The San Francisco Republican Party, the chosen party of 7.6 percent of San Francisco voters, endorsed five candidates running for supervisor in the coming November election, including school-board-recall organizer Autumn Looijen in District 5, firefighter Stephen Martin-Pinto in District 7, and Jeremiah Boehner in District 1.
The candidates have all leaned to the right on the political spectrum in their respective districts; Looijen, Martin-Pinto, and Boehner are each aiming to unseat incumbents Dean Preston, Myrna Melgar, and Connie Chan, respectively. The party also endorsed District 9 candidate Julian Bermudez and District 11 candidate Oscar Flores.
Looijen, who is running in one of San Francisco’s most liberal districts to unseat Preston — the city’s only elected democratic socialist — said she is a registered Democrat, but emphasized the importance of reaching across the aisle and the value of bipartisanship.
“We’ve always talked to everyone,” Looijen said, “I think there’s a real problem with division in our country, where we are not willing to talk to people we don’t agree with and not willing to find common ground.”
In fact, she said, people across different communities and political beliefs have much in common: “Everyone wants clean streets. Everyone wants public safety.”
Regarding her policy proposals in District 5, Looijen has admitted in the past that she may be “further right” than her opponents, something that may not come as an advantage in District 5, one of the city’s progressive strongholds.
Looijen agrees: Though she believes the Republican endorsement won’t be helpful in liberal District 5, as many would “see it as a liability,” Looijen said she prioritizes communication across party lines.
Looijen has received conservative backing before: Her campaign to recall the school board in 2022 was financially backed by Trump supporter and tech investor David Sacks; her supervisor campaign endorsements include the police union and the Marina Times.
The campaign to offer algebra to middle school students, which she also led, was widely supported, and passed with more than 81 percent of the city’s voters earlier this year.
Where Looijen tried to speak to both sides, Martin-Pinto, who served as a marine in Iraq and Afghanistan and was a registered Republican until 2023, took another approach. He said he sought out the endorsement from the local party, adding that he knows many members and considers them friends.
“There’s a lot of policies … focus on crime, quality-of-life issues, those are the things that I think they’re focused on, and I’m focused on those, as well,” Martin-Pinto said.
Many voters in District 7, Martin-Pinto said, feel “betrayed” by local Democrats who haven’t addressed such concerns. Currently, moderate District 7 is run by Supervisor Melgar, who has managed to toe the lines between progressive and moderate and is seeking reelection in November.
“They’re looking for somebody who’s not a Democrat, not a Republican, somebody … who thinks differently, more independently,” Martin-Pinto said. “A person … that’s serious about quality of life issues, serious about crime, serious about good schools.”
Martin-Pinto himself is now a “no-party preference” voter — he pointed out that he has also been endorsed by the Chinese American Democratic Club. This club is not chartered by either the state or city Democratic Party. Chartered Democratic clubs would not be permitted to endorse a non-Democrat for office.
But his endorsement list also features other right-leaning groups; like Looijen, his current campaign is endorsed by the police union and the Marina Times.
Boehner, who is running to unseat Supervisor Connie Chan in District 1, did not respond to a request for comment. He is an army veteran who served as a military police officer, and is a volunteer coordinator for the San Francisco Young Republicans and was already endorsed by that group for the local Republican County Central Committee in March.
The San Francisco Republican Party did not return a request for comment. Its voter guide does not include an endorsement for mayor.
“Endorsements will be made on a rolling basis until September and are made with a 60% vote of members present and voting,” the page reads.
This story was updated to include additional candidates endorsed by the San Francisco Republican Party.
I understand the Looijen has thought deep and long and productively on housing issues.
For homeless people, she has identified three local options: shelters, compulsory residential treatment, and jail cells.
For affordable family housing, she also went with “3”:
1. Micro units (350 square feet or less).
2. Sleeping pods (with a footprint roomy enough for a twin mattress and a ceiling height of 48 inches, which means most kids five and under could actually stand up on their bed – though they couldn’t jump on it). And remember, a family of six would have a full half dozen of these pods, perhaps even adjacent to each other (sorry, Bilal, I can’t say “adjacent” anymore without think of you).
3. Dormitory living in a converted financial district office building. Even babies could pretend they went off to college instead of living at home.
