The 18-year, three-phase expansion will begin as early as this summer, with the first construction to include a 145,000 square-foot building at the corner of Park Avenue and Hollis Street. The remaining plans entail two additional buildings and a seven-level, 1,801-space parking garage.

Just days before voters arrived at the polls, AMC Theaters offered Emeryville residents free popcorn and a free pass to a special Nov. 5 screening of Pixar’s new film “The Incredibles.” The offer, though arriving at the culmination of Pixar’s $100,000-plus campaign, was solely financed by AMC, and both Emeryville council members and Pixar campaign consultant John Whitehurst said the timing was a coincidence.

Pixar, which previously announced it would leave town if the measures failed, will keep its roots in Emeryville and invest $325 million in the expansion to ensure its position on the cutting edge of computer animation technology.

According to Whitehurst, as the complexity of Pixar’s movies increases, so does the amount of time, equipment, space and people needed to produce the same quality of work.

The expansion is necessary for Pixar to “grow and maintain its position as a premiere animation company,” he said.

The decision came as a major victory for Emeryville council members who hail Pixar for its major contributions to the city’s schools, arts, food bank, and civic activities.

“It’s gratifying to know that the people of this town know how important [Pixar] is to the health of the city,” said Councilmember Nora Davis. “This city cannot exist without the business component …. Businesses pick up 60 to 70 percent of [Emeryville’s] tax burden.”

Once its expansion plans are complete, Pixar will pump an additional $2 million yearly into the city’s tax base for services such as fire and police.

Measures T and U were placed on the ballot after Emeryville residents went door-to-door, collecting signatures from 400-plus expansion opponents. Though no one wanted Pixar to leave Emeryville, many activists sought a “better deal,” asking the city council to revisit its approval of Pixar’s plans and negotiate more for the town.

“A corporation simply paying its taxes is not the end of its responsibility to the community,” said Kristen Cross, co-director of leading opposition East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, an Oakland-based nonprofit.

Opponents expressed concern over the increased traffic congestion and voiced a desire for Pixar to implement a job training program or a hire-Emeryville-residents-first policy.

Though doors have closed on the Pixar debate, EBASE co-director Amaha Kassa said he will be “keeping an eye on Emeryville” and its future developments including phase two of the Bay Street Project, which includes plans for upscale retail and another hotel.

“This is really about raising standards for development throughout the region,” said Kassa.

Earlier and predictably, the U.S. election prompted contrasting reactions from the main sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Israel was confident a second term for Bush would signal more of the same policies, the Palestinian leadership, out of favor with Washington, was cautiously hopeful things might change.

“President Arafat wishes President Bush success in his second term and congratulates him for winning the confidence of the American people,” senior aide Mohammad Rashid said on Wednesday in Paris.

“President Arafat hopes that Bush's second term will be an important opportunity for Bush to secure the requirements for peace in the Middle East and to guarantee the just national rights of the Palestinian people,” said the aide.

But breaking the traditional rules of protocol, Leila Shahid, the Palestinians’ permanent envoy to Paris, voiced different view. In a statement before Senator John Kerry conceded the election, she said she was worried by the prospect of a second term for Bush, because he had conducted what she called “a policy of war.” Arafat “hopes the second mandate will be different” if Bush wins, Shahid added.

For his part, Ghassan al-Khatib, a Palestinian minister, expressed hope that Bush would soften what the Palestinians consider to be a systematically pro-Israeli policy. “Perhaps this election will offer a chance to the Bush administration to draw a lesson from the experience of the past year, given that it will be freed from the pressure of elections and lobbies,” said the labor minister.

The Palestinian radical movement Hamas took a hard line. “It does not really matter that much to us who is president of the United States,” said spokesman Mashir al-Masri, “but we ask that Bush stop his support for the Zionist enemy. If America persists in its negative position vis-a-vis the Palestinians, we will consider it and its president as enemies.”

On the other side of the fence, buoyed by unequivocal pre-election messages of support from both candidates, Israel was confident it would preserve its unique relationship with Washington regardless of the vote’s final outcome.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said he did not expect Israel to come under any heightened U.S. pressure over the dormant peace process. “So far we have cooperated with all American administrations and we will continue to do so. I don't think pressure will be necessary. Israel wants to advance on the road to peace,” he said.
Despite Mr. Shalom’s statement, a report conducted by his office—and released just before the U.S. elections—claimed that Israel stood to lose regardless of the election’s outcome. The report determined that either candidate would likely increase the political pressure on Jerusalem.

According to the report, which was recently submitted to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, if Bush were re-elected, he would have to face up to the situation in Iraq and try to boost his image in the Arab world—two factors that would lead to a less friendly policy towards Israel.

Top Israeli foreign policy advisor Zalman Shoval said on Wednesday that Bush’s re-election would further strengthen ties between the two countries and would facilitate Prime Minister Sharon's plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip by the end of 2005.

Shoval congratulated Bush, saying, “Israel and the free world have every reason to rejoice over this result.” Shoval, the former ambassador to the U.S., also said “That's not to say that Kerry would have been a bad president, but Bush's victory has been seen by some as a victory over terrorism.”

“It’s important to understand,” wrote Professor Uzi Arad, former national advisor for Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu, in an Israeli newspaper, “that if Bush would have lost, the symbolic headline all over the Middle East would have been: ‘Bin Laden Won.’”

