‘Totally Crazy’: Trump Holds Bipartisan Housing Bill Hostage to Push Evisceration of Voting Rights

Homeless woman in Skid Row

Lashon Warren, 53, who has been homeless on Skid Row in Los Angeles, California for eight years, wipes her face while talking about the stress and decrepit conditions on the street on June 25, 2025. 

(Photo by Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

“Trump just threw a tantrum,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “He’s refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections.”

Jessica Corbett

Jun 24, 2026 (CommonDreams.org)

Congress this week passed a bipartisan bill “to build more housing, lower costs, and stop private equity’s housing grab,” as US Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted after the final vote, but President Donald Trump on Wednesday scrapped his plans to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act over a stalled GOP attack on voting rights.

Trump initially took a swipe at Warren (D-Mass.) on his Truth Social platform Wednesday morning, writing that “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill, which is of minor importance compared to lower interest rates, and even FISA, pales in comparison to passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about.”

RECOMMENDED…

President Trump Attends G7 Summit In Evian, France

After Months of Ranting About Taking Iran’s Uranium, Trump Asks, ‘Why Bother?’

Iranian Delegation Arrives In Switzerland For Peace Talks With US

Insulted by Trump’s Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks

“Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF,” Trump continued. “The Dumocrats will do it in hour one, 100%. Republicans will feel very stupid if they don’t do it first. I’ll be watching with tears in my eyes!!!”

Less than an hour later, he added, “Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency.”

Trump and other backers of the anti-voter bill argue it is needed to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting in US elections—which is already illegal, and research shows is remarkably rare. Critics warn that the legislation would disenfranchise eligible voters who lack access to proof-of-citizenship documents.

No paywall. No ads. No billionaire owner. Just you.

Common Dreams is funded exclusively by readers tired of news beholden to corporate interests. Our monthly supporters are the backbone of what makes that possible. Help us reach our Mid-Year Campaign goal of 450 new monthly supporters by July 1.

While Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) responded by stressing that he and other Republicans in the House of Representatives support the SAVE America Act, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the canceled ceremony was Trump’s “call to make” but expressed hope that he’ll “find his way to sign” the housing bill, other lawmakers—including Warren—and supporters of the legislation took aim at the president over his move.

“Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum,” Warren wrote on social media. “He’s refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections. Nope—I’ll keep fighting to lower housing costs.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told journalists that “Trump is running away from one of the very few accomplishments that could actually help the American people,” and urged the president not to veto the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

Approved by the Senate in an 85-5 vote on Monday and the House in a 358-32 vote on Tuesday, the bill contains dozens of provisions to promote the rebuilding of older homes and development of vacant buildings, encourage local governments to build more housing, streamline regulations for construction, ban corporate investors from buying single-family homes to rent out, and more.

Stressing that the bill passed “overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way,” and would “save American families a lot of money when it comes to housing,” Sen. Andy Kim (D-Calif.) said that “I honestly can’t believe that the president is holding this hostage.”

“I hope the American people see this for what it is, which is that he doesn’t care at all about the high cost of living that a lot of Americans are struggling with,” Kim declared. “He doesn’t care about the housing crisis. He is just continuing to push forward on his extreme agenda.”

In the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) replied to the president: “The housing crisis is a national emergency. Do something to make life more affordable for hardworking American taxpayers. Sign the bill.”

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) pointed to Trump’s campaign pledges, writing: “The president who promised lower costs on Day 1 is refusing to sign the largest housing affordability bill in a generation. It’s a slap in the face to millions of Americans struggling to afford a place to live. My Republican colleagues need to find some courage and stand up to this mad king.”

In a video, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) warned the public that Trump “is taking away your housing for his personal projects that can never pass and are unconstitutional.”

Longtime human rights advocate Kenneth Roth, who’s now a visiting professor at Princeton University, similarly summarized: “Trump to America: I [couldn’t] care less about affordable housing. So I won’t sign a bill to advance it unless Congress endorses my autocratic efforts to restrict the right to vote.”

Although Trump has not decisively said whether he will formally block the bill, Roth wondered, “Will the Republicans have the backbone to override his veto?”

Either way, The New York Times noted that “Trump’s decision threatened to deprive Republicans, in particular, of an opportunity to showcase a legislative success in a year with very few of them—one that spoke directly to voters’ economic concerns.”

In a Wednesday statement, Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, looked to the midterm elections, in which Democrats aim to retake majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Donald Trump has been clear: The SAVE Act is his #1 legislative priority—not lowering costs for working people, creating good-paying jobs, or helping families afford a roof over their heads,” said Edkins. “Today, he decided it was more important to help Republicans avoid accountability for the cost-of-living crisis than actually do something about it.”

