SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Board of Supervisors " 36 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Supervisors OK Grant for East SD County Small Businesses
Small businesses in east San Diego County will be eligible for loans of up to $50,000 under a new revolving loan program approved by the county Board of Supervisors,
Contra Costa Health facing $730M deficit over next five years
Contra Costa County's health department is staring at a deficit of $730 million over the next five years because of federal and state funding cuts, county health officials said at last week's Board of Supervisors meeting.
Contra Costa Health nurses demand Board of Supervisors stop drastic budget and service cuts
Registered nurses with the California Nurses Association will speak out at the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, April 14, to demand that the board stop drastic budget cuts to save the Contra Costa Health system, maintain services, and retain nurses in the wake of the significant projected financial losses created by H.R. 1.
Board of Supervisors awards $12.4 million in Measure O and state funds for mental health and homeless services
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday awarded $12.4 million to support mental health and homelessness services across the county, the latest in a series of investments funded by Measure O, the quarter-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2020.
Shaky political "science": breakdown of the peer review process
[This article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in December 2025, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting (RCV). Many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first four articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report; the second one analyzed a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report; a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research; and a fourth article that analyzed seven studies sponsored by New America’s political reform program that deployed flawed methodology based on “simulated” elections instead of real-world elections, which when combined with some basic misunderstandings of RCV, produced odd and misleading results]. In this fifth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we examine two flawed studies on the impact of RCV on voter turnout authored by San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel. McDaniel’s research in these two papers stands out for its puzzling methodology, inadequate and cherry-picked data, and faulty analyses that not only misunderstands ranked choice voting but reflects a basic misunderstanding of politics in general. The first of the McDaniel studies actually passed through a peer review process and then was subsequently published by the Journal of Urban Affairs, despite its obvious errors. It is perplexing that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the errors and send it back to McDaniel for a rewrite or outright rejection. This calls into question the credibility of the peer review process itself. The peer review process is supposed to represent the intellectual pinnacle of the profession – a way for academics to certify the quality of each other’s work, and to act as a check against sloppy research. In the case of the McDaniel study, the peer review process failed. Yet his flawed study has been cited dozens of times by other political scientists in their own flawed works — an unvirtuous circle of academic research. Here is the first Jason McDaniel study that we analyzed: “Writing the Rules to Rank the Candidates: Examining the Impact of Instant-Runoff Voting on Racial Group Turnout in San Francisco Mayoral Elections,” by Jason McDaniel, 2016, Journal of Urban Affairs. This study covered San Francisco’s use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in mayoral elections, purporting to show that RCV reduces voter turnout overall, increases voter errors, and has a negative impact on “marginal populations,” i.e. racial minorities, mainly as the result of the alleged complexity of RCV asking voters to rank candidates and having to be familiar with multiple candidates and related dynamics. McDaniel reached these conclusions by examining five San Francisco mayoral elections taking place in odd years (i.e. where there are no federal or state races on the ballot) from 1995 to 2011, comparing three earlier non-RCV races (in 1995, 1999 and 2003) with the later two RCV races (in 2007 and 2011). Only two RCV races were studied, and as McDaniel acknowledged, only the contest in 2011 was “competitive” (that contest in 2007 was the first mayoral election using RCV, and incumbent mayor Gavin Newsom won easily in the first round of counting, earning 74% of first choices and far ahead of the second place candidate who had just 6.3% of first choices). Yet even the allegedly competitive contest in 2011was won by an incumbent with a landslide margin of nearly 20 points. No other elections were studied by McDaniel, even though San Francisco elects 17 other offices besides mayor with RCV, including the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors (the name for the city council) in even years, and six other citywide offices in odd years. Previous academic research has found that competitive elections can stimulate greater voter involvement and higher turnout. For unexplained reasons, this study ignored at least 34 other RCV races between the years 2004 to 2011, many of which were very competitive and had high voter turnout. Instead, McDaniel’s analysis based its conclusions on data from only a single, marginally-competitive mayor’s race using RCV. These 2007 and 2011 mayoral elections were the only two RCV elections that McDaniel used as the sole basis for his small data set to determine the impact of RCV on voter