Editor’s Note: This is Part Two of a series on the election of Adena Ishii as mayor of Berkeley. Part One is here.
Until late September, I didn’t pay much attention to Adena Ishii’s campaign. I figured that her lack of relevant experience would doom her mayoral bid.
Then I saw not only the endorsements from Nancy Skinner and Buffy Wicks, but also Ishii’s latest campaign finance report, which indicated that she’d raised and spent more than $100,000. Like Kate Harrison, but unlike Sophie Hahn, Ishii had opted for Berkeley’s public financing program, which offers participating candidates a 6-to-1 match on donations up to $60 from Berkeley residents. I also saw that Ishii had been endorsed by East Bay for Everyone, which meant that she would have Yimby support on the ground.
At that point, I realized that Ishii had a serious shot at winning.
The ranked choice vote
Berkeley has ranked choice voting. Late in the election season, the most effective way of heading off an Ishii victory would have been for Hahn and Harrison to instruct their respective supporters to rank the other as their second choice and not to vote for Ishii. That didn’t happen.
On October 9, Margot Smith, running against Wicks for State Assembly, emailed her followers that she was ranking Harrison first and Hahn second. Close to Election Day, the Alameda County Labor Council sent a mailer urging a vote for both, without recommending a preference. For Hahn and Harrison, these appeals were too little and too late.
When Hahn conceded to Ishii on November 20, 17,675 ballots remained to be counted, but the results indicated that she could not win. In an article posted by the Berkeley Daily Planet on that day, Rob Wrenn counted the unofficial numbers. Ishii was the first choice for 19,268 (38.2 percent) of the voters; Hahn for 18, 827 (37.3 percent), and Harrison for 11,388 (22.6 percent). The ranked choice votes gave Ishii 25,131 (51.1 percent) of the vote and Hahn 24,092 (48.9 percent). Wrenn noted that Harrison’s voters favored Ishii over Hahn as their second choice by 4,841 to 4,174, with 3,086 making no second choice.
The race was close. Former Albany councilmember Michael Barnes observed to me: “Regarding Kate Harrison’s second choice votes: 4,841 went to Iishi, 4,174 went to Hahn. Had Hahn gotten 520 more of those votes, and Ishii 520 less, [Hahn] would have won.
Hahn’s and Harrison’s other tactical errors
The two political veterans ran surprisingly inept campaigns.
Of the two, Harrison made the more blatant misstep. She sabotaged her candidacy by resigning from the council. Besides raising questions about her reliability and emotional stamina, her withdrawal left her District 4 constituents without representation until a successor had been chosen in a special election in May. She could have stayed on the council and continued to campaign as a critic of the status quo. Having resigned, she could have dropped out of the mayoral race and urged her supporters not to vote for Ishii. Instead, she stayed in and played Hahn’s spoiler.
Even after she resigned, Harrison could have questioned Ishii’s key pitch, as follows:
We both think Berkeley’s city government is broken, but we see the failure very differently. I think it’s the council’s pursuit of a pro-market agenda and its suppression of challenges to that agenda. You blame infighting. Do I have that right?
To my knowledge, Harrison never broached such an argument. Like Hahn, she didn’t see Ishii coming.
After Harrison’s resignation, Hahn was widely regarded as the frontrunner in the mayoral race. Her blunders were less spectacular but no less significant than Harrison’s. For most of her campaign, she issued a twofold appeal: I deserve to be mayor because I love Berkeley, where I’ve lived almost my entire life; and give me money. Unlike Harrison and Ishii, Hahn did not enroll in the city’s public finance program. Berkeley campaign law limits individual donations to candidates who have not enrolled in its public finance program to receive a maximum of $270 per donor, and that’s the amount that Hahn repeatedly solicited.
Money did not determine the outcome of the race. The Daily Cal reported that as of November 4, Hahn had raised $224,000. The figures for Harrison and Ishii were $233,000 and $101,000 respectively.
Inexplicably, Hahn’s campaign website never laid out her platform, displaying instead an extensive record of her public service both on and off the council.
Instead of challeging Ishii, Harrison and Hahn publicly slammed each other
As Alex Gecan reported in Berkeleyside, at a July forum sponsored by the Berkeley People’s Alliance, the two sparred over the state of downtown.
Referring to [Harrison] only as the “former District 4 councilmember,” Hahn laid the deterioration of some sections of downtown at Harrison’s feet, saying the area “has been in freefall.” “My plan is for our city to invest in a downtown and civic center that puts community and commerce first, with wide sidewalks, benches and seating areas, outdoor dining and music festivals and public art,” Hahn said.
Harrison brushed off Hahn’s barb, saying, “Downtown is a bright example of Berkeley’s failure to plan. Individual projects are permitted without any concern as to how they work together to create a vibrant community … properties are being flipped, approved for development, and then sitting empty.” She advocated a commercial vacancy tax, design standards and incentives for businesses to stay downtown, and a requirement that any project must be under construction within two years of approval.