“Trump was born on third base, and it shows. He has no clue what it’s like to struggle to make rent, save for a down payment, pay a mortgage, or worry that your kids will be able to afford a home of their own,” he added. “Trump could’ve signed bipartisan legislation today to help lower housing costs and give Republicans something—anything—to show voters that they deserve reelection this November. Instead, he told working families to screw themselves. It’s selfish, petty, and self-defeating.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Jessica Corbett

Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Mamdani Sweeps; Party Weeps

Party control is dying

Ken Klippenstein Jun 24, 2026

All three Mamdani-endorsed congressional candidates won in New York’s Democratic primary yesterday, ousting two party-backed incumbents, and proving there’s a huge appetite for something new in American politics.

The media are calling it a victory for the mayor, for the Democratic Socialists of America, for progressives, for Bernie Sanders. But I see something different. It is a victory for the common voter who is saying that they don’t want party-approved operators to represent them anymore.

Democrat and Republican alike, I find it hard to believe that the old parties will ever recover.

In New York, the Democratic party’s heaviest hitters — both from the state — lost big. House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries endorsed the incumbents and campaigned hard against the Mamdani slate. Chuck Schumer, the other great power of New York Democratic politics and Senate Minority leader, said almost nothing about his own party’s candidates — which tells you how eager he was to distance himself from the fight. New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul lined up behind Rep. Dan Goldman in Manhattan.

Between the three, they couldn’t deliver a single race.

To say simply that they “lost” doesn’t do the turnabout justice. They lost the way the Knicks beat the Hawks 140-89 in this year’s playoffs. They lost bigly!

There’s already a flood of punditry working to downplay the results. The favorite move is some version of “but this is New York and it doesn’t apply anywhere else” — as if anyone is out there demanding a clone of Mamdani in, say, Wisconsin. Whether Wisconsin or Wyoming, the lesson is that the New York/DC-dominated Party’s monopoly on who people get to vote for is waning.

The point here isn’t that Mamdani “won” or New York is turning “left.” I’m saying that even in New York, ordinary voters reached past the gatekeepers, picked their own nominees, and ignored the party-approved darlings. And that matters because parties have long had a stranglehold on our politics that is corrosive to democracy.

George Washington saw the danger of excessive Party rule coming. In his Farewell Address he warned, with a clarity that today seems eerily prescient, against “the baneful effects of the spirit of party.”

Party loyalty left unchecked, he argued, “serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” agitating the public “with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms.”

And he saw where it ends. The endless war between factions, Washington warned, eventually exhausts people so completely that they go looking for “security and repose in the absolute power of an individual” — handing a strongman the keys on the ruins of public liberty.

Sound familiar?

The media won’t talk about the tyranny of party control for largely the same reasons it can’t talk about the tyranny of national security: it is an appendage of it, relying on it for access and the like. If you’d like to support journalism that’s genuinely independent, subscribe below (or chip in via my GoFundMe here).

Oh, and the portion of George Washington’s farewell address excoriating the party system is worth reading (included below).

Subscribe if you don’t trust party bureaucrats to choose who you get to vote for

Upgrade to paid

Leave a comment

Share

— Edited by William Arkin

Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Federal judge in California bans ICE from arresting immigrants at courthouses

National win for civil rights group behind Northern California class-action lawsuit also barred long-term detentions

A young woman with long dark hair, wearing a white shirt and brown jacket, smiles at the camera against a plain light background. by Abigail Vân Neely June 24, 2026 (MissionLocal.org)

Several police officers in uniform stand outside a building’s glass doors, with one officer handling a metal chain and lock attached to the door handles during an immigration enforcement operation.
Federal police removing the chains used to block the entrance to 630 Sansome St. on Dec. 16, 2025. Photo by Mariana Garcia.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement can no longer arrest immigrants at courthouse hearings or detain them for over 12 hours in short-term holding cells anywhere in the country, a federal judge in California ruled Tuesday. 

The ruling expands a temporary order from December that had prohibited both practices in Northern California.

Courthouse arrests came under legal scrutiny last year. Dramatic scenes of ICE agents arresting people during routine hearings were broadcast from 26 Federal Plaza in New York and other courthouses. In San Francisco, protesters clashed with federal agents outside the main immigration court, where hundreds were arrested. 

Mission Local logo, with blue and orange lines on the shape of the Mission District

Want the latest on the Mission and San Francisco? Sign up for our free daily newsletter below.Sign up

The practice had all but ceased in San Francisco since October 2025. However, it continued in other parts of the country like New York and Texas, said Nisha Kashyap, an attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. 

When immigrants were arrested after their hearings, they were often held in cells meant for short-term detention, sometimes for several days, before being transferred to a long-term detention center. San Francisco attorneys, in their lawsuit, demanded and won an end to the practice of holding people longer than 12 hours in these short-term cells. 

