Your guide to election

John Diaz: The thinking behind endorsements

Voters in the San Francisco Bay Area might be feeling a little left out in the run-up to the all-consequential midterm elections. The closest competitive congressional race — critical to control of the U.S. House — is hundreds of miles away. If my social-media feeds are any indication, folks around here are far more consumed with that Texas Senate race between the great-left-hope Beto O’Rourke and the sanctimonious smarty of the right Ted Cruz.

Still, there is plenty to sort out on the Nov. 6 California ballot.

We’re here to help.

By now we have made endorsements on all 11 state propositions, all eight state constitutional offices, the U.S. Senate race, all five San Francisco ballot measures and citywide offices — along with various key races around the region.

Knowing that vote-by-mail begins Monday, our editorial board began holding endorsement meetings in midAugust.

As always, we went into the process with a sense of humility and practicality. Our decisions are never going to be universally accepted, especially in the higher-profile races, where voters have an abundance of information and preconceptions. Die-hard Republicans are not going to concur with our endorsement of Gavin Newsom for governor no matter what we say, and the advocates of $300 million in new taxes for homelessness in San Francisco are never going to be dissuaded from their certitude that nearly doubling the spending is the ultimate cure.

Rather, our goal is to provide an honest, independent assessment of the candidates and the measures on the ballot, offering an analysis and reasoning for voters to consider. While we have no monopoly on wisdom, our editorial board has the time and access to cut through the sound bites. That due diligence makes a difference. The meetings we have with candidates and advocates can be decisive — and can change our minds.

Too often, the backstory or motive behind a ballot measure is not readily apparent. The thick official voter guides offer plenty of words, but not necessarily what a voter really wants or needs to know. Those 30-second TV spots, glossy mailers and online videos are typically less than enlightening.

Our editorial board’s job, as I see it, is to offer a clear, succinct recommendation to add to voters’ consideration in going through the ballot.

A couple of notes about our endorsement process worth repeating every election cycle:

Who decides: This is an important and often misunderstood point. Endorsements are made solely by the editorial board, which includes the publisher and editors and writers on the newspaper’s opinion staff. The Chronicle, like most major newspapers, maintains a firewall between its news and opinion operations. In the business we call it the “separation of church and state.” The editors and reporters who produce our election news coverage are charged to do so fairly, independently and without regard to our endorsement decisions.

Why we do it: Some U.S. newspapers have stopped making endorsements, sometimes because of the uncertainty it creates about the newspaper’s commitment to impartial news coverage and sometimes, frankly, as a business decision (fear of alienating readers). Notably, most of those papers have not stopped editorializing on issues facing their communities. In my view, if a newspaper is going to express its values and take a stand on matters of importance to our readers — from the housing crisis to climate change to ethics in government — it makes no sense to stay silent when it comes time to elect people who can achieve or stymie those objectives.

One point we should all agree on: There are plenty of significant matters on the Nov. 6 ballot. Vote.

Chronicle photo illustration