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a close ally of the U.S, said he hoped Bush would exert more effort to bring about “a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East by establishing a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel.” the London-based Arab daily “al-Sharq al-Awsat” reported that the President Mubarak is planned to visit Arafat in the Paris hospital.

Mubarak expressed hope that Bush would do more to “rid the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction.” He also urged Bush to continue combating terrorism and violence, but by “dealing actively with its root causes” and helping “to overcome the political, economic and social problems facing people” around the world.

Mayor Barbara Vigil, 67, is vacating her seat after three terms and 12 years on the council. The five-member non-partisan council will choose the next mayor from its ranks.

“Sometimes you need to step aside and let in some new blood,” said Vigil, who plans a move to Idaho to be closer to her family. “I’m going to really miss it.”

Gomes, 82, this spring indicated that his current term, ending in November, would be his last. He soon changed his mind.

“Both Joe and I had thought of leaving the council this year,” said Brown, 62, the other incumbent on the ticket. However, she said, the two members not up for re-election this year, Paul Morris and Genoveva Calloway, began serving only in 2002.

“There have to be some more experienced members on the council,” Brown said.

Gomes’ decision to run came after Vigil had already endorsed two new candidates for the three seats.

Both McNeil, 59, who served from 1988 to 1992, the last two years as mayor, and Sattler, 62, a retired marine and businessman who ran unsuccessfully for the council two years ago, claim Vigil’s endorsement.

“They’re both qualified for the job,” Vigil said.

Espo, 50, a crime scene cleaner who is seeking public office for the first time, rounds out the field. (His whole name is Espo.)

The biggest issue facing the council is the proposed Las Vegas-style casino to be built on the site of Casino San Pablo, a card house. The Lytton band of Pomo Indians purchased the land and signed a compact with the governor’s office this summer. The Legislature has yet to ratify the compact.

The city would earn approximately $5 million annually toward its general fund with the casino running.

All five candidates support the casino project, although there are minor differences among them on the issue.

Brown said the 2,500 slot machines currently proposed is too many, although she did not specify how many slots she thinks would be appropriate.

Gomes, a retired traffic manager who has served on the council since 1977, said he is “comfortable” with 2,500 slots.

McNeil said there should be no more than 1,500 slots in the casino. He would also seek to ensure that casino jobs pay “living wage” salaries, between $15 and $17 per hour, instead of the $8 to $10 currently proposed.

Sattler and Espo have both endorsed the casino plan without clarifying their views on the number of slots.

All candidates also support Proposition 1A, which would restrict the state’s ability to reduce city and county tax income without voter approval. In recent years, the state has diminished local governments’ income by lowering taxes and, in some cases, borrowing money from city and county coffers.

Since it incorporated 99 years ago, Richmond has had a nine-member council -- one of the largest in California.

Measure R was originally intended in part as a way to reduce city staff costs, but proponents also said that having fewer elected officials would help create a less dysfunctional council. “There’s too many people to make decisions efficiently,” said Councilman Tom Butt. “It would save staff costs and the meetings would get done a lot quicker.”

Council members voted earlier this year to put the reduction measure on the ballot as part of a deal between the city and state lawmakers, who approved a loan for the cash-strapped city on the condition that local leaders consider eliminating council seats. Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, whose district includes Richmond, sponsored the loan bill.

Most council members supported the measure, though the longest-serving member, Nat Bates, who was first elected in 1967, said he resented Hancock’s involvement in the city’s business. “She should not have done that,” Bates said. “It’s ill advised.”

Not so says Cindy Haden, who watches the council closely and sits on the Santa Fe Neighborhood Council.

“It’s a good idea,” she said of Measure R. “When you get so many people it’s hard to get a consensus…They’ll save a lot of time. We’ll have a lot less political aggrandizing we’ll have to listen to.”

Among California’s 478 cities, about nine out of 10 have five-member city councils. Typically, only larger cities have nine or more, but members of large city councils usually represent districts (Richmond’s council is elected at large). Los Angeles has 15 council seats. San Jose has 11, as does the San Francisco’s board of supervisors.

Although Measure R had no organized support or opposition, two council members, Jim Rogers and Mindell Penn, wrote the ballot argument in its favor. No opposing argument was filed, and no campaign committees were formed on either side.

Shortly before the election, some council members who supported putting the measure on the ballot weren’t sure how they’d vote on Election Day.

“I’ve always been kind of ambivalent about it,” said Councilwoman Maria Viramontes. “I voted to put it on the ballot and let the people decide.”

While it might be easier to run council meetings with two fewer members on the dais, she said, the reduction probably wouldn’t save the city a much money -- around $24,000, she guessed.

Viramontes also said that cutting seats would make it harder to find enough council members to sit on local and regional boards and commissions that oversee agencies that provide services such as water, transportation, and sewage. Remaining members would also have to fill seats on more agency boards. “It would be hard to get appointments to all of them,” she said. “Who can take off work for all those meetings?”

Marijuana reform advocates declared their victory as they partied with friends at the Bull Dog Café, a former medical marijuana dispensary.

Measure Z will likely make adult recreational marijuana use, cultivation and sales the lowest law enforcement priority -- a measure police and city officials called an unenforceable waste of time.

Measure Z would take the city a step past the legalization of marijuana for medical use that was approved by California voters in 1996.