ICE’s recent practices of arresting people outside court and then detaining them for days in a holding cell were new. 

In January 2025, ICE and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review reversed years of guidance against courthouse arrests when it issued a policy that agents could “conduct civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses” whenever they believed a noncitizen would be present, not just someone who posed a public safety threat. 

ICE also used to require its agents to ensure that no one was detained in a holding facility for longer than 12 hours. As enforcement increased, however, the number of people in detention “significantly increased,” an ICE official wrote. 

In June 2025, the agency said field offices nationwide could begin detaining people for up to three days or longer in “exceptional circumstances.”

Judge Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California court wrote that neither decision was backed up by clear reasoning required by Congress’ Administrative Procedures Act. He banned both practices, describing them as “arbitrary and capricious.” 

Pitts’ ruling was a “crushing blow to some of the Trump administration’s most extreme immigration enforcement tactics,” the plaintiffs wrote in a press statement. 

“The courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE,” wrote Jordan Wells, a senior attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “No one, immigrants included, should be forced to choose between their liberty and their day in court.”

We won’t ignore your neighborhood

When a San Francisco neighborhood has a Mission Local reporter, it means someone is there. We’re following new housing projects proposed on your block, keeping tabs on what your district supervisor is up to at City Hall, and letting you know when longtime businesses close (and new ones open). When big news breaks, we already know the context.

Most neighborhoods don’t have that. Yours could. 

That’s what Mission Local is building. Our reporters don’t parachute in — they write consistently on San Francisco, so you’re never reading about your neighborhood from someone who just looked it up.

So far we are in five of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. But we know all San Franciscans deserve our kind of coverage. Will you join us?

Put a reporter on your block!

Latest News

S.F. supervisors will hammer out the city budget tonight. Here’s what’s at stake. 

S.F. supervisors will hammer out the city budget tonight. Here’s what’s at stake. 

What losing the Make Out Room would mean to San Francisco

What losing the Make Out Room would mean to San Francisco

After a year without a pharmacy, Bayview is finally getting one

After a year without a pharmacy, Bayview is finally getting one

Abigail Vân NeelyStaff reporter

abigail@missionlocal.com

Abigail is a staff reporter at Mission Local covering criminal justice and public health. She got her bachelor’s and master’s from Stanford University and has received awards for investigative reporting and public service journalism.

Abigail now lives in San Francisco with her cat, Sally Carrera, but she’ll always be a New Yorker. (Yes, the shelter named the cat after the Porsche from the animated movie Cars.)

Message her securely via Signal at abi.725More by Abigail Vân Neely

The “Maestro” Alan Greenspan in his own words

“Atypical restraint on compensation increases has been evident for a few years now, and appears to be mainly the consequence of greater worker insecurity. The willingness of workers in recent years to trade off smaller increases in wages for greater job security seems to be reasonably well documented.” [1]

Alan Greenspan was an American economist who served as the 13th chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. He worked as a private adviser and provided consulting for firms through his company, Greenspan Associates LLC. Wikipedia

Born 1926, Washington Heights, New York, NY

Died June 22, 2026 (age 100 years), Washington, D.C.

AI Companies Are Trying to Seize Control of Elections

“There was no way as a grassroots person that I could compete with that kind of money.”

By Joe Wilkins

Published Jun 23, 2026 (Futurism.com)

A graphic illustration featuring two puppeteer hands with their strings dangling before them in the foreground and a spotlit American flag behind it.
Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Shutterstock

With trillions of dollars on the line, it should come as no surprise that tech companies are spending gobs of cash on the upcoming US midterm elections. What is surprising is the scale of electoral financing, as certain newly-founded AI super PACs are now spending more on candidates than the candidates are spending on themselves.

According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, political finance groups linked to tech companies including OpenAI and Anthropic are already some of the top spenders in the 2026 elections. So far, they’ve distributed a combined $37 million on various campaigns, a number which is expected to skyrocket as November draws closer (and those are just the ones we know about, as numerous tech-backed PACs are alleged to have evaded federal reporting requirements.)

While one might expect these companies to flock to the typically pro-business and small-government Republican party, an LA Times infographic shows that they’re cynically playing both sides. ChatGPT maker OpenAI, for example, is heavily linked to both the American Mission PAC, which has donated $8 million to Republicans, and the Think Big PAC, which has spent $14.1 million on Democrats so far.

Anthropic, meanwhile, is linked to the Jobs and Democracy PAC and Defending Our Values PAC, which gave $11 million and $5.2 million to Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

As former Google public policy executive Adam Kovacevich told the Times, AI companies are quickly becoming “comfortable with using their power to achieve a political goal.”

