Ballot measure elections in the city and county of San Francisco are conducted by the San Francisco Department of Elections, which is under the supervision of the San Francisco Elections Commission.

Ballot measures can be put before San Francisco voters by referral from the city council or through a signature petition drive for an initiative, which proposes a new law, or a referendum, which puts a law passed by the city council before voters. San Francisco adopted the process of initiative and referendum in 1898, more than a decade before California as a whole authorized the use of initiative and referendum.^[1]

2024

San Francisco City and County
Election Department
	Historical election results; Voter guides from 1907-present; Voter registration

See also: California 2024 local ballot measures

November 5

• San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Community Health and Medical Facilities Bond Measure (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported authorizing the city and county to issue $390 million in bonds and requiring an estimated property tax levy of $6.90 per $100,000 in assessed value in order to finance temporary shelters, facilities that deliver healthcare services, pedestrians and street safety improvements, and public space improvements.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing the city and county to issue $390 million in bonds and requiring an estimated property tax levy of $6.90 per $100,000 in assessed value in order to finance temporary shelters, facilities that deliver healthcare services, pedestrians and street safety improvements, and public space improvements.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Inspector General Amendment (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported creating the position of Inspector General in the Controller's Office, who will review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse.

A "no" vote opposed creating the position of Inspector General in the Controller's Office, who will review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition D, City Commissions and Mayoral Authority Amendment (2024): ✖

A "yes" vote supported limiting the number of commissions the city can have to 65, give the mayor sole authority to appoint and remove city department heads, and give the police chief sole authority in adopting rules governing police officers' conduct.

A "no" vote opposed limiting the number of commissions the city can have to 65, give the mayor sole authority to appoint and remove city department heads, and give the police chief sole authority in adopting rules governing police officers' conduct.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition E, City Commissions Task Force Amendment (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported creating a task force regarding commissions, and giving the task force authority to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations.

A "no" vote opposed creating a task force regarding commissions, and giving the task force authority to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement Amendment (2024): ✖

A "yes" vote supported requiring the Police Chief to make a report on future staffing of full-duty sworn officers every three years instead of every two years, require the Police Commission to report annually to the Board of Supervisors on Police Department Staffing, and create a five year program allowing retired officers to continue to work for the Police Department after retiring with pension payments deferred.

A "no" vote opposed requiring the Police Chief to make a report on future staffing of full-duty sworn officers every three years instead of every two years, require the Police Commission to report annually to the Board of Supervisors on Police Department Staffing, and create a five year program allowing retired officers to continue to work for the Police Department after retiring with pension payments deferred.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Rental Subsidies Amendment (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported appropriating $8.25 million a year to pay for rental subsidies for affordable housing developments for extremely low-income seniors, families, and people with disabilities.

A "no" vote opposed appropriating $8.25 million a year to pay for rental subsidies for affordable housing developments for extremely low-income seniors, families, and people with disabilities.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition H, Firefighter Retirement Benefits Amendment (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported changing how pension benefits for Fire Department members are calculated by lowering the age members can receive the highest benefits from 58 to 55.

A "no" vote opposed changing how pension benefits for Fire Department members are calculated by lowering the age members can receive the highest benefits from 58 to 55.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition I, Nurses and 911 Operators Retirement Benefits Amendment (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported allowing registered nurses who are members of the San Francisco Employees Retirement System and meet certain requirements to purchase credits towards their total pension years of service for time previously worked as per diem nurses, and allowing 911 dispatchers, supervisors, and coordinators to increase pension benefits by joining the SFERS Miscellaneous Safety Plan for time worked starting in January 2025.

A "no" vote opposed allowing registered nurses who are members of the San Francisco Employees Retirement System and meet certain requirements to purchase credits towards their total pension years of service for time previously worked as per diem nurses, and allowing 911 dispatchers, supervisors, and coordinators to increase pension benefits by joining the SFERS Miscellaneous Safety Plan for time worked starting in January 2025.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition J, Children and Youth Programs Amendment (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported amending the charter to create an initiative to ensure funding for children, youth, and families is used effectively.

A "no" vote opposed amending the charter to create an initiative to ensure funding for children, youth, and families is used effectively.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition K, Close Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles and Establish Public Open Recreation Space Measure (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported closing the Upper Great Highway to private motor vehicles seven days a week, and using it as a public open recreation space.