turnout. Despite having no meaningful data to inform his study, McDaniel nonetheless concluded that RCV lowered turnout when compared to the previous three mayoral non-RCV elections using two-round runoffs. Then, using the same inadequate database of San Francisco elections, McDaniel also found that “Instant-runoff voting is associated with a significant decline in Black voter turnout and White voter turnout…On average, Black voter turnout decreases by 18 points and White voter turnout decreases by 16 points …” But how could he credibly arrive at that conclusion when his study was based on voter turnout in two RCV contests that were not even remotely competitive? Beyond that, McDaniel tacitly admits that the key determining factor driving Black voter turnout was not RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable Black candidate. McDaniel wrote, “Black voter turnout was about 17 percentage points higher for the two elections that featured an African American candidate compared to the three elections that did not” — but one of those three elections did not use RCV. The same dynamic was present for White voter turnout, in which higher turnout was not correlated with RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable White candidate. Beyond that, McDaniel’s voter turnout results, whether correlated with the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections, showed no clear patterns. In his Figure 1, he shows low Asian voter turnout in the non-RCV elections in 1999 and 2003 when there was no viable Asian candidate running, but in the 2007 mayoral election using RCV, there is still no viable Asian candidate, yet Asian turnout increases dramatically. For Latinos, voter turnout is virtually the same in 1999 (no viable Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2003 (leading Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2007 (no viable Latino candidate, RCV elections) and 2011 (leading Latino candidate, RCV elections). Meanwhile White voter turnout increased dramatically from a low in the 2007 mayoral election, in which the leading candidate was a white incumbent, to the 2011 election in which there were no leading white candidates that finished any higher than sixth place with 5.6% of the vote. Clearly other factors were determining voter turnout than either the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections. Despite these inconsistent findings, McDaniel boldly marches forth to render conclusions about the impact of RCV on different groups of racial voters, even though his conclusions are not remotely supported by his data. This looks like the worst kind of “data cherry picking” to cover up a puzzling conclusion based on a poor data set involving only two RCV elections, neither of which were remotely competitive. McDaniel’s cherry picking didn’t stop there. In calculating voter turnout for the three non-RCV mayoral elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003, he failed to mention that in each of these years there was a two-round runoff election, with a first round election in November in which no candidate garnered a winning majority of the vote, followed by the decisive runoff in December. So there were two non-RCV elections in each election year. But McDaniel only decided to include one of the two elections in his data set, apparently the December runoff in each year (which had higher turnout in two out of the three mayor’s races, and lower turnout in the third). So he ignored the November 1995 election, the November 1999 election when turnout was only 45 percent, and the November 2003 election when turnout was only 45.7 percent. This is flawed methodology based on blatant cherry picking, since McDaniel simply omitted three elections worth of data that did not fit within his frame. His study should never have made it through a peer review process, and it is an embarrassment to political science that not only was it approved for publication, but it has been uncritically cited by dozens of other political scientists. Share A “study” without wider context or credible data Lacking a data set that included even a single competitive RCV mayoral race, McDaniel declared that RCV lowered voter turnout in 2011, when turnout was 42.5 percent. But he also ignored -- or did not realize -- that voter turnout in mayoral elections during 2011 had sharply declined in all big cities, including far more steeply in nearby Los Angeles and other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s election in 2011 had the second highest turnout of any mayoral election in the nation’s 22 largest cities from 2008-2011. Was 2011 just a particularly low turnout year all across the country, perhaps because the country was still reeling from the aftermath of the housing market collapse in 2008-2010? McDaniel ignored this factor and did not search for alternative explanations beyond his flawed thesis. Furthermore, while McDaniel suggested that RCV leads to more “overvotes” – which is an invalidated ballot in which a voter, in either a non-RCV or RCV race, makes a mistake and selects two candidates for a single choice – he failed to address that in the June 2012 US Senate primary contest, which used the typical “one-choice” plurality method and did not use RCV, there was more than five times as many overvotes in San Francisco and Oakland than in the RCV mayoral elections in those cities. Additionally, turnout had been significantly higher and more representative in RCV elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors races -- that McDaniel didn’t even bother to study -- as compared to previous “delayed two-round runoffs” for those offices, often higher by as much as 40% in the RCV races. Perhaps the most surprising irony was that an earlier study co-authored by McDaniel (Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco by Francis