Zooming out a bit, funding both sides of the aisle makes tactical sense, at least if you’re an AI company. One of the key benefits of backing mainstream political contenders seems to be the crushing effect it has on non-partisan candidates, who may come into office with populist ideas like regulating generative AI or restricting data center construction.

These include figures like Al Olszewski, a candidate who styled himself as a “grassroots conservative” in Montana’s Republican primary. While Olszewski had the benefit of running as an incumbent, he got walloped in the party primary after a super PAC affiliated with OpenAI’s co-founder spent nearly $900,000 backing his opponent.

“There was no way as a grassroots person that I could compete with that kind of money,” Olszewski told the Times. “I got crushed.”

More on AI and democracy: Democrats Warned Not to Upset Multi-Million Dollar AI Lobbyists, Even Though It’d Be a Slam Dunk With Voters

Joe Wilkins

Correspondent

I’m a tech and labor correspondent for Futurism, where my beat includes the role of emerging technologies in governance, surveillance, and labor.

To solve The City’s housing-affordability crisis, listen to voters

  • By Dean Preston | Special to The Examiner
  • Jun 23, 2026 (SFExaminer.com)
Dean Preston SFE 06232026
The proposed Affordable Housing Guarantee Act continues a vision for that San Francisco voters have repeatedly endorsed at the ballot box, writes Dean Preston, seen in 2024.Craig Lee/The Examiner

A grassroots coalition of San Franciscans assembled recently in Dolores Park to kick off a signature-gathering effort to put a measure on the November 2026 ballot.

The measure, the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act, builds on progressive wins of the past to commit City Hall to a future in which working people can afford to live in San Francisco.

This measure continues a vision that San Francisco voters have repeatedly endorsed at the ballot box.

In 2020, voters overwhelmingly passed a tax on the ultrawealthy to fund social housing. A whopping 74% of voters demanded 10,000 units of social housing through Proposition K, and they also decisively passed Proposition I, a tax on sellers of skyscrapers and mansions, in order to fund that vision.

At the time, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed legislation to use the tax revenue for housing. The plan was hatched by my office and the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, and, for the first two years, it worked remarkably well.

We moved more than $200 million into innovative solutions to the affordability crisis. We launched the biggest local rent-relief program in US history, stopping 20,000 evictions. We acquired five sites for the development of more than 500 homes, funded the development of another 60 affordable homes for educators, invested $20 million in public-housing repairs, committed $10 million to fix broken elevators in permanent supportive housing, and made an unprecedented investment in community land trusts that stop displacement and provide permanently affordable homes for San Franciscans.

For a time, Prop I was working as voters intended. But after two years of considerable progress, billionaires and cynical politicians sprung into action to prevent those successes from being scaled up.

In 2023, City Hall stopped using Prop. I funds for housing and diverted them to other priorities, squandering hundreds of millions of dollars that could already be working to make San Francisco more affordable. Earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors dissolved the oversight body tasked with guiding the investments into social housing.

The real estate lobby interests and the very wealthy would love to repeal the tax. Unfortunately for them, Mayor Daniel Lurie and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood’s attempt to do so has proven politically unviable.

The so-called BUILD Act — which would have overturned the Prop. I tax increase — was announced back in February, but it died last week without ever receiving a hearing. The groups that would have benefited from such a tax break are hard at work pushing similar fare in Sacramento. They’ll try it again in San Francisco in a heartbeat if only they can convince the public it’s something it isn’t.

The transfer-tax increase initiated by Prop. I only affects those who sell property for $10 million or more: corporate landlords, billionaires, and, increasingly, private-equity firms. The same billionaires and corporations that have benefited from tax reductions under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act would get a further tax sweetener if Prop. I were repealed.

But this isn’t just knee-jerk tax avoidance. It’s an attempt to nullify a competing vision of the city before it gains momentum. If San Francisco successfully builds social housing at scale, rents will finally come down as a result. That would be good news for everyone — except this tiny group of extremely wealthy investors, who much prefer the current situation in which they alone dictate how much new housing is built and what it costs to live there.

And if San Francisco solves its massive and enduring affordability crisis, other jurisdictions would be keen to follow, as Los Angeles did by passing a similar tax program after the passage of Prop. I. That poses a threat to the continued growth of private equity in the residential real-estate market and the viability of real-estate speculation as a sector — once again, great news for everyone but billionaires.

The Affordable Housing Guarantee Act would preserve the transfer tax on billionaires and dedicate every penny to the housing that working-class San Franciscans desperately need, guaranteeing that San Francisco acts on the vision its residents have voted for. The transfer tax raises far more money than any other pending proposal. It is the only revenue stream that isn’t limited to traditional housing models, but can fund innovative alternatives such as mixed-income social housing.