A "no" vote opposed closing the Upper Great Highway to private motor vehicles seven days a week, and using it as a public open recreation space.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition L, Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses Tax Measure (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported placing an additional tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses that provide passenger service for compensation with rates between 1% and 4.5% of gross receipts in San Francisco above $500,000, using the funds for public transportation.

A "no" vote opposed placing an additional tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses that provide passenger service for compensation with rates between 1% and 4.5% of gross receipts in San Francisco above $500,000, using the funds for public transportation.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition M, Changes to Business Taxes Measure (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported making the changes to taxes collected from businesses:

changing annual gross receipts tax rates to between 0.1% and 3.716%,
changing homelessness gross receipts tax rates to between 0.0162% and 1.64%,
changing business registration fees to between $55 and $60,000,
changing overpaid executive gross receipts tax rates to between 0.02% and 0.129%,
changing administrative office tax rates to between 2.97% and 3.694% of payroll expense;
increasing the gross receipts tax exemption for small businesses; and
change how these taxes are calculated

A "no" vote opposed making changes to taxes collected from businesses.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition N, First Responder Student Loans and Training Reimbursement Measure (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported creating a fund for student loans and education and training programs for eligible city employees, including police officers, firefighters, sheriffs, paramedics, registered nurses, and 911 dispatchers.

A "no" vote opposed creating a fund for student loans and education and training programs for eligible city employees, including police officers, firefighters, sheriffs, paramedics, registered nurses, and 911 dispatchers.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition O, Local Reproductive Healthcare Including Abortion Policies Initiative (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to:

Declare that San Francisco shall not "investigate or prosecute a person for having accessed or provided reproductive health care" or "assist or cooperate with such an investigation or prosecution," with certain exceptions for harms to the pregnant person;
Require the Department of Public Health (DPH) to maintain a website listing "pregnancy services centers in the City that provide or offer referrals for abortions or emergency contraception, as well as limited service pregnancy centers" and a non-emergency telephone number "where members of the public can obtain information about where to obtain abortions and emergency contraception;"
Prohibit pregnancy services centers that receive municipal funding from "requiring abortion providers to possess or obtain additional medical qualifications beyond those required by state and federal law, in order to provide abortions;"
Establish the Reproductive Freedom Fund, which would receive private donations, including grants, gifts, and bequests, and distribute the funds to support "access to abortions and emergency contraception in San Francisco;" and
Create a new service class called Reproductive Health Clinics (RHCs) and amend zoning laws to allow RHCs throughout San Francisco, except that in residential districts, RHCs are only permitted in certain corner areas.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, known as the San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act.

• San Francisco Unified School District, California, Proposition A, Bond Measure (2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported authorizing the district to issue $790 million in bonds and requiring an estimated property tax levy of $12.95 per $100,000 in assessed value.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing the district to issue $790 million in bonds and requiring an estimated property tax levy of $12.95 per $100,000 in assessed value.

March 5

• San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Affordable Housing Bond Measure (March 2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported:

authorizing San Francisco to issue $300 million in bonds to construct, develop, acquire, or rehabilitate affordable housing, including constructing 46,598 very low- to moderate-income housing units by 2031 as required by state law;
authorizing a property tax increase (expected to be an average of $5.70 per $100,000 assessed value) through 2047 to repay the bonds; and
allowing landlords to pass through up to 50% of resulting property tax increases to tenants.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing San Francisco to issue $300 million in bonds to construct, develop, acquire, or rehabilitate affordable housing.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Minimum Police Staffing Amendment (March 2024): ✖

A "yes" vote supported amending the city charter to make the following changes only if voters approve a new tax or amend an existing tax to fund these requirements:

Set minimum police officer staffing levels;
Require the city to budget enough money for at least five years to pay the amount of police officers employed in the previous year;
Require the Police Commission to request enough money to pay for minimum police staffing levels;
Authorize the San Francisco Police Department to introduce amendments to its budget; and
Create a fund for police recruitment that will last for five to 10 years.

A "no" vote opposed amending the city charter to make the proposed changes only if voters approve a new tax or amend an existing tax to fund these requirements.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption for Properties Converted from Commercial to Residential Use Initiative (March 2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported:

exempting property from the real estate transfer tax (ranging from 0.5% to 6%) the first time commercial property is converted to residential use for properties receiving final approval before January 1, 2030;
limiting the total amount of space that can be exempt from the transfer tax to an aggregate total of five million square feet; and
increasing the amount of office space that can be developed by factoring in the amount of office space that has been converted to residential use.