Neely and Jason McDaniel, 2015, California Journal of Politics and Policy) found that overvotes are often more common in lower-income precincts, but that the pattern of overvoting is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. Wrote Neely and McDaniel: “[Overvote] errors appear to be a function of complexity in general and not IRV per se…. the pattern of overvoting is similar in both IRV and non-IRV contests…Even among votes cast in a top-of-the-ticket race like U.S. Senate, overvoting occurs in an uneven fashion” (IRV, or ‘instant runoff voting,’ is another name for ranked choice voting in single-winner contests). So McDaniel not only contradicted his own conclusion in his earlier study with Neely, but the earlier study had been an important corrective for one of the most frequently made mistakes made by anti-RCV political scientists – a continual failure to provide crucial context by pairing a comparative analysis of real world RCV elections with an analysis of real world plurality or other electoral methods. Unfortunately McDaniel’s earlier study does not get cited much by other researchers, and McDaniel did not even cite it in his own flawed study analyzed above. Incredibly, McDaniel cherrypicked McDaniel, even as his flawed study has been cited dozens of times. Despite being a textbook example of poor political “science,” featuring both inadequate as well as cherrypicked data, the shelf life of McDaniel’s study has been extended endlessly by other political scientists and media outlets who have cited it uncritically. Equally troubling, the Journal of Urban Affairs put this paper through its peer review process and published it despite its numerous flaws. McDaniel gets it wrong, Part II Not content with producing one shoddy, confused paper, McDaniel produced another one a few years later, here is the link: Electoral Rules and Voter Turnout in Mayoral Elections: An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting by Jason McDaniel. San Francisco State Univ. (McDaniel, 2019). In this paper, McDaniel extended his previous flawed research focused on San Francisco, about voter turnout and voter impact, to multiple RCV cities through the 2018 elections. In his data set he included San Francisco, Minneapolis, St Paul, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Fe. He then compared their turnout in mayoral elections to non-RCV cities, and to mayoral elections in those cities held before first RCV usage, and concluded “a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.” But he replicated many of the same mistakes as his first study presented above. While in this study McDaniel attempted to distinguish between various factors, such as odd year vs. even year elections, competitive races vs. noncompetitive, contests with open seats and other factors, the analysis is superficial and inadequate. He attempts to incorporate so many often-conflicting variables that his conclusions are once again unsupported by the actual data, and ultimately unconvincing (this second study never underwent a peer review process). For example, McDaniel declared that for RCV cities “in elections that are more competitive than average (margin of victory less than 20%), there is no significant RCV effect on voter turnout.” Yet McDaniel is a professor in a city, San Francisco, in which the 2018 special election using RCV to fill a mayoral vacancy was exceedingly close, decided by a margin of only one percentage point, and resulted in the second highest turnout in San Francisco history for a mayoral election. Illustrating the complexity involved in assessing the critical factors in turnout, that special election was held on the same election day as federal and state offices, which tends to boost turnout. Yet more voters participated in that RCV mayoral election than voted on the same day in the non-RCV primary for governor in which former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was running. Even more puzzling, in this study McDaniel inaccurately cited his own previous study from 2015 with Neely. McDaniel wrote, “Neely and McDaniel (2015) examine individual ballot image files within a natural experiment, and find higher rates of ballot errors in RCV elections compared to non-RCV elections” (emphasis added). However, we quoted from that 2015 study several paragraphs above, and in actual fact Neely and McDaniel actually concluded the opposite -- that the pattern of overvoting – which is the most common form of ballot error – is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. McDaniel also ignored the fact that in Bay Area RCV elections held in even years – at the same time as federal and state elections, when turnout is highest -- the “undervote” (that is, the dropoff in ballots cast for governor or mayor) has declined, which contradicts his thesis that the act of ranking ballots in RCV elections is too complex and presents a barrier for certain demographics of voters. To his credit, McDaniel actually acknowledged another contradiction in his own paper, which found a negative RCV turnout effect in some odd-year elections but not others, admitting that “may present a challenge to the theory that increased complexity [from RCV] will have a marginal negative effect on voter turnout.” But he tried to wallpaper over that contradiction by blaming it on an unlikely source -- bad election administration. McDaniels wrote, “This would suggest that the negative impact of RCV on voter participation may be alleviated by high quality election administration,” without presenting any data or even anecdotes to support such an unfounded theory. While competent election administration of any election, whether RCV or non-RCV, is crucially important, there is no credible research that supports the far-fetched notion that the quality of election administration has much of an impact on voter turnout