More than 30,000 Oakland residents signed petitions to put Measure Z on the ballot. It asks Oakland Police to put all other criminal activity before the prosecution of pot users, requests city officials to advocate legalization of adult marijuana use statewide and establish licensing and taxation of marijuana sales, if state law is ever changed to allow such commerce.

“I don’t know what they were smoking when they wrote this,” said Gil Duran, an aide to Mayor Jerry Brown, who is considering a run for state attorney general. “We might as well pass an ordinance to go to the moon even though we don’t have a rocket ship.”

The city attorney’s office has said two portions of this measure are unconstitutional – the lobbying provision, and the requirement that the city tax marijuana sales when it becomes legal in the state to do so.

But Joe DeVries, manager of Yes on Measure Z, says having a system of taxation already in place is a way of telling the state that Oakland is ready to go of marijuana is decriminalized in California.

He adds marijuana is the most widely used drug in America. “If you stop marijuana prohibition you stop the whole drug war,” he says. Measure Z he said, is modeled after legislation passed in Mendocino County and in Seattle, which the Seattle Times has called “effective.” Seattle’s measure excludes marijuana sales and Measure Z does not, however.

Bob Valladon, president of the Oakland Police Officer Association, Bob said it’s unclear what the authors of this measure mean by making pot use the “lowest priority,” and would not change the way police treat drug users.

“A city council member can’t tell me not to enforce the law,” Valladon said, “When I find that a city council member or anyone else is smoking weed, I’m going to arrest them.”

Supporters like City Council members Desley Brooks and Nate Miley endorsed Measure Z whose backers argue police should ignore non-violent adult marijuana smokers to focus on arresting murderers and other violent criminals. Oakland has the third-highest homicide rate in the state in 2003, according to the FBI.

But some say police already make marijuana offenses a low priority.

There were 564 marijuana-associated arrests in 2003 out of 4,267 total drug arrests, and very few of those arrests were made in private homes, Oakland Police told the Oakland Tribune.

Medical marijuana dispensaries, however, have taken some heat from local city officials. With only two dispensaries left standing in Oakland, Nikos Leverenz, policy analyst for the Drug Policy Alliance, says making marijuana use the lowest law enforcement priority would “reduce the fear and paranoia of medical marijuana users who have to go out on the black market to get their medicine.”

About 100 people gathered in downtown Oakland at the Bulldog Coffee Shop, headquarters for the campaign on election night to cheer as more precincts began reporting.

Dale Gieringer (right) of California NORML, and Richard Lee, Owner of the Bull Dog Cafe discuss election results.
Photo credit: Nicole Hill

Although the measure calls for police to all but ignore illegal marijuana use by adults, opponents said police already considered marijuana enforcement as its lowest priority.

“It orders the police to do something they’ve already done,” said Gil Duran, press aide for Mayor Jerry Brown. “It’s a symbolic measure that doesn’t really do anything.”

Co-author of the initiative Joe DeVries, however, said it would prevent thousands of people from being arrested in the coming years, claiming law enforcement still aggressively arrests people for possessing marijuana.

The measure requires Oakland crime agencies to curtail investigations, citations and arrests for marijuana offenses. It does not change law enforcement policies toward minors or marijuana sellers.

As a catalyst to change state laws criminalizing marijuana, the measure includes a provision for the city to tax and regulate sales of the drug if it’s legalized, an ideological shift DeVries says the measure takes a step toward.

“It’s an evolution of slow, incremental changes,” he said. “It’s setting the whole ball in motion.”

Another provision would require the city to lobby for changes in state laws, insisting that cities and counties should have regulatory control over marijuana.

City Attorney John Russo has called both provisions “unconstitutional” because they don’t enact laws, a requirement for a measure.

The measure would require the city’s law enforcement officials to pursue more “serious crimes,” a move that proponents say would alleviate crowded jails, used improperly to imprison nonviolent offenders for marijuana-related crimes.

Opponents of the measure argue it would create additional conflict in neighborhoods already plagued by drug-related crimes. They fear that emboldened dealers would flood city streets with drugs and incite additional crimes, making Oakland a magnet for drug users and pushers.

But nothing in the measure would limit the city from arresting citing and investigating as long as it’s consistent with the “lowest priority” for law enforcement, Russo said.

Claiming the government has lost the war on drugs, the Oakland Civil Liberties Alliance, the political action committee formed to sponsor the measure, sought to persuade voters before the election.

Without organized opposition to the measure, the committee has dominated the campaign, embarking upon a grass-roots effort to sway the electorate by mailing political pamphlets and calling 10,000 voters, said campaign consultant Susan Stephenson.

The Oakland Civil Liberties Alliance raised $168,062 by mid-October.

Mayor Jerry Brown, Oakland City Councilman Danny Wan, and Councilman Larry Reid are among those who oppose the measure.

Alameda County supervisors Nate Miley and Keith Carson; and Oakland City Council members Nancy Nadel and Desley Brooks have endorsed it.

Measure Z began as an initiative signed by 23,000 Oakland voters, according to a campaign statement.

“I am very pleased that California voters have supported Prop.59 in such overwhelming numbers. It affirms their concern about the importance of access to government meetings and records,” said Jacqueline Jacobberger, president of the League of Women Voters of California.

“Governmental bodies that have been following the rules in current statutes such as the Brown Act will continue to provide agendas and other information in a timely manner. Governmental bodies which may have been lax in observing the rules will find it more difficult to circumvent the public's right to know how business is being conducted.”

