the country, rural cities fighting this fight and continue to win. And my advice to survive this is just get out and stick with what you believe in, what you said you would do. Because people like politicians who keep their promises. People like politicians who can offer real solutions. People like politicians who who are committed to fighting for them. What people don’t like is a politician who says, like, times are hard, so I’m going to be mealy mouthed and change who I am and people can sniff that out in a second.
Sonari GLINTON: So as you look at the national landscape, this has been a movement that has been going on for years. As you say, there have been wins. Where do you see, say, progressive DA’s who have a chance or some who might be in jeopardy where they’re candidates on the rise or where there are people who might be in jeopardy.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, I think the next big race for people to pay attention to is Baltimore City, where Marilyn Mosby, who’s been a reformer, is up for re-election. And that. Two candidates who are opposing her are running far to the right. They’re running messaging that can be seen on Tucker Carlson or a Donald Trump campaign ad to try to scare people and really lie to people about what’s happening in that city. So I think that’s the next sort of scary, I would say scary race for reformers. But then, you know, there are some interesting ones that are coming up. There’s the Boston D.A. race, the Suffolk County D.A. Race, Rachel Rollins, one who became a U.S. attorney. So that is now an open seat. And I think that race will be really, really interesting.
Sonari GLINTON: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
Sonari GLINTON: Jessica Brand is the founder and co-director of the Wren Collective, a consulting service that’s focused on transforming the criminal justice system. And that’s the show. We have a special announcement about an upcoming Slate live event. If you want to get up to date on everything happening on the Supreme Court right now, come to the Bell House in Brooklyn, New York, on Thursday, June 23rd. That’s when my colleagues from Slate will be unpacking all the news. And there will also be a special live, slow burn taping. Head to Slate.com slash supreme to get your tickets now. What next is produced by Elaina Schwartz, Carmel Delshad and Mary Wilson with help from Anna Rubanova and Sam Kim. We are led by Alicia montgomery and Joanne Levine. I’m Sonari GLINTON. I’ll be back in this feed tomorrow. Talk to you then.