A "no" vote opposed exempting property from the real estate transfer tax the first time commercial property is converted to residential use and increasing the limit on office space that may be developed.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition D, Amend City Ethics Laws and Expand Restrictions on Gifts to City Officers and Employees Initiative (March 2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported amending city ethics laws including expanding restrictions on gifts that can be received by city officers and employees.

A "no" vote opposed amending city ethics laws including expanding restrictions on gifts that can be received by city officers and employees.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Limit Police Department Administrative Task Time and Increase Use of Camera and Drone Technology Initiative (March 2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported:

limiting the amount of time a patrol officer may spend on administrative tasks to 20% of on-duty time;
requiring written reports for use-of-force events only when a physical injury occurred or if a firearm was removed from an officer's holster;
allowing body camera footage to satisfy reporting requirements;
allowing use of drones along with or instead of vehicular pursuits; and
allowing installation of surveillance and facial recognition cameras without approval from the police commission or board of supervisors.

A "no" vote opposed changing the requirements surrounding police department administrative tasks, use-of-force reporting, and increasing use of drone and camera technology.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Require Drug Screening for Certain Beneficiaries of the County Adult Assistance Program Initiative (March 2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported requiring drug screening of individuals receiving County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) benefits for individuals suspected by the city to be using illegal substances and requiring the individual to participate in treatment programs (if the treatment program is free) to continue receiving assistance benefits.

A "no" vote opposed requiring drug screening of individuals receiving County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) benefits for individuals suspected by the city to be using illegal substances and requiring individuals to participate in free treatment programs to continue receiving benefits.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Declaration of Policy Urging San Francisco Unified School District to Offer Algebra 1 to Students by Eighth Grade Measure (March 2024): ✔

A "yes" vote supported declaring it the official policy of the county and city of San Francisco to urge the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) to offer Algebra 1 to students by the eighth grade.

A "no" vote opposed declaring it the official policy of the county and city of San Francisco to urge the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) to offer Algebra 1 to students by the eighth grade.

2022

See also: California 2022 local ballot measures

November 8

• San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment for Certain City Retirees and Employment Contract for Retirement Board Executive Director Amendment (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported allowing city employees who retired before November 6, 1996, to receive a supplemental cost of living adjustment to their pensions whether or not the retirement system is fully funded and allowing the Retirement Board to enter into an individual employment contract with its executive director.

A "no" vote opposed allowing city employees who retired before November 6, 1996, to receive a supplemental cost of living adjustment to their pensions whether or not the retirement system is fully funded and allowing the Retirement Board to enter into an individual employment contract with its executive director, thereby requiring the Retirement Board to follow city civil service hiring rules, which limit the Board's salary and benefit offerings.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Eliminate Department of Sanitation and Streets and Transfer Duties to Department of Public Works Amendment (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported eliminating the Department of Sanitation and Streets and transferring its duties to the Department of Public Works and retaining the Public Works Commission and the Sanitation and Streets Commission.

A "no" vote opposed eliminating the Department of Sanitation and Streets and transferring its duties to the Department of Public Works.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Create Homelessness Oversight Commission Amendment (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported creating a Homelessness Oversight Commission to oversee the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and requiring the city controller to conduct audits of services for people experiencing homelessness.

A "no" vote opposed creating a Homelessness Oversight Commission to oversee the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and requiring the city controller to conduct audits of services for people experiencing homelessness.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition D, Remove Board of Supervisors' Approval Requirement for Affordable Housing Projects Using City Property or Financing and Expedite Approval Process for Certain Affordable Housing Projects Initiative (November 2022): ✖

A "yes" vote supported expediting the approval of certain affordable housing projects and removing the Board of Supervisors' approval as a requirement for affordable housing projects using city property or city financing.

A "no" vote opposed expediting the approval of certain affordable housing projects and removing the Board of Supervisors' approval as a requirement for affordable housing projects using city property or city financing.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Require Board of Supervisors' Approval for Affordable Housing Projects Using City Property or Financing and Expedite Approval Process for Certain Affordable Housing Projects Amendment (November 2022): ✖

A "yes" vote supported expediting the approval of certain affordable housing projects and continuing to require the Board of Supervisors' approval for affordable housing projects using city property or city financing.