in US elections, whether using RCV or otherwise. Upgrade to a $5 subscription The unvirtuous circle of academic research It is puzzling how McDaniel’s first study could have survived the peer review process for the Journal of Urban Affairs. The mistakes in McDaniel’s first study above should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of ranked choice voting as well as elections in general, and elections in San Francisco specifically. It undermines faith in the credibility of the peer review process to think that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the egregious errors and reject McDaniel’s sloppy research and paper. And it remains a black mark on political science that this thoroughly discredited study has been cited dozens of times by other researchers. Indeed, in our research paper it became apparent that many political scientists cite each other’s flawed research to pad their list of citations and to legitimize their own flawed research, creating an unvirtuous circle of political science. More broadly, McDaniel’s voter turnout studies, like other studies evaluating RCV’s impact on turnout, lacked a recognition that no credible opinion or research can claim that RCV increases voter turnout merely because so many voters are excited to vote for their favorite candidates instead of “lesser evil” candidates without worrying about spoilers. Instead, with respect to turnout, the advantage of RCV has always been that, in most places where it has been used, it has eliminated a pre-November primary or post-November runoff, which usually saw about half the turnout of the November general election. This is especially true during even years when there are state and federal elections on the ballot which substantially drive turnout more than local contests. Any study that does not adequately account for this non-November primary/runoff vs November general election dynamic, or odd year vs even year election factors, is simply not credible. Both of McDaniel’s studies largely failed on those grounds. Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to a $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS…your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Notice of Intent to Award Veterinarian Services RFP | Department of Health Services
The evaluation panel carefully reviewed and analyzed the proposals received in response to the above referenced solicitation. Based upon that review and analysis, we are recommending to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors that the contract be awarded to Dr. Catherine McKenzie.
Kaiser mental health workers take AI fight to San Francisco Board of Supervisors
A taxing night: Business owners stay up late to help bury BPOL in Stafford County
A proposal to institute the levy failed on a 5-2 vote from the Board of Supervisors.
Contra Costa Health nurses demand County Board of Supervisors prevent drastic budget cuts, stop imminent cuts to services
RNs will hold a picket outside the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, Calif., on Thursday, Feb. 19, to demand hospital and county leaders move funding to save our health system, maintain services, and reverse the dangerous dismantling of the enhanced care management program.
Report: Mental health and homelessness services are expanding in Sonoma County under Measure O
Access to mental health care, substance use treatment and homelessness services has expanded across Sonoma County as voter-approved Measure O approaches the midpoint of its 10-year term, according to a new report presented today to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
San Francisco to create 2 more entertainment zones
This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved ordinances that would allow the city to create two more so-called entertainment zones.
Vernon County Health Department targets vaccine hesitancy with new grant as measles cases emerge nearby
Sept 7, 2026 By TIM HUNDT VIROQUA Wis. – In a bid to combat dropping immunization rates and address a recent public health threat close to home, the Vernon County Board of Supervisors has approved a federal grant to fund a targeted vaccine education campaign. The decision comes as the county’s public health officials spearhead […]
Livingston County establishes registry for people convicted of animal abuse
The county board of supervisors voted on the proposal Wednesday during a meeting to establish the registry.
County board allows housing with retail at Reston’s Lake Fairfax Business Park
Previous Image 1/2 Next Image Fairfax County officials are on board with the idea of redeveloping Lake Fairfax Business Park in Reston into a large residential neighborhood. After a public hearing on Tuesday (Aug. 25), the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to its comprehensive plan to allow up to 1,250 residential units with supporting
County getting into the Entertainment (Zone) business
Hoping to help local businesses and attract more visitors ready to spend some money, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on May 12 conceptually approved the establishment of Entertainment
County supervisors fielding complaints about controversial Winneshiek County Fair entertainment
The Winneshiek County Board of Supervisors is receiving complaints from the public regarding a musical group scheduled to perform at this year’s Winneshiek County Fair. The fair announced late last month the southern country-rock band Confederate Railroad would be part of this year’s musical lineup, along with Kayley Green and headliner Travis Denning. Online responses
S.F. Mayor Lurie takes another political gamble with latest Sunset supervisor pick
Alan Wong, who Lurie swore into office Monday as the Sunset’s new representative on the Board of Supervisors, has for years backed a variety of progressive politicians and policies.