Among the 58 counties in California, Santa Cruz County had the highest rate of support at 88 percent. Kings was the lowest with 75 percent.

Proposition 59 will allow access to government records and meetings as a civil right under the California Constitution, while protecting the California Public Records Act and The Legislative Open Records Act as before.

Without this change, individuals and organizations seeking access to government information or meetings had to prove why the government should open files to them when there is a dispute. Proposition 59 shifts the responsibility to the government to prove why meetings should be closed or information denied.

Florida, Louisiana, Montana and New Hampshire already have similar laws.
Terry Francke, general counsel of Californians Aware, which backs the measure, said: “The citizen's right to know what government is doing and even considering to do is no longer a matter of legislative grace but of fundamental law. That is, for example, an action by government in needless secrecy could be challenged in court and overturned by a court, even if all the statutory ‘sunshine’ statutes in California had been repealed.”

Introduced by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, the measure passed the Senate, 34-0, and the Assembly, 78-0.

It has also gained widespread support from media organizations. “Proposition 59 on the November ballot is long overdue, and should be approved by voters,” the Santa Cruz Sentinel wrote on Sep. 15.

Opponents, led by attorney Gary B. Wesley, argued the proposition “does not go far enough and its passage might prevent a stronger law from being enacted”.

“In fact, this measure only provides for a general right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business and that laws in California shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access,” he said.

On the other hand, “Government is getting bigger and becoming more wasteful, insular, and abusive. Proposition 59 would not do much to reverse that alarming trend,” Wesley said in his argument in the voter pamphlet.

The measure was an effort on behalf of Berkeley’s sex workers to decriminalize prostitution. As it stands now, a prostitution arrest results in a misdemeanor charge and a fine. Proponents of Measure Q insist the prospect of a $500 charge prohibits many sex workers from going to police when attacked by their pimps or clients. Robyn Few, director of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, said decriminalizing sex work would give prostitutes the power to turn in their abusive pimps.

Californians for Civil Liberties, the group supporting the controversial measure, raised more than $4,000 to promote the idea of decriminalized prostitution to Berkeley voters. Jamie Maxwell, a Berkeley prostitute, said sex workers who are abused by their pimps are too scared to report the crime to the police.

“When they’re beaten up, prostitutes themselves get arrested and this puts a lot of power in the hands of their pimps,” she said. “Measure Q makes a formal request to have prostitution not be a priority for police.”

But Berkeley Police Department Public Information Officer Joe Okies said prostitution is already a low priority for the department.

“Currently the Berkeley Police Department doesn’t consider this a high priority,” he said. “When we respond to prostitution, we are responding to citizen complaints.”

Proponents and opponents of the measure each declare it is a matter of women’s rights. Some argue that decriminalizing prostitution would help sex workers who are being abused, while others say that decriminalizing it would support the sex workers’ decision to exploit their sexuality for a living.

Margot Smith, of the Berkeley Gray Panthers, said although she wants sex work to remain a criminal offense, she realizes that keeping prostitution as a criminal offense won’t make the problem go away.

“Women who go into that thing don’t really have other skills,” she said.

This is not the first time a measure on the Berkeley ballot has been surrounded by controversy. A 2001 ballot measure would have made it illegal to sell non-fair trade coffee in Berkeley. Although the legislation was defeated, it made national headlines much like Measure Q.

The efforts of Berkeley’s sex workers to unionize and demand rights will soon be happening all over the country, Few said. “Sex workers are lowest on the totem pole for rights,” she said. “We have no union to give us any labor rights. The labor commission says it doesn’t have the money to enforce labor laws for sex workers.”

The Committee Against Measure Q has raised more than $5,000 to thwart the efforts of the sex workers. Brad Smith, committee treasurer, said there are already substantial complaints about syringes, used condoms and fights in areas frequented by prostitutes. These problems would only get worse if prostitution was no longer a crime, he said. Other residents recognize that this issue is too big for Berkeley to take on. Smith said this issue is better left up to the state.

“I don’t think it’s something this city alone can take on,” said Smith. “It’d have to be a state or federal thing. You have to go and deal with each person’s individual situation. But that’s very expensive and time consuming and out society has never been willing to put money into it.”

Measure K, L and M all needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

Berkeley’s 2005 budget, which the city council approved in June, makes broad cuts in order to close a projected deficit of between $7 and $10 million. Therefore, supporters of the revenue raising propositions J, K, L and M had said each measure was necessary to preserve programs and services that would be lost otherwise. But critics of the measures argued that the city needed to work harder at writing a balanced budget that both made vital services a priority and protected the Berkeley taxpayers.

“If these don’t pass, then they’ll have to go back and fix the budget,” said Marie Bowman, a member of Berkeleyans Against Soaring Taxes, or BASTA, a group formed in response to the ballot initiatives. “Or they can put more tax measures on the spring ballot. But for now they’ll have to do their homework. There are ways to make cuts that aren’t all that painful.”

The fiscal difficulties that prompted the mayor’s office and the city council to issue these initiatives are partly due to state-level cuts in local funding, but the skyrocketing cost of employee pensions is the greatest burden. Berkeleyans Against Soaring Taxes, the city manager, and council member Gordon Wozniak all said that the city should try to renegotiate contracts with city’s unions to find a long-term solution to its budget troubles.