And it is precisely the sort of direct democracy that San Francisco would lose if Mayor Daniel Lurie’s charter amendment to raise the threshold for ballot qualifications passes this fall: volunteer-led, funded through non-corporate donations, and contesting the dominant power structure in City Hall.

City Hall has committed to securing 46,000 new affordable homes by 2031, but has no actual plan to do so. Preserving Prop. I and dedicating the funds to housing should be a no-brainer. Combined with the expansion of the Housing Trust Fund recently announced by the mayor, we have an opportunity to finally solve this crisis once and for all.

Prop. I has already raised over $500 million. It’s projected to raise another $350 million in the next three years. We can ensure that City Hall uses those funds to scale up social housing and make San Francisco a city for all, not just the wealthy.

San Francisco voters can end the pattern of begging the for-profit real-estate industry to fix a housing crisis it has no financial interest in solving and make certain that working-class people — bus drivers, nurses, teachers, nannies and artists — can afford to live and raise families here.

Dean Preston is a tenant-rights attorney, democratic socialist and former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

California Democrats didn’t endorse a candidate for governor. An S.F. proposal could change that

By Joe Garofoli, Political Columnist June 23, 2026 (SFChronicle.com)

Gift Article

Xavier Becerra addresses supporters on election night in downtown Los Angeles on June 2.Jen Osborne/For the S.F. Chronicle

San Francisco Democratic leaders on Wednesday will consider recommending a plan designed to avoid a repeat of what some saw as a nearly disastrous blunder — the statewide party not endorsing anyone in the primary election for governor.

Until weeks before the June 2 primary, Democrats were worried they might be locked out of the governor’s race as polls showed two Republican candidates ahead of the glut of Democratic candidates. Yet none within the crowded field had received the support of 60% of delegates at the state party’s February convention in San Francisco, needed to receive its endorsement, which could have united voters around a single candidate.

That wasn’t an outlier. The state party didn’t endorse a candidate in five of the eight statewide races.

What followed was a period of chaos during which the state party spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling in a bid to nudge lower-polling gubernatorial candidates out of the race. The effort backfired, as only one candidate dropped out and many observers recoiled at the idea of white party leaders asking candidates of color to step aside. 

The proposed solution from San Francisco Democrats? Take a cue from the city.

Much as voters in San Francisco choose their mayor by ranked-choice voting, party delegates would rank their favorite candidates in order of preference. In each round of counting, if the leader does not reach a to-be-determined threshold, the lowest-ranking candidate would be eliminated and their votes redistributed to the next-ranked candidates on those ballots.  

If “no endorsement” is the highest-ranked option chosen by the delegates, then the party would not extend an endorsement, according to the plan. 

“We wrote this resolution with the idea that the state party should be adopting a new way of endorsing or not endorsing,” Eric Kingsbury, a member of the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee who co-authored the proposal, told me. “Let’s not have any more ‘no consensus’ candidates. Let’s either affirmatively say we’re not getting an endorsement, or let’s endorse someone and provide the leadership that voters deserve, because they’re busy.”

An additional part of the proposal would address what to do if a leading candidate implodes halfway through the race, as former Rep. Eric Swalwell did after the Chronicle reported allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman who used to work for him. 

Though the state party didn’t endorse Swalwell (or anyone else) for governor, it would have been handcuffed if it had. Kingsbury said the party’s by-laws don’t include a “mechanism to rescind an endorsement.”

Kingsbury isn’t prescribing how to rescind and revote on an endorsement. He’s leaving the details to the state party. His hope is that if San Francisco Democrats pass the resolution, they can propose it to the state party executive board later this year. 

California Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

After the panic of the primary, some in the party were calling for an end to the top-two system and a return to the previous format, in which Republicans and Democrats chose their own nominees during the primary who met in the general election. 

“That is something that the broader state of California should have a conversation about, but this is about operating in the system that we have now,” Kingsbury said. “This is the start. You begin a conversation there.”

Kingsbury, who co-authored the proposal with fellow San Francisco Democrats Mike Chen and Emma Hare, isn’t the only party delegate who wants the system to change. So does Leslie Baxter, a member of the Contra Costa County Democratic Party’s central committee. After attending the state party convention this year where the party deadlocked on an endorsement for governor, Baxter was frustrated. 

“This is wrong,” she told me this week. “This means that the Democratic Party has ceded its power to support a Democratic candidate. There has to be a better way.” 

Baxter submitted a similar proposal to overhaul endorsements to the state party.