Election officials in Arizona's largest county agree on how to oversee vote, ending legal battle
Republican Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap sued the predominantly GOP board of supervisors in June 2025, alleging it illegally took control of certain aspects of election administration. The board called the lawsuit frivolous and said Heap was wasting taxpayer money.
‘Pitiful’ no more: Why business leaders say Madison County needs new $48M conference center
The Board of Supervisors approved issuing $48 million in bonds to fund the project at a meeting Tuesday morning.
Loudoun eyeing new indoor sports complex, study coming to county board
Loudoun County is studying a potential indoor sports facility, with a report coming to the Board of Supervisors’ Finance Committee early next year.
Politics Unplugged Podcast: A battle is brewing over Arizona’s elections
Arizona’s Family Investigative Reporter Amy Cutler joins us to break down the fight over election control between the Board of Supervisors and Recorder Justin Heap. Then Dennis and Colin talk World Cup and the race for Treasurer.
Board of Supervisors approves agreements for correctional health services
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved a pair of agreements on its consent agenda on Sept. 30 for services with the Department of Correctional Health Services.
Gov. Jeff Landry appoints two new members to LSU Board of Supervisors. Here’s what to know.
The new supervisors will take their oath of office at Friday’s board meeting.
Monterey County scraps proposed Salinas mental health campus over cost, location concerns
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted against a proposed mental health facility in Salinas after public opposition and concerns over escalating costs.
SF Supervisor Jackie Fielder Steps Back for Mental Health
Jackie Fielder, one of the most progressive members on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, is taking a medical leave for a mental health condition.
County Approves Affordable Housing and Health Facility in Logan Heights
The Board of Supervisors Tuesday approved the construction of 121 affordable homes and a health care facility on surplus County property in Logan Heights. For the first time in the County’s surplus-land housing program, the development includes replacing an aging health clinic on the site.
County Approves Behavioral Health Services Act Integrated Plan
Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a three-year Behavioral Health Services Act Integrated Plan for Fiscal Years 2026-29.
Coalition seeks LA County sales tax vote to offset federal healthcare funding cuts
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will consider whether to place a half-cent sales tax measure in front of voters. Revenues would be used to create a coverage program for people who lose their Medi-Cal.
County Launches Grant to Help East County Small Businesses
The Board of Supervisors has approved a new $300,000 one-time County grant to boost East County small businesses through the East County Economic Development Council’s Empower East County Business Fund Revolving Loan Fund.
Prince William County moves to end by-right data centers
The Prince William County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to shrink the county’s Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District.
Supervisors approve Valley Commerce rezoning application
Plans to build a nearly 1 million square foot flex industrial park outside Purcellville can move forward after the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning application June 2.
Not All Wine Glasses Tinkling Happily over Santa Barbara County’s Business Improvement District
The Goldwater Institute sues County Board of Supervisors and vintners association on behalf of Lompoc’s Flying Goat Cellars.
Revised charter aims to give more sports a place on Fairfax County Athletic Council
Changes to membership on the Fairfax County Athletic Council could give a seat at the table to representatives from a wider array of sports. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on June 9 approved the body's first significant charter change since 2004, slightly adjusting slots on the 23-member council. Approved by supervisors unanimously and without
Public hearings start on Madison County wind power project seeking $30M PILOT
The county Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requesting the IDA deny the payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) agreement with Hoffman Falls Wind, LLC.
Ventura County nurses and health care professionals to hold speak out to save Santa Paula Hospital
Registered nurses and healthcare professionals at Santa Paula Hospital in Santa Paula, Calif. and Ventura County Medical Center (VCMC) in Ventura, Calif., will hold a speak out at Ventura County's Board of Supervisors hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 18, to protest changes in services and possible closure.
Dr. Mia Shim of Seattle named new county health officer
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors today appointed Mia Shim, MD, MPH, as Sonoma County’s new health officer, replacing Dr. Michael Stacey, who has held this role on an interim basis since last November. Dr. Shim’s appointment becomes effective tomorrow.