Still, Wozniak said that realistically, the city had to call on taxpayers to help balance the books.

“I think we need some help from taxpayers, but I don’t think we need to ask them to fund the entire deficit,” said Wozniak.

In trying to sell the tax-increases, the mayor and many council members had pointed out that they were modest charges that would have cost the average homeowner only a few hundred dollars a year and the non-homeowner even less. In the case of the transfer tax increase, they argued it was just a one-time charge that would affect a small fraction of the citizens - those who buy or sell a house.

But David Wilson, a member of Berkeleyans Against Soaring Taxes, said yesterday that voters he had spoken to before the election were still recovering from the recession of 2001 and had little appetite for a round of tax increases.

“The vibe I got was that a number of people were receptive to our arguments,” he said. “People are hurting out there.”
Updated 11/3/02 12:06 AM

With disputes over provisional ballots and a margin of just over 100,000 with 93% of precincts reporting, Ohio, at least for now, looks to become the legal battleground Florida was four years ago. Lawyers from both parties were poised Tuesday night to descend on the state.
But many observers remained skeptical of Kerry’s chances.

“This is not like Florida last time, when there was a margin of 600 votes that could be contested,” said David Karol, professor of political science at U.C. Berkeley. “There are provisional ballots in Ohio, but they’re not all Democratic votes and Bush has a lead of 100,000 votes. Even if there are irregularities in Ohio, you have to convince people that they can make a difference and I think that’s a very tough sell.”

Americans, apparently in numbers exceeding recent elections, stood in long lines to cast their votes today while armies of lawyers kept watch for complaints of fraudulent registration, faulty voting machines and other irregularities.

Yet while some voters experienced difficulties, the scene at polls across the country was largely calm. The widespread malfunctioning of machines and intimidation of voters at polling places that had been feared did not materialize. However, isolated incidents cropped up in precincts from New York to California and nearly everywhere in between.

In Pennsylvania Republicans convinced a federal court to prevent absentee ballots from being counted before Friday. In Florida some voters never received their absentee ballots and then had problems when they tried to vote at the polls. Voters in New Mexico and Nevada complained that they were receiving phone calls telling to them to go to the wrong polling places.

In Iowa, mechanical problems and fatigue prompted the Secretary of State to carry counting votes over to Wednesday.

The Election Incident Reporting System, a national hotline set up to record voter complaints including fraud and intimidation, reported over 16,000 incidents.

The Ohio Supreme Court earlier on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal of a lower court decision allowing vote challengers in the state’s polling places, leaving the way clear for Republicans who had planned to challenge voters in several precincts. But most of the challenges never materialized, with most Republican activists instead observing polls from a distance and not interfering with voters.

Anecdotal evidence of long lines and crowded precincts suggested heavy turnout, which had been expected to benefit Kerry. U.C. Berkeley Professor of Political Science Laura Stoker, however, said that turnout was lower than expected. She estimated turnout as somewhere between 110 and 120 million voters, or between 53.5 and 57 percent of the voting population. The comparable figure for 2000 was 105 million, or 51 percent.

“A lot of it is mobilization and a lot of it is interest in a race that’s close. But an enormous amount of money has been spent on mobilization,” said Stoker.

The youth vote never emerged in the numbers expected. Exit polls indicated that fewer than one in ten percent of the electorate was 18 to 24, about the same as in 2000. With the total vote up, however, more total young voters went to the polls.

18-29 year-olds voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, 56 to 42 percent according to exit polls, while in 2000 that population split their votes more evenly between Bush and Gore.

While both parties vied for the female vote, Kerry was able to count on the support of women, and Bush made little headway in the African-American population, which voted 90 percent to 10 percent for Kerry. However, Bush kept the support of his base of born again and evangelical Christians, which supported the president 76 to 23 percent.

On their last day of campaigning Monday, Bush and Kerry crisscrossed the swing states, making 11 stops between them and nearly crossing paths in Milwaukee. Bush began his day today at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he voted. He returned to the White House to watch the election results, with one last stop in Ohio on the way, where he called a supporter to say, “I'm proud to have your support. I appreciate you taking my phone call. Thank you so very much."

Kerry woke up in Wisconsin and returned early this morning to Boston, where he spent Election Day.

"I've fought hard, did what I had to do," Kerry told the New York Times late Tuesday evening.

A Polarized Electorate and a Frenzied Campaign

Though Kerry tried at several points during the long campaign to shift the debate to domestic issues, the focus has remained on national security and the war in Iraq. Mounting U.S. casualties, gruesome beheadings, and U.S. inspectors’ failure to find weapons of mass destruction have transformed today’s election into something of a referendum on Bush’s Iraq policy.

In the most recent twist, a new videotape surfaced last week of a healthy-looking Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It’s unclear what impact, if any, the bin Laden tape will have on the outcome of the election.

Despite the focus on international affairs, both candidates have promised to improve conditions in the United States, with Bush calling for the partial privatization of social security and education as a solution to the lack of jobs. Kerry has said he will staunch the flow of U.S. jobs to nations with cheaper labor, and pledged to reverse tax cuts for the richest Americans.

In the longest presidential campaign in U.S. history, Kerry sought to convince Americans that Bush has led the country astray, misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war and answering to corporations and the very rich rather than the average American.

Bush, meanwhile, attacked Kerry as a “flip-flopper” on key issues, presenting himself as a strong leader unyieldingly hunting down terrorists. He said his tax cuts were beginning to improve the nation’s economy, which has been suffering since the 9/11 attacks.