June 23, 2026

Joe Garofoli

Senior Political Writer

Joe Garofoli is the San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer, covering national and state politics. He has worked at The Chronicle since 2000 and in Bay Area journalism since 1992, when he left the Milwaukee Journal. He is the host of “It’s All Political,” The Chronicle’s political podcast. Catch it here: bit.ly/2LSAUjA

He has won numerous awards and covered everything from fashion to the Jeffrey Dahmer serial killings to two Olympic Games to his own vasectomy — which he discussed on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” after being told he couldn’t say the word “balls” on the air. He regularly appears on Bay Area radio and TV talking politics and is available to entertain at bar mitzvahs and First Communions. He is a graduate of Northwestern University and a proud native of Pittsburgh. Go Steelers!

The Machine Breaks Down in New York

DSA’s and Mayor Mamdani’s candidates rocked establishment incumbents backed by unions and political bigwigs. In most cases it wasn’t even close.

Whitney Curry WimbishDavid Dayenby Whitney Curry Wimbish and David Dayen

June 24, 2026 (Prospect.org)

Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, Zohran Mamdani, and Darializa Avila Chevalier. Credit: Anthony Behar/Sipa USA via AP Images; Nikada/iStock. Photo illustration by Lauren Pfeil.

Progressivism threw a wrench in New York’s machine politics Tuesday night, as a trio of leftist congressional candidates beat establishment and corporate-backed foes who came with far more money. 

Former NYC Comptroller Brad Lander’s race in the Tenth Congressional District was the first of the group called shortly after polls closed. He took the vote with nearly 66 percent of the vote against incumbent Dan Sachs Goldman, the Levi Strauss heir who poured millions of his own money into keeping his job. This race had become an afterthought for weeks, with Goldman fated to lose after prevailing over a split left wing in 2024.

In District Seven, New York Assemblymember Claire Valdez, a former UAW organizer, beat Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso with 56.1 percent of the vote. Reynoso had been longtime Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s choice to succeed her after she did not seek reelection this year, and he had backing from the state Working Families Party, a progressive force in New York. 

Read: In New York’s ‘Commie Corridor,’ a Race Over How to Build Power

And in the 13th Congressional District, Darializa Avila Chevalier beat Adriano Espaillat with 49.4 percent of votes, the closest of the three races. Her campaign faced nearly $7 million in super PAC spending and ongoing racist smears from Espaillat, whose senior advisor said in Spanish language media that Chevalier wanted to replace Dominican New Yorkers with Muslims and Haitians. 

“Today we make it clear that the politics of the past ends today,” Chevalier told supporters Monday night after her election was called, adding that she stood with Haitians, a rejection of the racism and bigotry she faced.  

Her win represented a new dawn for the district, she said, which covers the upper Manhattan neighborhoods of Harlem, Washington Heights, and Morningside Heights and parts of the West Bronx. It includes Columbia University, where Chevalier organized for Palestinian rights and helped lead the student encampment in 2023 and 2024, which Columbia’s administration violently crushed with help from the New York City Police Department. 

“No longer will uptown and the Bronx be neglected, forgotten, or overlooked. No longer will we accept the politics that throws scraps at us and acts as if we should be grateful for them,” she said. “No longer will we accept anything less than respect and a seat at the table that our labor built.” 

Political analysts viewed the primary as a test of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s power. He endorsed the three candidates and called them his slate; a memorable campaign ad during the New York Knicks playoff showed the four on a basketball court. “This is the team,” Mamdani said. “This is our year.” 

But city organizations that rallied behind the candidates and sent hundreds of volunteers to knock doors, as they did for Mamdani’s campaign, said that while it fits in with old narratives to imagine Mamdani as a “kingmaker,” he did not decide the election alone. 

The local ground campaign was assisted by outside spending that kept the candidates competitive. That included Justice Democrats and American Priorities, the new PAC designed to counter AIPAC’s influence in Democratic primaries. American Priorities spent $2.1 million in the Valdez and Chevalier primaries. 

“Valdez and Avila Chevalier—along with Lander—will immediately change the face of the New York congressional delegation, but their victories will echo much further, from districts in all five boroughs and New York State to across the country,” said American Priorities in a statement. “Elected officials who have avoided taking clear positions will face increasing pressure from their own voters, and there is no going back.”

Local and national unions, meanwhile, largely threw in with the establishment, funding super PAC ads for Reynoso and Espaillat down the stretch. The split between labor leaders and rank-and-file New Yorkers reflects a disconnect that will have to be managed.

Volunteers for Eli Northrup. Credit: Jews for Racial & Economic Justice

Jews for Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ) was among the groups who sent 200 volunteers across 500 shifts to knock doors for Lander and Eli Northrup, who won his race to represent New York’s 69th Assembly District. On Tuesday, the group had about 75 people canvassing down to the last minute. 

Both races were a struggle for power between out-of-step establishment candidates who marched in the Israel Day Parade and “a grassroots Jewish left that has a vision for our community,” said Sophie Ellman-Golan, communications director for JFREJ. She said that while Mamdani likely had a strong influence in some races, so too did the volunteers that were knocking on doors to get the word out about candidates and their policy positions. Building that political power will help defeat fascism, she said, a belief candidates told the Prospect they also shared. 

