The protracted Democratic primary fight for the 3rd District state Senate seat has been one of the most distasteful campaigns we've witnessed in years. Incumbent Carole Migden is in the battle for her political survival. Assemblyman Mark Leno says he decided to challenge Migden in the name of "democracy" and on the strength of his polite demeanor, but those reasons barely mask one fact: he's out of a job later this year, a victim of term limits. These two powerful gay politicos have worked effectively in their districts, as well as on the state and national stages, for years. Both have the LGBT community as a core constituent. Yet now the community is being asked to choose – this shouldn't even be happening.

This race is a tough call. On the one hand, Migden is asking voters to look past some significant damage she has inflicted upon herself and insists that she is up to the job for another four years. On the other hand, Leno wants voters to choose him based in large part on Migden's troubles. We reject that rationale. A sitting incumbent who has a solid record of accomplishment – both for the LGBT community and residents as a whole – should not be driven from office because she has a strong personality or has been gruff at times in her dealings with people.

We endorse Carole Migden in her re-election bid.

Observations

The 3rd District encompasses a large geographic area. It includes the east side of San Francisco, Marin County, and parts of Sonoma County. The dynamics for the seat took on a new twist in February, when former Marin Assemblyman Joe Nation, sensing an opportunity after seeing Migden become vulnerable, entered the race.

As a result, there is a distinct possibility that Leno and Migden will split the San Francisco vote (including among the city's influential LGBT residents), leaving Nation to clean up votes in the North Bay part of the district and sweep into office. If that happens, the LGBT community will lose a seat in the Legislature.

Leno was wrong when he told us in December 2006 – as he was weighing entering the race – that running against Migden wouldn't deeply divide the community, as his primary fight with Harry Britt did in 2002. We've seen nothing but deep division. Think of how much better off we all would be if instead of fighting each other, Leno and Migden had used all the money they've raised to help elect more Democrats to the California Legislature, or encouraged people to give to Equality for All to fight what is likely to be a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot this November? What a waste of resources this campaign has been.

Migden's record

During her legislative career (six years in the Assembly, and four in the Senate), Migden has authored bills that have improved profoundly the lives of LGBT people. With her package of domestic partner bills California was in the forefront of providing the most far-reaching benefits in the nation for the LGBT community and for unmarried senior citizens. Her initial bill paved the way for AB 205, which added many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage for registered domestic partners. Now, other states have followed with their own domestic partner and civil union laws as we wait to obtain full equality through civil marriage.

Significantly, Migden has been the legislative leader on HIV/AIDS law. She passed a wide-ranging package of bills addressing critical issues for HIV/AIDS care such as organ donations, back-to-work programs, and rapid testing. Her bills built on her work while a San Francisco supervisor, where she spearheaded efforts to create new models for HIV prevention, strengthened the HIV/AIDS service delivery system, and protected the health budget from dangerous cuts.

Migden has authored numerous other bills that were signed into law, including preserving the Headwaters Forest, the Clean Water Act, and protecting San Francisco's delicate natural ecosystem. In the area of consumer protection, Migden authored a bill in 2001 that was ahead of its time by protecting seniors and other vulnerable populations from unscrupulous lenders. She also authored a safe cosmetics bill in 2005.

Addressing concerns

It was during passage of that cosmetics bill, however, that Migden made a serious mistake, as she "ghost-voted" for her bill in the Assembly (she was a senator at the time), punching the "yes" button of a Republican assemblyman. The move was noticed, and while she apologized, the episode is widely believed to have led to her stepping down as chair of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

During this campaign, Migden has also seen problems. In March she was fined a record $350,000 by the state Fair Political Practices Commission in a case that involved 89 violations of the state's campaign finance laws.

We asked Migden about the FPPC case, because it does concern us. She acknowledged that the news hurt her. She has accepted the FPPC fine, which she said she is paying privately. She said at a recent candidate forum that she takes responsibility for the paperwork problems, which she termed "inadvertent violations" made by campaign volunteers, and is moving forward.

She told us that she takes her lumps over the incident, but pointed out that just after the fine, a federal judge ruled that she could tap into $647,000 in leftover campaign money, delivering a blow to the FPPC. The judge, while not ruling on the merits of the case, indicated that there was enough evidence to suggest that Migden would prevail. Now she has access to her funds to get her message out to voters.

Finally, we must mention Migden's erratic driving incident from last spring, when she caused a minor accident after driving recklessly on Interstate 80. Migden pleaded no contest to misdemeanor reckless driving and received informal probation. She attributed the incident to medication she was taking and disclosed that she has had leukemia for the last decade.

On marriage

Leno's commitment to passing a same-sex civil marriage bill is to be commended, and we certainly stand behind him on that. During his six years in the Assembly, he has twice had the bill approved by the Legislature, a major accomplishment considering that even Democratic lawmakers can be squeamish when it comes to gay marriage. Leno has proven that not only can lawmakers vote for such a bill, they can do so and be re-elected in their districts. By demonstrating that taking a stand for equality will not cost them their jobs, legislators are more likely to vote for such a bill again when it comes up. It's unfortunate that Leno's bills were vetoed by the governor.