In his acceptance speech at July’s Democratic convention, Kerry evoked his military experience and took another jab at Bush’s Texas National Guard service by declaring he was “reporting for duty.” Shortly after the convention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam veterans with ties to the Bush campaign, aired the first of several controversial ads disparaging Kerry’s war record.

Both candidates suffered image problems throughout the campaign. In mid-September, a debacle ensued over Bush’s Texas National Guard service when CBS News relied on forged documents to suggest that Bush received special treatment surrounding his assignment and discharge from service.

Kerry fought throughout his campaign to loosen up and appeal to swing voters, having been characterized in the press as stiff, unapproachable, and out of touch with ordinary Americans. His daughters helped get his name out to younger voters, while a swarm of A-list celebrities like Bruce Springsteen and Ben Affleck used their star power to increase attention to his campaign. Former President and Democratic Party darling Bill Clinton joined Kerry on his road tour, just weeks after undergoing heart surgery.

Unprecedented Fundraising

Through the use of groups like MoveOn, known as 527 groups, more money was spent on this year’s presidential election than any previous race. The controversial, tax-exempt groups -- which some say flout the spirit of recent campaign finance reform -- can accept unlimited donations and received donations from super-rich donors.

Early on, groups supporting Democrats gained the vast majority of 527 money, but toward the end of the campaign Republican-backing 527s began to catch up. Much of those groups effectively did the work of political parties, including running vicious attack ads and get-out-the-vote organizing.

The Nader Factor

Ralph Nader’s independent candidacy proved to be much less of a factor than in 2000. With liberals lining up behind Kerry, Nader pulled one percent or less in most states where he was on the ballot, while in 2000 he averaged around three percent of the electorate. In Ohio Nader did not appear on the ballot and therefore will not be a factor in the outcome of this key state.

This story was reported by Alexandra Berzon, Tomio Geron, Marjorie McAfee, Felicia Mello, Claire Miller, Aliza Nadi, Emilia Pablo, Shlomi Simhi, Sandhya Somashekhar, Timothy Wheeler.
Updated 11/3/04 12:04 AM

“Prostitution is an issue that divides households,” said Carol Stuart, who spent today campaigning for Measure Q on San Pablo and Ashby by waving signs up to passing cars. “Measure Q kick-started a prostitution rights movement in Berkeley; it’s an important first step.”

Tonight, voters Adrian Bankhdad and Dafney Blanca Dabach discussed Measure Q while watching election returns at South Berkeley’s La Pena Cultural Center.

Bankhdad voted against the measure because he said it was worded irresponsibly.

“I trust the law over the prostitutes themselves,” said Bankhdad. He said prostitutes are “women who are often addicted to crack and not in control of themselves, who degrade themselves for a fix.” What they need, he said, “is not a measure that will reduce the stigma of prostitution; they need positive intervention from the legal system.”

Dabach voted for Measure Q after she heard about a prostitute who couldn’t find a job because of her prostitution-related criminal record.

Measure Q would have little more than symbolic significance because prostitution cannot be repealed at a citywide level. However, along with making sex for sale the lowest police priority, the initiative would instruct city officials to lobby for statewide legalization of prostitution, and require from local police a semi-annual report of prostitution-related law enforcement activity.

The arrest of prostitutes is what inspired Robyn Few, a 45-year old former prostitute and executive director of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, to advocate for prostitutes’ rights in Berkeley. In 2002, she was convicted on one federal count of conspiracy to promote prostitution and received six months house arrest. Outraged by what she saw as a total lack of protection and rights for prostitutes, Few launched her petition drive to put the issue on the November ballot.

In District 2, the neighborhood along San Pablo known as Berkeley’s red-light district, Rachon Harris said even though prostitutes are “like streetlights” in his neighborhood, he does not believe they should be a top priority for police.

“We have more important issues here like guns on the streets, the crooked police, racial profiling, domestic violence, and homelessness,” said Harris, a 31-year old construction worker. “The police shouldn’t have to worry about johns and sex.”

Harris’ sentiments were echoed by many of his neighbors interviewed outside the Rosa Parks Magnet School where they voted. They felt prostitution was not a vital concern compared to other social problems that plague South Berkeley.

Though their support was not mirrored by the city at large, backers of Measure Q say they are not discouraged.

“We already won,” Stuart said. “We already won because it got people talking about sex workers’ rights.”

The measure, which would have granted voting rights to parents of the 17,000 public school students who come from immigrant families, sparked debate about the meaning of citizenship and the role of immigrants in local politics.

The San Francisco Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Labor Council, the current School Board and many community organizations supported the measure, which was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. Proponents said the measure would allow immigrant parents, who often face long waits to become citizens, to participate more fully in their children’s education.

“We pay taxes and support the infrastructure of the schools, our kids are there, but we have no say,” said Berta Hernandez, a Mexican immigrant whose two children attend San Francisco schools.

Opponents countered that permitting immigrants to vote would lower the value of citizenship and lead to costly legal battles for the city. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and SF-SOS, a nonprofit organization funded by some of San Francisco’s largest businesses were against the measure. A $49,000 contribution by Gap owner Donald Fisher allowed the opposition to mount an aggressive direct mail campaign, outspending proponents by a factor of ten to one.