A "no" vote opposed expediting the approval of certain affordable housing projects and continuing to require the Board of Supervisors' approval for affordable housing projects using city property or city financing.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Library Preservation Fund Renewal Amendment (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported the following:

renewing the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years, funded through an annual parcel tax of $25 per $100,000 in assessed value, otherwise set to expire on June 30, 2023;
allowing the city to temporarily freeze the annual minimum library funding amount when the city expects a budget deficit over $300 million; and
increasing the minimum hours the main library and its 27 branches must be open per week.

A "no" vote opposed the following:

renewing the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years, funded through an annual parcel tax of $25 per $100,000 in assessed value, otherwise set to expire on June 30, 2023;
allowing the city to temporarily freeze the annual minimum library funding amount when the city expects a budget deficit over $300 million; and
increasing the minimum hours the main library and its 27 branches must be open per week.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Create Student Success Fund to Provide Additional Grants to San Francisco Unified School District Amendment (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported creating the Student Success Fund to provide additional grants to San Francisco Unified School District through 2038, with the city allocating $11 million to the Fund in 2024, $35 million in 2025, and $45 million in 2026.

A "no" vote opposed creating the Student Success Fund to provide additional grants to San Francisco Unified School District.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition H, Move Local Elections to Even-Numbered Years and Change Initiative Petition Signature Requirements Amendment (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported changing elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney, and Treasurer from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years (in November of presidential election years) and changing signature requirements for ballot initiatives from 5% of votes cast for mayor to 2% of registered voters.

A "no" vote opposed the proposed changes, thereby continuing to hold elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney, and Treasurer during odd-numbered years and maintaining that the basis for determining the number of signatures required for ballot initiatives shall be 5% of votes cast for mayor in the previous mayoral election.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition I, Allow Private Vehicles on JFK Drive and Connector Streets in Golden Gate Park Initiative (November 2022): ✖

A "yes" vote supported allowing private motor vehicles on John F. Kennedy Drive and connector streets, known as the JFK Promenade, except from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and legal holidays as well as on Saturdays from April through September.

A "no" vote opposed allowing private motor vehicles on John F. Kennedy Drive and connector streets, known as the JFK Promenade, except from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and legal holidays as well as on Saturdays from April through September, thereby maintaining current law providing for the closure of these roads to use the area as recreational open space.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition J, Limit Private Vehicles on JFK Drive and Connector Streets in Golden Gate Park For Use as Recreational Open Space Measure (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported upholding an ordinance adopted in May 2022 that provided for the closure of portions of John F. Kennedy Drive and certain connector streets in Golden Gate Park, known as JFK Promenade, to use the area as open recreation spaces.

A "no" vote opposed upholding an ordinance adopted in May 2022 that provided for the closure of portions of John F. Kennedy Drive and certain connector streets in Golden Gate Park, known as JFK Promenade, to use the area as open recreation spaces

• San Francisco, California, Proposition L, Sales Tax Renewal for Transportation Projects Measure (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported continuing an existing one-half cent sales tax through 2053 for transportation project funding and allowing the Transportation Authority to issue up to $1.91 billion in bonds for transportation projects.

A "no" vote opposed continuing an existing one-half cent sales tax through 2053 for transportation project funding and allowing the Transportation Authority to issue up to $1.91 billion in bonds for transportation projects.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition M, Create Tax on Certain Vacant Residential Units Initiative (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported allowing the city to levy a tax on owners of vacant residential units in buildings with three or more units if the units have been vacant for more than 182 days in a year, at a rate between $2,500–5,000 per vacant unit in 2024 with adjustments for inflation in future years, continuing through 2053, and dedicating tax revenue for rent subsidies and affordable housing.

A "no" vote opposed allowing the city to levy a tax on owners of vacant residential units in buildings with three or more units if the units have been vacant for more than 182 days in a year, at a rate between $2,500–5,000 per vacant unit in 2024 with adjustments for inflation in future years, continuing through 2053, and dedicating tax revenue for rent subsidies and affordable housing.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition N, Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Measure (November 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported allowing the city to use public funds to acquire, operate, or subsidize public parking in the underground parking garage in Golden Gate Park; dissolves the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority and transfers management of the garage to the Recreation and Park Commission.