It’s just great that she really thinking inside the little box for family housing.
I never before considered the dilemma of the roughly 9% of San Francisco residents who are Republicans. They want to endorse someone — but an endorsement by the GOP is most likely a negative here.
So maybe they should endorse Peskin to mess with him? 😉
To your point — I think this article is maybe a bit pot-stirring, with no disrespect intended to the author, as these are simply facts stated here.
The Republican party in San Francisco is a very small minority. Therefore it should be expected that the available candidates for any election do not strongly represent the ideal Republican position, otherwise said candidate would have near-zero chance of winning (see: very small minority).
What I find pot-stirring about this article is the unspoken fallacy that (a) if SF Republicans endorse a candidate then (b) that candidate by definition heavily represents Republican interests. This can used to draw some false associations for the less-informed, i.e. Farrell = Republican, etc., which can be used to sway votes.
When in fact what it really means is that the Republicans are simply endorsing the “least-worst” candidate from their perspective. The same would be true in any Democrat minority city, where Democrats would be endorsing the least-worst candidates in local politics, even if they were hardcore Republicans. This is why in national elections, when sentiment is shifting to one side vs. the other, that the minority candidate will be positioned closer to the middle rather than extreme. See Romney/McCain vs. Obama during left-shifted sentiment, or Gore/Kerry vs. GW Bush during right-shifted sentiment. It’s not common to see progressives vs. MAGA in a battle of extremes.
I don’t have strong feelings about the candidates endorsed in this article, but I would not let the association stand that Autumn Looijen is a Republican (unless she says so herself).
Congrats to Looijen for completing the trifecta: SFPOA, the Marina Times, and SF Republican Party. It’s all downhill from here.
Hmm. Really? I would call it the courage of one’s convictions. I would call it principled. I would call it guts to resist San Francisco style Marxists, who masquerade as Democrats. But then, the Democratic Party as a whole has become an American Marxism party. (I quit the Democrats years ago. I didn’t change, they did.)
Marxist?
Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost………if only candidate Autumn Looijen had remained in Los Altos or chosen Pac Heights (aka Specific Whites), she might have had a better shot. Endorsement from fringe Repubs and the Police Union couldn’t have happened to a more tone deaf candidate.
Rather then label someone right or left , it is time to start looking at the person , their history , their policies and what they stand for and will they represent all in their district ?
Mr Preston , is a fail in District 5. He is focused on Tenants Rights but has failed to address the out of control neighborhoods he covers .
The illegal drug activity and dens are the greatest harm to the area and all , both the addicts who congregate in district 5 and those that live and contribute to society that live in district 5.
It is beyond time for a person with ethics, who lives in the real world and who cares and is willing to address this crisis which causes collateral damage to everyone and everything in district 5.
He has had five years and yet it is worse .
I respectfully request he stepdown and he support another person who cares .
Most of us would have been fired if we had failed at our job long before five years .
He never once has had a townhall ?
Why is Lower Polk still a drug den and death camp?
Please vote .
Actually, Supervisor Preston has held town halls. I’ve been to two of them.
We can disagree on what Preston’s policies, but all of the city agencies that respond to homelessness, drug use, crime, dirty streets and sidewalks … all of them … work for the mayor, not the supervisors either as a group or individually in each of the 11 districts.
The other candidates have no experience and have offered no specific policy proposals. They might or might not “care,” but Bilal has pretended to be many things he is not. Autumn has three “ideas” for affordable family housing: micro units (maximum 350 square feet; “pods” (just large enough to accommodate a twin mattress and 48 inches tall); or dorms at former downtown office buildings.
Based on what they have said and what they have made up about themselves, it looks to me like they don’t “care” – except for the billionaire class and their own weird career trajectories.
I know. Thumbs down. I’m good with that.
I had no idea that Martin-Pinto was a registered Republican all the way until 2023. The guy is a Trumper and won’t be getting my vote.
SF has been democratic tun for decades now. And SF was lead by more and more far left libs as time went on. SF voters have woken up and started to think before they vote. SF needs to turn a 180 on many policies and ways it spends tax payer $$.
If our commie pinko government turned a “180” on the way it spends taxes, they’d give them all to the rich. But that’s what you want, right?