Opponent Roger Gordon, a son of immigrants and director of local nonprofit Urban Solutions, said the measure’s defeat was about more than just the school board.

“How could the electorate be so united around the presidency and still believe that voting and citizenship are of so little import that we would open up government to people that have not navigated the path to citizenship?” Gordon asked.

“Citizenship equals voting in this country,” said Bruce Cuthbertson, a spokesperson for SF-SOS.

The legal controversy stemmed from a phrase in California’s constitution that reads, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this state may vote.” Opponents had interpreted that to mean that noncitizens are barred from voting.

But Rachel Moran, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt School of Law, said the sentence could also be read as granting voting rights to some residents without excluding others.

“This might be the minimum group that’s eligible to vote and can’t be cut back,” she said. “You wouldn’t be denying them their right to vote by extending it [to non-citizens].”

For the first half of America’s history, noncitizens voted and could hold public office in most states and territories, though women and people of color were excluded. After World War I, amid a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, the states moved to restrict voting to citizens.

Several U.S. cities and 22 foreign countries currently allow some form of non-citizen voting, according to the World Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

“This is part of a much bigger movement across the United States in many communities,” said Michele Wucker, a senior fellow at the institute. “We have the largest proportion of foreign-born members of the population in a century. There are a lot of concerns that arise from the presence of a large number of people who can’t vote.”

Immigrants have voted in Chicago school board elections since 1988, while five Maryland cities allow non-citizens to vote in all municipal elections.

Supervisor Matt Gonzalez said he saw the measure as a first step toward allowing immigrants to vote in all city elections. Experts say it’s unclear how much the immigrant community would exercise that right.

“Usually, voting rates [in national elections] are extraordinarily low among first-generation immigrants who become citizens,” said Laura Stoker, a professor at UC Berkeley who studies political participation.

But that general trend may not apply to school board elections, said Stoker. “It’s much easier to get involved at the local level,” she said. “If the same community organizations that are getting them involved around school violence and what their kids are learning are also taking stands on the school board, that could matter.”

Hernandez said voting would help her be a better advocate for her son, Sebastian, who started middle school last year. Trying to talk to administrators at Horace Mann Middle School, the first school he attended, was “like being in the twilight zone,” Hernandez said.

“You enter into a parallel reality, where everyone assumes you’re an idiot because you’re an immigrant and a mother,” she said.

Gordon said parents could be involved without voting.

“Every wave of immigrants has had to find a way to become more involved in this country,” he said. “Now that we’re faced with Latino faces and Asian faces we should not declare the immigrant experience a partial failure and lower the bar to where we think people can pass.”
Updated 11/2/04 11:55 PM

“I’m in a state of shock,” says Gwen Kaplan, owner of Ace Mailing and part of the coalition of local proprietors who vocally opposed the bill. “Big business and government [usually] win against small business. I don’t know when we’ve ever won like this.”

Proposition K would have established a 0.1 percent tax on gross-receipts for city businesses taking in $500,000 or more annually. The mayor submitted the measure, in conjunction with Proposition J, a 0.25 percent hike in sales tax, to help assuage the city’s $352 million budget deficit. Proposition J was similarly defeated. The two measures would have generated as much as $20 million annually, the controller estimates, and substituted losses from a portion of the city’s tax structure overturned in court in 2001.

After a lawsuit by 52 large corporations, businesses went from paying either a payroll or gross-receipts tax, whichever was higher, to only paying payroll tax. If Proposition K passed, they would have paid both.

“Paying that off has nothing to do with us,” says Kaplan, past president of the San Francisco Small Business Commission.

Sharon Gadberry, president of San Francisco’s chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners, says the tax’s $500,000 cutoff point was “arbitrary. It’s not necessarily a breaking point in the curve,” but rather cuts through a wide-ranging cluster of businesses around that level.

Two weeks ago, in response to the proposition’s unfavorable polling, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd carried legislation that would give rebates to businesses grossing up to $2 million. But the Board had not voted on the amendment by Election Day, and its potential alone did little to placate opponents.

“No one wants to raise taxes,” says Eric Jaye, a consultant to the committee supporting the measures. Proponents stressed that City Hall has already cut pay to top officials, eliminated more than 1,000 jobs and free parking for city employees. The new tax revenue, Jaye says, would have worked in concert with these other efforts. “It’s hardly an overwhelming burden on one side,” he says.

An aide to District 9 Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who like all 11 of his colleagues supported Proposition K, calls the measure “the only other alternative to cutting services.” (A third ballot measure, Proposition O, would earmark the new revenue for services like fire prevention and homeless outreach. It is non-binding.)

If Proposition K passed, the cost of doing business in San Francisco would have risen even higher above those in surrounding municipalities. A study commissioned by the Board of Supervisors illustrates that a mid-sized retailer in San Francisco would have paid 10 times the taxes paid by a similar San Mateo business.

“It’s better to set up your business outside of San Francisco and send sales people in on BART,” says Clifford Waldeck, owner of Waldeck Office Supplies. “It’s hard enough that some of the businesses coming in are nationwide chains with nationwide contracts and nationwide services behind them.”

“If you’re competing with people in other cities,” says Gadberry, “you’re basically dead.”

“Well, it’s close,” said Councilwoman Nancy Nadel, a strong supporter of the measure. “But it looks like it might be passing.”

Measure Y originated as a compromise between those who wanted more cops on Oakland streets and those who thought that social programs were the correct route to lowering crime.