The other important part of the equation is that by putting the marriage debate on center stage in the Capitol, Leno has moved the debate forward statewide. The people of California have had a running discussion on same-sex marriage for four years now (since Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed gay couples to wed in 2004, the first year Leno had a bill, though that one was subsequently pulled), and there are concrete results: public opinion has started to shift in our favor.

Leno has had other important legislation signed into law, most notably his historic AB 196, which added gender identity or expression to the characteristics already protected under the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Moving forward

During our meeting with Migden, she assured us that she is ready and able to serve another term in the Senate. She has the support of many of her Democratic Senate colleagues, organized labor, and local political leaders. She maintains that her effectiveness as a legislator is demonstrated by the number of bills she has had signed into law, by both Democratic and Republican governors. She is committed to helping secure same-sex marriage.

"I love my job," she told us. "My job is to be effective, to make lasting change and to leave a permanent footprint. I enact bills into law."

That's the bottom line for us. Migden may not show up at "everybody's party," as she put it, but she has certainly shown up in Sacramento and done the work necessary to help residents of her district and others throughout the state. During this campaign, she has acknowledged that she's sometimes tough. But Migden is a fighter and has always been one for the community.

Sandoval for judge

It's not often that someone runs against an incumbent judge, but San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval is doing just that as he takes on Superior Court Judge Thomas Mellon Jr. Sandoval has devoted his professional career to helping people, including working as an attorney, a deputy public defender, and representing residents in District 11 while on the board. It's not likely that the governor would appoint someone like Sandoval, as most judicial appointments come from the ranks of prosecutors or corporate attorneys. The city's bench is underrepresented by Hispanic judges, and Sandoval would bring much needed diversity in that regard. We endorse Sandoval.

Kolakowski for judge

Over in the East Bay, there is an open seat for Superior Court judge in Alameda County and for that position we endorse Victoria Kolakowski. A longtime community leader, Kolakowski currently serves as an administrative law judge for the California Public Utilities Commission. In that capacity, she holds hearings, determines what evidence is to be admitted, and performs other duties like a judge in superior court. If elected, she likely would be the first openly transgender trial court judge in the country. The bench in Alameda County is overwhelmingly male, and straight. In a county that has a large LGBT population in its urban areas, the time has come for an out judge.

[Full disclosure: Victoria Kolakowski is the domestic partner of Bay Area Reporter news editor Cynthia Laird .]

Ballot measure endorsements

STATE PROPOSITIONS

Proposition 98: Eminent Domain. Limits of Government Authority. NO

The real purpose behind this ballot initiative is to eliminate rent control and other tenant protections. It would particularly harm San Francisco and other Bay Area cities where there is already a severe lack of affordable housing.

Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Acquisition of Owner Occupied Residences. YES

This reform measure would prevent government authorities from seizing an owner occupied residence and turning it over to a private developer as has happened in other cities. We don't need that here.

CITY PROPOSITIONS

Proposition A: School Parcel Tax. YES

This measure permits a $198 tax to be imposed on taxable parcels of land to fund quality education initiatives such as teachers' salaries, training, and classroom support. It is supported by the mayor and the entire Board of Education.

Proposition B: Municipal Employee Health and Pension Benefits Reform. YES

This measure adopts reasonable reform measures to protect municipal employees, taxpayers, and city residents.

Proposition C: Forfeiture of City Employee Retirement Benefits for Criminal Conviction Involving Moral Turpitude Against the City. NO

What does "moral turpitude" mean? This is too often used against minority communities. This measure is not needed.

Proposition D: Appointments to City Boards and Commissions. YES

This statement of policy encourages appointing authorities to city boards and commissions to consider appointing individuals who represent the vast diversity of the city.

Proposition E: Public Utilities Commission. Requiring Board of Supervisors' Approval of Mayor's Appointments. NO

This is another power grab by the Board of Supervisors directed against the mayor. We hold the mayor responsible for efficiently running the city, and we should let him or her do the job with the appointees he or she deems appropriate to implement his or her policies.

Proposition F: Affordable Housing Requirement for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard. NO

This voter initiative will halt development in the Bayview-Hunters Point-Candlestick Point areas of the city, the last thing the city needs. The area will remain blighted. No new jobs will be created. And no affordable housing will be built. This one is really dumb.

Proposition G: Mixed-Use Development Project for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard. YES

Prop G is a reasonable, balanced proposition that will clean up Hunters Point, create livable wage jobs, and provide affordable housing. Over 300 acres of parks, open space, and recreation facilities will be created, the largest park expansion in 100 years. This one, too, is a no-brainer.

Proposition H: Prohibiting Elected Officials and Others from Soliciting or Accepting Contributions from Certain City Contractors. YES

This is a common sense reform of city ethics laws that will prohibit city officials and others from taking money from those who need the favors of those to whom they are giving money. We should expect no less of those who hold the public trust.