At the mayoral debate sponsored by the Daily Cal and CalTV in late October, Harrison was asked what, in light of her resignation from the council, she would tell voters who were “concerned about her commitment.” Harrison said “that her resignation…allowed her to ‘tell people the truth about what’s been going on in the council.’” Hahn then commented that “‘a captain does not jump ship,’ adding that ‘while Kate left the council, I was busy trying to get a new city manager.’”
It’s essential to tell voters why you’re a better candidate than your opponents. Otherwise, why should they vote for you?
But to advertise a rival’s weakness in which you had a hand, especially when most voters don’t know the back story, is spiteful.
Late in October, Harrison’s campaign sent out a mailer that featured a chart comparing Hahn, Ishii, and herself. Among the other questionable digs it took at Hahn was the claim that she “failed to deliver anything on Hopkins.” That was a reference to the council’s refusal to approve paving rutted Hopkins Street without installing bike lanes, a controversial project in Hahn’s north Berkeley district.
The proposal had been voted down 5-4 at the council on November 28, 2023 (Item 17); Harrison cast the vote that killed the item, thereby depriving her rival of a major accomplishment.
Her maneuver would have been apparent only to those who knew the order of the vote at the council meeting. It must have incensed Hahn. Surely the taunt on Harrison’s campaign mailer further inflamed Hahn’s resentment of her former colleague. To most of the mailer’s recipients, the gibe must have seemed like just one more item in the ongoing Harrison-Hahn hostilities.
Meanwhile, Ishii refrained from directly criticizing Hahn and Harrison. In another instance of her luck, they only went after her as lacking the requisite political experience to be mayor. Neither one questioned her claim to be an impartial mediator who’d reconciled adversaries.
One column in the Harrison campaign mailer chart was labeled “Delivers Concrete Results.” The text in the box under Ishii’s name read: “Little to say about planning, infrastructure needs, or creating a livable city.” At the debate sponsored by the Daily Cal and CalTV in late October, Ishii said that “it was ‘not possible’ to have 30 years of experience due to being in her mid-thirties.’” (Ishii is 32.) Hahn shot back: “Mayor Jesse Arreguín had ‘already served the city for 14 years,’ when he had been elected mayor at age 32.”
Wrangling with each other, Hahn and Harrison were merely doing what rivals do in a democratically run election. But if you weren’t paying close attention, their clashes may have sounded like the infighting that Ishii deplored and reinforced her argument that the council needed the conciliatory leader that she claimed to be.
The ceasefire resolution controversy
Hahn further weakened her candidacy by refusing to take a stand on the Israeli-Palestinan war in Gaza.
For months after Hamas’ October 7 attack, pro-Palestinian activists staged raucous demonstrations at the council’s meetings, chanting “cease-fire now!” and booing pro-Israel counter-protesters who were also in the packed chamber. It became impossible for the council to conduct its business.
Citing a passage in California’s Brown Act that addresses legislative bodies’ response to willful disruption that prevents usual orderly conduct, Arreguín repeatedly adjourned the meeting to a private room open only to city staff and journalists.
Meanwhile, in early December, Harrison and District 7 Councilmember Robinson, along with nearly 200 others, including California elected officials, had signed a letter to national leaders that called for a long-term ceasefire in Gaza and the return of all the Israeli hostages. District 3 Councilmember Ben Bartlett and District 2 Councilmember Terry Taplin also drafted resolutions supporting a ceasefire. On December 12, Bartlett, Robinson, and Taplin withdrew their proposals. Harrison didn’t draft a resolution, stating that she was “waiting on” Arreguín ‘to show leadership.’”
The Daily Cal reported that on January 9, Arreguín signed a letter “opposing a ceasefire resolution because it would ‘fan the flames of hatred at home’ without making a significant impact on the war abroad.”
Arreguín could have followed the lead of San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, who crafted a compromise resolution that called for a sustained ceasefire, the provision of humanitarian aid in Gaza, and the return of all the hostages. It also urged the Biden administration to do the same, denounced antisemitism and Islamophobia, condemned both Hamas’s attack on civilians “that resulted in so much horror and 1,200 deaths on October 7 “and the “Netanyahu government’s attacks resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.” The supes approved the resolution January 9 on an 8-3 vote. Perhaps fearing that it would jeopardize his bid for the state Senate, Arreguín did not pursue that option.
Hahn joined Arreguín and District 6 representative Susan Wengraf in opposing any resolution regarding the conflict. In late January, she told Berkeleyside reporter Nico Savidge that the scenes at the council meeting had “‘reinforced’ her opposition to taking a formal stand: “‘I am more and more sure that any statement that we might choose to make on this conflict will be hurtful and divisive to our community.’”