The measure would add $19.9 million for police, fire, and social services, by creating a parcel tax of $88 per single-family home, and $60 per apartment. The parcel tax on commercial property would be based on the land use category and square footage of the property. The measure would also impose a commercial parking surcharge of 8.5 percent in Oakland.

From the new revenue, $9.5 million would be spent to hire 63 more police officers while $6.3 million would be spent on social programs, like after-school programs, incentives to re-integrate recent parolees into society, and counseling for children who have witnessed violence. The remaining $4.1 million would pay for fire services.

Strange political alliances existed on both sides of the Measure Y divide. Supporting the measure was a coalition spanning almost the entire city council—only Councilwoman Desley Brooks opposed the measure. Police and fire groups also supported the measure.

On the other side, opponents to the measure ran two separate campaigns. From the left, a shoestring campaign headed by former Councilman Wilson Riles vocally opposed giving any money to the Oakland Police Department -- a department Riles described as dysfunctional. The Rental Housing Association, which favors more police but opposes new taxes to pay for them, ran a parallel campaign supported largely by rental property owners.

The two “No on Y” campaigns had very different ideas about how to solve crime in Oakland, but were united in their belief that Measure Y was a badly written, poor compromise. Riles said the social programs created by the measure were a “grab bag” of various interests.

Steve Edrington, director of the Rental Housing Association, said he didn’t trust the city to use the money to hire more police, although the text of the measure states the funds may be used only for that purpose. He’d like to see more than 63 cops added in Oakland, but said property owners were overtaxed, and city hall should spend existing monies more efficiently.

Councilwoman Nadel acknowledged the measure was a compromise.

“I was hoping to do something that was a 50-50 split between prevention and police,” said Nadel, “but we didn’t have the votes on the council.”

Colorado seemed to be the only contested state likely to post a Democratic win. Ken Salazar held a 30,000-vote lead over Peter Coors with 80 percent of precincts reporting. California Sen. Barbara Boxer handily won reelection with 65 percent over Republican challenger Bill Jones.

The Senate battles turned on everything from alleged nepotism in Alaska to political pork in South Dakota. Though Democrats have long held five of the contested seats, the South's growing Republican base tightened races that Democratic candidates won more easily during President Clinton's two terms in the 1990s.

Republicans will likely enjoy a 55 to 44 Senate majority, with former Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont voting as an independent. Regardless of who wins the presidency, Republicans will maintain the power to break ties in Senate votes. With a Sen. John Kerry loss, Republicans would continue to control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue,as they have since 2000.

Seats alone, however, were not the only thing at stake. Despite their minority position, Democratic senators who played key roles on the powerful budget and intelligence committees retired in South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, limiting their party's ability to influence important national decisions.

Republican David Vitter won in Louisiana, where a December run-off election was initially anticipated, with 51 percent of the vote.

Democrats will most likely lose Daschle. Thune, a former congressman and longtime ally of President Bush, backs the president's tax cuts and national security policies. And, in a rare move, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist stumped this season for Thune, breaking the long-time congressional custom in which Senate leaders avoid using their influence to sway local races.

North Carolina Democrat Erskine Bowles sought the seat John Edwards vacated to run for vice president, which could have hurt Democratic chances in a state where voters may feel abandoned by Edwards. But his Republican opponent Richard Burr appears to have won the seat. It was the country's fourth-most expensive Senate race, according to Open Secrets, a Web site that tracks campaign finances. Burr criticized Bowles' former position as Clinton's chief of staff, discouraging the state's conservative voters from supporting him. Both candidates, however, scrambled to take credit for a tobacco-buyout plan helping the state's struggling farmers.

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings maintained his seat for nearly 40 years, even as the state became a Republican bastion. His retirement this year left a leadership gap Democrats hoped Inez Tenenbaum, the state superintendent of education, would fill. But despite her support for initiatives like the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, she lost to Republican challenger James W. DeMint, 53 percent to 45 percent.

Alaska was locked in the tightest and most expensive senate race in its history. While there was a chance the heavily Republican state might elect its first Democratic senator in more than 20 years, with 59 percent reporting voters had chosen GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski over two-term former governor Tony Knowles. Both the younger Murkowski and Knowles favor mining the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for fuel. Knowles had berated Murkowski, saying her qualifications are lacking and questioning her controversial appointment by Alaska's governor, her father Frank Murkowski.

Though in recent days Kentucky voters watched what seemed a big lead for Republican congressman Jim Bunning melt away in the polls as Democrats raised questions about his health, he pulled ahead of Dan Mongiardo election night with 51 percent of the vote.

Voters in Oklahoma elected Tom Coburn, their former Republican congressman, by 51 percent. Coburn made homosexuality a core issue of his campaign, saying that lesbianism is so rampant in southeast Oklahoma that girls should visit school restrooms individually.

Boxer's Republican opposition Bill Jones was a testimony to the weakness of the Republican bench, according to Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. He said Jones angered Republicans by not endorsing Bush in the California primary in 2000, and by supporting the blanket primary initiative, which would allow voters to cast ballots for candidates of any party regardless of the voter's affiliation.

The nation's fiscal situation will continue to be problematic for Congress, which will have to deal with Bush's tax cuts. "The whole package passed in 2001, and a lot expires in 2011," said Schickler.
Updated 11/2/04 11:33 PM