A "no" vote opposed allowing the city to use public funds to acquire, operate, or subsidize public parking in the underground parking garage in Golden Gate Park; dissolves the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority and transfers management of the garage to the Recreation and Park Commission.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition O, Additional Parcel Tax to Fund City College Student and Workforce Development Programs Initiative (November 2022): ✖

A "yes" vote supported levying a parcel tax at varying rates between $150–4,000 per parcel, beginning on July 1, 2023 and ending on June 30, 2043, with funding appropriated to the City College of San Francisco for student and workforce development programs.

A "no" vote opposed levying a parcel tax at varying rates between $150–4,000 per parcel, beginning on July 1, 2023 and ending on June 30, 2043, with funding appropriated to the City College of San Francisco for student and workforce development programs.

June 7

• San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Public Transportation and Streets Bond Issue (June 2022): ✖

A "yes" vote supported authorizing the city to issue $400 million in bonds to fund improvements to public transportation infrastructure, equipment, and facilities and to construct and improve streets and sidewalks and requiring property taxes at a rate of $10 per $100,000 in assessed value to repay the bonds over up to 30 years.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing the city to issue $400 million in bonds to fund improvements to public transportation infrastructure, equipment, and facilities and to construct and improve streets and sidewalks.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Mayor-Appointed Director of the Department of Building Inspection and Changes to Building Inspection Commission Selection Amendment (June 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported amending the city charter to

make the mayor instead of the Building Inspection Commission (BIC) responsible for appointing the Director of the Department of Building Inspection, with appointments made from nominations by the BIC;
require two of the BIC members nominated by the mayor to require that they be either a structural engineer, an architect, or a residential builder;
require one of the BIC members nominated by the president of the board of supervisors to be a residential tenant or a current or former employee of a nonprofit housing organization; and
require the board of supervisors to approve all appointments to the BIC.

A "no" vote opposed this charter amendment, thereby leaving the following policies in place:

a Director of the Department of Building Inspection appointed by the Building Inspection Commission (BIC)
the requirement that the four appointments to the BIC by the mayor include a structural engineer, a licensed architect, a residential builder, and a representative of a nonprofit housing developer; and
the requirement that the three appointments to the BIC by the president of the board of supervisors include a residential tenant, a residential landlord, and a member of the public.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Recall Timeline Restrictions and Vacancy Appointments Amendment (June 2022): ✖

A "yes" vote supported amending the city charter to make the following changes to recall process rules:

prohibit starting a recall petition drive within the first 12 months of an official's term or submitting signatures for a recall petition that would trigger a recall election within the last 12 months of an official's term, rather than the existing six-month limits, and
prohibit anyone appointed to fill a vacancy that was created by a recall election from running in the following election for that office.

A "no" vote opposed this charter amendment thereby leaving the existing recall rules in place that:

prohibit starting recall petition drives within the first six months of an official's term and prohibit submitting recall petition signatures that would trigger a recall election within the last six months of an official's term and
allow anyone appointed to fill a vacancy created by a recall election to run in the following election for that office.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition D, Create an Office of Victim and Witness Rights Measure (June 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported creating an Office of Victim and Witness Rights to provide or coordinate services for victims and witnesses.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to create an Office of Victim and Witness Rights to provide or coordinate services for victims and witnesses.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Solicited Donation (Behested Payment) Restrictions Measure (June 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting supervisors from soliciting donations—called behested payments—from contractors with contracts approved by those supervisors and requiring approval by the ethics commission and a two-thirds vote of supervisors to change behested payment laws.

A "no" vote opposed this measure prohibiting supervisors from soliciting donations from contractors with contracts approved by those supervisors and requiring approval by the ethics commission and a two-thirds vote of supervisors to change behested payment laws, thereby leaving existing laws governing behested payments in place.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Refuse Collection and Disposal Governance, Rates, and Rules Measure (June 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported making the following changes to the city's refuse collection and disposal governance:

create the position of ratepayer representative nominated by an organization that advocates for ratepayers and appointed by the mayor;
replace the controller with a ratepayer representative on the three-member the refuse rate board;
make the controller the refuse rate administrator, who would be responsible for monitoring and recommending refuse rate changes to the rate board;
require rates approved by the rate board to be in place for at least two years and no more than five years; and
make other changes to the process for setting refuse rates, including public hearings on rate change proposals before the commission on the environment and the commission on sanitation and streets.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to change the membership of the refuse rate board and the governance of refuse rates, thereby leaving the following in place:

a refuse rate board consisting of the general manager of the public utilities commission, the city administrator, and the controller and
a process for rate changes that includes a rate change application process, a recommendation from the director of public works, and public hearings.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Public Health Emergency Leave Requirement Measure (June 2022): ✔