“I think that something that’s amazing about this organizing is how people develop their own leadership. Anyone can show up to a canvas,” Ellman-Golan told the Prospect. “People who get the experience of talking to a voter and hearing their concerns and persuading them one way or another is a feeling of power and knowing you made a difference.” 

You don’t always win, but when you do? “People carry that with them for the rest of their lives.”  

The organization was also part of the core battalion of volunteers responsible for Mamdani’s win, knocking on 10,000 doors, making 80,000 phone calls, and bringing grassroots organizing to the streets. 

The victories did not only play out at the congressional level. Candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America defeated two state senators and five state assemblymembers in New York last night, in an anti-incumbent fervor that even crossed over to Maryland, where two state senators and one member of the state House of Delegates went down.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did not endorse the congressional slate, and some leaped to criticize her for shrinking from creating tensions in Washington. But Mamdani, who needs support and funding from Albany for his legislative agenda, did not endorse any of the DSA-backed Assembly candidates going up against incumbents. AOC did, and they won last night too.

That suggests that the movement on the ground, not candidates from on high, was the deciding factor in the sea change in New York politics.

The losing incumbents included state Sen. Jessica Ramos, a mayoral candidate who dropped out and endorsed Andrew Cuomo over Mamdani last year. Ramos, who was one of the original Democrats who deposed an incumbent that was caucusing with Republicans in Albany as part of Cuomo’s “Independent Democratic Conference” slate, lost to state assemblywoman Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas.

The one open-seat congressional race in the city where Mamdani did not endorse was the 12th District, to replace the decades-long run of Jerrold Nadler. The AI industry made an enormous investment in this race to take out state Assemblymember Alex Bores. Ultimately, Bores did lose to fellow Assemblymember Micah Lasher, a former Nadler aide, by a 39-35 count. (Political royalty failson Jack Kennedy Schlossberg was well back in third.) But in his victory speech, Lasher, who co-sponsored the AI safety bill that turned the industry against Bores, directly confronted the oligarchs: “I have some news for the two big AI companies who’ve taken such an unusual interest in who won this congressional seat: I won’t be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs, our environment.”

Before you go.

I hope that you found this article interesting and thought-provoking. The reason we’re able to publish stories like this — free of programmatic ads and never behind a paywall — is because readers like you step up to support our work. 

The Prospect doesn’t answer to advertisers or billionaire owners. We answer to you and to our commitment to pursuing the truth, wherever that leads us. 

Independent, reader-supported journalism is critical at a time when the free press is under assault. 

If you believe this kind of reporting should exist and remain free to read, we hope you’ll consider chipping in. Every contribution, however modest, makes a real difference.

Donate Now

David Dayen

David Dayen
Executive Editor

Related

America, We Have a Super PAC Problem

March 25, 2026

Brad Lander Is Building a United Progressive Front

February 27, 2026

In New York’s ‘Commie Corridor,’ a Race Over How to Build Power

June 17, 2026

Whitney Curry Wimbish

writers@prospect.org

Whitney Curry Wimbish is a staff writer at The American Prospect. She previously worked in the Financial Times newsletters division, The Cambodia Daily in Phnom Penh, and the Herald News in New Jersey. Her work has been published in multiple outlets, including The New York Times, The Baffler, Los Angeles Review of Books, Music & Literature, North American Review, Sentient, Semafor, and elsewhere. She is a coauthor of The Majority Report’s daily newsletter and publishes short fiction in a range of literary magazines. She can be reached on Signal at wwimbish.07. More by Whitney Curry Wimbish

David Dayen

ddayen@prospect.org

David Dayen is the executive editor of The American Prospect. He is the author of Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power and Chain of Title: How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street’s Great Foreclosure Fraud. He co-hosts the podcast Organized Money with Matt Stoller. He can be reached on Signal at ddayen.90. More by David Dayen

SF public bank plan moves toward November ballot

A groundbreaking concept in local finance could begin operations after a Charter Amendment that—so far—has little visible opposition.

By Tim Redmond

June 23, 2026 (48hills.org)

The campaign for a public bank in San Francisco moved a big step forward this week when the Board of Supes Rules Committee voted unanimously to advance a City Charter amendment by Sup. Cheyanne Chen to create a Municipal Finance Corporation and after three years, a public bank.

The move comes just as Sup. Jackie Fielder, who made this a signature campaign issue, is returning from a medical leave.

Sup. Jackie Fielder is returning from a medical leave just as her signature issue, a public bank, is moving forward

The support of all of the committee members, including Stephen Sherrill, one of the most conservative supes, means it’s likely the full board will put the measure on the fall ballot.