At the forum sponsored by the Daily Cal and CalTV on October 21 (2024), all three candidates voiced support for a ceasefire in Gaza—in principle. Hahn, reported Stephanie Wang, “said she wouldn’t vote for a resolution in favor of such, indicating that she had not seen a consensus on the topic and wanted to avoid hurting her constituents.”
Hahn elaborated on that position in response to questions on the candidate questionnaire prepared by the Green Party of Alameda County:
Should the Berkeley City Council take positions on national and international issues?
Yes, but I don’t believe the Council should take positions on issues beyond our own community that are likely to be divisive to our own community. We should only take positions when we are confident of overwhelming consensus in our community on that issue.
Would you sponsor or support a resolution on Gaza in support of an immediate and permanent ceasefire and an end to military aid for Israel?
I support individual councilmembers/the mayor making whatever statements are true to them, but do not support the City Council passing a resolution, for the reason cited above. I support an immediate ceasefire and end to all hostilities. There are no good actors and civilians are paying an extreme price for the failures of all of their leaders. My most ardent wish is for peace now and in the long term.
Hahn’s comments raise doubts about her approach to political leadership. Why require an “overwhelming consensus” on national and international issues but not on local ones for support of a resolution at the council? Indeed, why make such agreement on any issue a requirement for the council to take a position? It betokens a temporizing political style that shrinks from conflict. It also clashes with Hahn’s record on controversial local matters. During the fight over installing bike lanes on Hopkins Street, she charged ahead full-bore. Perhaps, then, her reluctance to grapple with the Israeli-Palestinian war signaled an appeal to pro-Israel voters.
In any case, her appeal resonated with one group. In November, J., the weekly newsletter for the Jewish community of northern California, reported that the Jewish Coalition of Berkeley mobilized around the election. Organizer Itamar Landau told reporter Maya Mirsky that the group had “formed in the past year over concerns about antisemitism.” “‘We published a voter recommendation page that reached thousands of Berkeley voters,’” said Landau, “‘and we organized dozens of volunteers who put in hundreds of hours knocking on doors, handing out flyers, making phone calls, writing postcards and hosting house parties in order to ensure that the Jewish community continues to have local office holders who will stand by our side.’”
The Jewish Coalition of Berkeley endorsed Hahn and Arreguín. Its name appeared among the endorsers listed on his campaign website; curiously, it wasn’t on hers.
Ishii: the mediator turned moralizer
Given her emphasis on the need for conciliation and her avowed “background in bringing people together across differences,” you might expect that Ishii urged a compromise positionsimilar to Peskin’s. She did not.
At the July mayoral forum sponsored by the Berkeley People’s Alliance, Berkeley Citizens Action, the Berkeley Green Party, Our Revolution East Bay, and the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, the three major candidates were asked if Berkeley should “speak out on the war on Gaza.” As reported in the Daily Cal, Hahn’s reply was consistent with her other statements on the subject.
[She] called for a ceasefire and noted her disgust toward heightened Islamophobia and antisemitism in Berkeley. However, “I have not brought forward a resolution because I do not engage in foreign policy that has the potential to divide our community,” she said.
Hahn also said that “she ha[d] experienced heightened antisemitism.”
Like Harrison, Ishii supported a ceasefire resolution. But it was Harrison, not Ishii, who sounded like someone seeking to reconcile adversaries:
Harrison and Ishii had differing views—both supported formally calling for a ceasefire. Harrison noted the wording would have to be very specific because she believes Israel has the right to exist. Ishii said the decision to pass a ceasefire resolution is “not complicated” when “tens of thousands of innocent people are being killed.”
If from a humanitarian perspective, the decision was simple, from a political perspective, it was anything but that. Ishii, the professed mediator, turned moralizer.
When Ishii declared her candidacy in mid-November 2023, the tumult at the council over a cease-fire resolution was already garnering headlines. She could have pointed to that disorder as a symptom of failed mayoral leadership, as Harrison did. Instead, her elevator pitch noted only the resignations of two council members and unspecified infighting; it never mentioned the upheaval over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When asked to state her position on a ceasefire at public forums, she did so. But positions taken at those events received far less publicity than the ones taken by councilmembers. That’s partly due to ranked choice voting, which substitutes a one-on-one debate with a beauty contest.
To my knowledge, the Green Party was the only one to raise the ceasefire resolution on a candidate questionnaire. Certainly, it had no place on the full-color, fifteen-page mailer published by the Berkeley Democratic Club Slate Mailer Organization, which, I trust, reached far more voters than either the Daily Cal’s stories or the Green Party’s questionnaire.
The result was that, in contrast to both Hahn and Harrison, Ishii appeared above the fray, when in fact, she was in the thick of it.