A "yes" vote supported requiring employers with more than 100 employees—including the city—to provide paid public health emergency leave in addition to existing paid sick leave equal to the number of hours an employee works in a normal two-week period up to 80 hours per year that could be used under the following scenarios:

if an employee or their family member cannot work due to recommendations or requirements of a public health emergency order;
if an employee or their family member has symptoms of or tests positive for a disease that caused the public health emergency declaration; and
the employee works outdoors and has heart or lung disease, breathing issues, is pregnant, or is at least 60 years old and a Spare the Air Alert is in effect.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to create a paid public health emergency leave requirement for all employers with more than 100 employees, thereby leaving the existing paid sick leave policies in place.

2020

November 3

See also: November 3, 2020 ballot measures in California

• Caltrain, California, Proposition RR, Rail Service Tax (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported authorizing an additional sales tax of 0.125% for 30 years generating an estimated $100 million per year for the Caltrain rail service, thereby increasing the total sales tax rate in San Francisco from 8.5% to 8.625%.

A “no” vote opposed authorizing an additional sales tax of 0.125% generating an estimated $100 million per year for 30 years with funds dedicated to the Caltrain rail service, thereby leaving the existing total sales tax rate in San Francisco at 8.5%.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Bond Issue (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported authorizing the city to issue up to $487.5 million in bonds with bond revenue going to fund permanent investments in transitional supportive housing facilities, shelters, and/or facilities that serve individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges, or substance use, improve the safety and quality of parks, and improve the safety and condition of streets and requiring an estimated property tax levy of $14 per $100,000 in assessed value

A “no” vote opposed authorizing the city to issue up to $487.5 million in bonds with bond revenue going to fund permanent investments in transitional supportive housing facilities, shelters, and/or facilities that serve individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges, or substance use, improve the safety and quality of parks, and improve the safety and condition of streets and requiring an estimated property tax levy of $14 per $100,000 in assessed value.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Public Works Commission and Sanitation and Streets Commission Charter Amendment (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported amending the city charter to create a Public Works Commission and a Sanitation and Streets Commission.

A “no” vote opposed amending the city charter to establish a Public Works Commission and a Sanitation and Streets Commission.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Member of City Body Eligibility Requirements Charter Amendment (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported amending the city charter to remove the requirement that individuals serving on city boards, commissions, and advisory bodies must be U.S. citizens and registered voters, while still requiring those individuals to be of legal voting age and San Francisco residents.

A “no” vote opposed amending the city charter to remove the requirement that individuals serving on city boards, commissions, and advisory bodies must be U.S. citizens and registered voters, while still requiring those individuals to be of legal voting age and San Francisco residents.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition D, Sheriff's Department Oversight Board Charter Amendment (November 2020): ✔

A "yes" vote supported amending the city and county charter to create the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board authorized to report findings and recommendations on department operations to the board of supervisors and to create the Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General to investigate non-criminal misconduct by employees and in-custody deaths and recommend policy changes to the sheriff and board of supervisors.

A "no" vote opposed amending the city and county charter to create the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board and the Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Police Staffing Charter Amendment (November 2020): ✔

A "yes" vote supported amending the city charter to remove the mandatory police staffing level, to require the police department to submit a report and recommendation for police staffing levels every two years to the police commission, and to require the commission to consider the report when approving the department's budget.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to amend the city charter to remove the mandatory police staffing level, thereby maintaining the requirement enacted by Proposition D (1994) of having at least 1,971 full-time police officers on staff.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Business and Tax Regulations Code Charter Amendment (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code of the city charter to eliminate the payroll expense tax, increase the business registration fee by $230-460, increase gross receipts tax rates to 0.015-1.040%, increase the administrative office tax rate to 1.61%, increase gross receipts tax rates by 0.175-0.690% and the administrative office tax rate by 1.5% pending certain lawsuits, place a 1-3.5% tax on gross receipts from commercial leases, as well as other business tax changes. This also supported maintaining baseline funding for the Municipal Transportation Fund, the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Fund, the Children and Youth Fund, the Library Preservation Fund, the Housing Trust Fund, the Public Education Enrichment Fund, the Dignity Fund, and the Street Tree Maintenance Fund, regardless of changes to business taxes being voted on at the November 3, 2020 election.

