Welcome to Sex and the State, a newsletter about power. To support my work toward decriminalizing and destigmatizing everything sex please buy a subscription, follow me on OnlyFans, or just share this post with a friend or on a social network! ~~~~~
Chesea Boudin has been in office since December, and almost immediately after he was voted into office, we had the pandemic with its shelter in place and other restrictions. So these are unusual times. He was elected by the voters and deserves a chance to try his approach before we try to impeach him. I voted for Boudin but it was a tough call. We should not impeach people willy-nilly and try to overturn the will of the voters. If someone is doing a bad job, they should be thrown out of office at the ballot box except in cases of extreme malfeasance. Also, violent crime in SF is actually down overall:
I believe this impeachment effort will fail as it is driven by a few ideologues and does not represent San Francisco majority values. I doubt that they even gather the signatures: these sorts of things require 15,000 signatures and almost everyone needs to use paid signature gatherers so unless someone donates the $300-400k required it will just fizzle out.
As someone who is somewhat on the fence about this, and who talks to a fair number of recall supporters, my sense is that there are two main motivations.
First, the mishandling of the Troy McAlister case. This was a repeat violent offender who really should have long since been in prison, and was repeatedly released instead, and ended up killing two innocent people. There is a complicated question about how much that's the DA's fault and how much the fault of other actors in the system, and I don't know how to evaluate that question. But for those who think the DA could and should have acted earlier to keep him incarcerated, this is a clear sign to them that he just isn't motivated to protect the public from such people.
Second, while many kinds of crime have not gone up recently, and homicides have increased no more here than in other cities, residential forced-entry burglaries really have gone up a lot. In the area of the city where I live, this makes people feel much less safe in their homes than they were before, because it's so common for burglars to break into garages in the middle of the night to steal whatever they can steal quickly (usually bikes, sometimes other valuables). Whether you think this should count as violent crime or not, it is scary and feels tremendously violating to not feel secure in one's own home. And as far as we can tell these burglars basically never get caught and never suffer any consequences.
And Boudin has not given any sign of being particularly motivated to do anything at all about this-- he comes across as basically shrugging and saying, well, the people who used to prey on tourists are preying on homeowners instead now because there aren't any tourists, whaddayagonnado? Again, there is a complicated question of whether he *could* actually do anything effective about this if he wanted to and I don't have a high-confidence answer to that. But I do think it is harder for Boudin than for most to credibly signal that he actually cares about defending people's homes and property, because of his Chavista past.
I can certainly see the argument that even with these faults, if the only alternative is traditional overcriminalization and failure to hold abusive cops accountable, on balance we're better off with Boudin. But I think at least some recall supporters would like to find someone who will continue to resist overcriminalization and continue to hold abusive cops accountable, but who will both actually care and credibly appear to actually care about protecting the public from serial violent criminals like Troy McAlister and about imposing some consequences on forced-entry burglars. Maybe that's not a realistic desire, but I wouldn't call it a reactionary one.
Chesea Boudin has been in office since December, and almost immediately after he was voted into office, we had the pandemic with its shelter in place and other restrictions. So these are unusual times. He was elected by the voters and deserves a chance to try his approach before we try to impeach him. I voted for Boudin but it was a tough call. We should not impeach people willy-nilly and try to overturn the will of the voters. If someone is doing a bad job, they should be thrown out of office at the ballot box except in cases of extreme malfeasance. Also, violent crime in SF is actually down overall:
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crime-dashboard
I believe this impeachment effort will fail as it is driven by a few ideologues and does not represent San Francisco majority values. I doubt that they even gather the signatures: these sorts of things require 15,000 signatures and almost everyone needs to use paid signature gatherers so unless someone donates the $300-400k required it will just fizzle out.
As someone who is somewhat on the fence about this, and who talks to a fair number of recall supporters, my sense is that there are two main motivations.
First, the mishandling of the Troy McAlister case. This was a repeat violent offender who really should have long since been in prison, and was repeatedly released instead, and ended up killing two innocent people. There is a complicated question about how much that's the DA's fault and how much the fault of other actors in the system, and I don't know how to evaluate that question. But for those who think the DA could and should have acted earlier to keep him incarcerated, this is a clear sign to them that he just isn't motivated to protect the public from such people.
Second, while many kinds of crime have not gone up recently, and homicides have increased no more here than in other cities, residential forced-entry burglaries really have gone up a lot. In the area of the city where I live, this makes people feel much less safe in their homes than they were before, because it's so common for burglars to break into garages in the middle of the night to steal whatever they can steal quickly (usually bikes, sometimes other valuables). Whether you think this should count as violent crime or not, it is scary and feels tremendously violating to not feel secure in one's own home. And as far as we can tell these burglars basically never get caught and never suffer any consequences.
And Boudin has not given any sign of being particularly motivated to do anything at all about this-- he comes across as basically shrugging and saying, well, the people who used to prey on tourists are preying on homeowners instead now because there aren't any tourists, whaddayagonnado? Again, there is a complicated question of whether he *could* actually do anything effective about this if he wanted to and I don't have a high-confidence answer to that. But I do think it is harder for Boudin than for most to credibly signal that he actually cares about defending people's homes and property, because of his Chavista past.
I can certainly see the argument that even with these faults, if the only alternative is traditional overcriminalization and failure to hold abusive cops accountable, on balance we're better off with Boudin. But I think at least some recall supporters would like to find someone who will continue to resist overcriminalization and continue to hold abusive cops accountable, but who will both actually care and credibly appear to actually care about protecting the public from serial violent criminals like Troy McAlister and about imposing some consequences on forced-entry burglars. Maybe that's not a realistic desire, but I wouldn't call it a reactionary one.