The only speaker in opposition was Griffin Lee, representing Connected SF, a right-wing group funded by Big Tech and real estate interests. He said that “more money will not solve the affordable housing crisis.” I don’t know many people anywhere on the local political spectrum who would agree with that statement.

Under the proposal, the city would move into public banking slowly, starting off with a Municipal Finance Corporation, a nonprofit that would use very limited start-up capital—$27 million—and begin making low-interest loans for affordable housing.

After three years, if the MFC demonstrated that its revenue was greater than its costs, the city would transition the entity to a public bank, that over time could start taking deposits and making loans for small businesses and public-interest projects.

Sherrill asked a lot of pointed questions, and Khalid Sumaree, executive officer of the Local Area Formation Commission, which is heading up the project, had clear answers. The public bank would not offer any products that the private sector is already making available. It would not be an agency of the city, so in the worst case, if it failed, no city money would be at risk.

Sumaree noted that experience banking consultants had worked on the plan. Sup. Shamann Walton, a co-sponsor, said that “this has been in the works for many years.”

It’s a potentially groundbreaking idea. A public bank could transform finance in San Francisco, and create a model for other cities. At this point, the only public bank in the country, the Bank of North Dakota, has been around since 1915 and is widely considered a tremendous success.

Mayor Daniel Lurie has not made a formal statement on the proposal, and other than the folks at Connected SF, there’s not a lot of formal opposition—so far.

We shall see if Big Tech and Real Estate try to derail this after it makes the ballot.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond

Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

Wiener starts November race by attacking Chan, setting the tone for what could be a nasty five months

Chan says the magic words Wiener avoids—taxes on the rich—as the fall race starts to shape up

By Tim Redmond

June 21, 2026 (48hills.org)

Sup. Connie Chan and state Sen. Scott Wiener both spoke to the Noe Valley Democratic Club this week, and while it was not a debate format, I got a glimpse of what we are likely to see over the next five months.

The two candidates were not on stage together. Wiener got an hour, then Chan got an hour.

Wiener spent a fair amount of his time attacking Chan, although he never once said her name. He just said “my opponent.”

Chan spent zero time attacking Wiener.

Scott Wiener answers a question for Noe Valley Democratic Club President Sam Maslin.

This is exactly what we saw in 2016, when Jane Kim beat Wiener in the primary for state Senate after securing the endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Wiener instantly started attacking Kim, rather viciously, and lied about his record, and won the seat in November.

He told the crowd, for example, that Chan had “killed the 38 Geary bus line,” which seems a bit odd since the bus is running all day, every day, and lots of people ride it. When someone in the audience asked him to explain, he just said “Google it.”

I did. Here’s what happened: Chan opposed a version of Geary Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit that shifted the program from center-running transit lanes (like Van Ness BRT) to side-running lanes, which would wipe out parking and damage the small merchants on Geary between Stanyan and 34th, who were struggling to recover from the pandemic.

Chan talked about taxing the rich. Wiener did not

That’s not killing a bus line. It’s a lot more complicated, as transit policy in a crowded city with dense small merchant corridors often is.

Sponsored link

Wiener also insisted that the “progressive policy is to build all kinds of housing.” Most progressives—and that word means something—would say that luxury housing in vulnerable communities often causes displacement, and it’s not progressive to adopt policies that force longtime residents out of their homes to make way for richer people.

Wiener also said that he supported closing the Great Highway to cars, and Chan opposed it.

So the message from the Wiener camp is going to be: Chan is opposed to progress, she’s anti-housing, she would move the city backward, and Wiener is pro-housing and wants to see a prosperous future.

In an interesting moment, Wiener said that “the left has lost the support of the working class.” The success of Sanders’ campaign for president (he would have beat Trump in 2016) suggests that it’s not the “left,” but the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, that has lost the support of the working class. Wiener has been a part of the corporate wing his entire career.

He never once, in the full hour, mentioned taxing the rich. Not once.

He opposed Prop. D. He opposes the Billionaire Tax.

Chan talked about “rising inequality” and “progressive taxation at all levels of government.” She mentioned “progressive taxation” at least three times.

She also said that “zoning doesn’t produce new housing,” which is demonstrably true in this city today: After a massive upzoning, and massive fee cuts, few developers are building any new housing.

She also said she opposes, at this point, all funding for military aid to Israel. Wiener says he supports some military funding:

Scott also believes the U.S. should continue to provide Israel with defensive systems, such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling.

So I think we will see Chan talking about neighborhood issues on the West Side, where she won the most votes, and about taxation and the Middle East on the east side, where she and Saikat Chakrabarti beat Wiener handily.

Wiener will attack Chan relentlessly. That’s how his campaigns roll.

Full disclosure: My independent adult daughter works for Connie Chan for Congress.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond

Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.