A “no” vote opposed amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code of the city charter to eliminate the payroll expense tax, increase the business registration fee by $230-460, increase gross receipts tax rates to 0.015-1.040%, increase the administrative office tax rate to 1.61%, increase gross receipts tax rates by 0.175-0.690% and the administrative office tax rate by 1.5% pending certain lawsuits, place a 1-3.5% tax on gross receipts from commercial leases, as well as other business tax changes. This also opposed maintaining baseline funding for the Municipal Transportation Fund, the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Fund, the Children and Youth Fund, the Library Preservation Fund, the Housing Trust Fund, the Public Education Enrichment Fund, the Dignity Fund, and the Street Tree Maintenance Fund, regardless of changes to business taxes being voted on at the November 3, 2020 election.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Local Election Voting Age Charter Amendment (November 2020): ✖

A “yes” vote supported amending the city charter to lower the voting age to 16 for local candidates and ballot measures.

A “no” vote opposed amending the city charter to lower the voting age to 16 for local candidates and ballot measures.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition H, Planning Code Amendment (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported authorizing an ordinance to amend the city's planning code to simplify business procedures including increasing permissible uses, eliminating public notification processes, and requiring an expedited process for permits.

A “no” vote opposed authorizing an ordinance to amend the city's planning code to simplify business procedures including increasing permissible uses, eliminating public notification processes, and requiring an expedited process for permits.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition I, Real Estate Transfer Tax (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported authorizing an increase to the transfer tax rate on real estate sales and leases of 35 years or more, to 5.5% on transactions of $10 million to $25 million and to 6% on transactions of $25 million or more, generating an estimated $196 million per year.

A “no” vote opposed authorizing an increase to the transfer tax rate on real estate sales and leases of 35 years or more, to 5.5% on transactions of $10 million to $25 million and to 6% on transactions of $25 million or more, generating an estimated $196 million per year.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition K, Affordable Housing Authorization (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported authorizing the city to develop or acquire up to 10,000 units of low-income rental housing.

A “no” vote opposed authorizing the city to develop or acquire up to 10,000 units of low-income rental housing.

• San Francisco, California, Proposition L, Business Tax (November 2020): ✔

A “yes” vote supported authorizing an additional tax of 0.1%-0.6% of gross receipts or 0.4%-2.4% of payroll expenses for businesses in which the highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation of employees, generating an estimated $60-140 million per year.

A “no” vote opposed authorizing an additional tax of 0.1%-0.6% of gross receipts or 0.4%-2.4% of payroll expenses for businesses in which the highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation of employees, generating an estimated $60-140 million per year.

• San Francisco Unified School District, California, Proposition J, Parcel Tax (November 2020): ✔

A "yes" vote supported authorizing an annual parcel tax of $288 per parcel, adjusted for inflation each year, to replace an existing parcel tax, thereby generating an estimated $48.1 million per year for 17 years.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing for 17 years an annual parcel tax of $288 per parcel, thereby allowing the existing $320 parcel tax to remain in effect.

March 3

See also: March 3, 2020 ballot measures in California

2019

November 5

See also: November 5, 2019 ballot measures in California

• Proposition A: San Francisco Bond Issue for Affordable Housing a

A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city to increase its debt by issuing up to $600 million in bonds to fund affordable housing, with an estimated average property tax rate for repayment of $0.019 per $100 in value and a repayment period of 30 years.

A no vote was a vote against authorizing $600 million in bonds for affordable housing and leaving the city's property tax rates unchanged.

• Proposition B: San Francisco Disability and Aging Services Charter Amendment a

A yes vote was a vote in favor of changing the name of the city's Aging and Adult Services department and commission to Disability and Aging Services and requiring one member of the seven-member commission to be above 60 years old, one member to be disabled, and one member to have served in the U.S. military.

A no vote was a vote against this measure, thereby leaving the name of the city's Aging and Adult Services department and commission unchanged and leaving registration as a San Francisco voter as the only qualification requirement for the commission members.

• Proposition C: San Francisco Authorize and Regulate Sale of Electronic Cigarettes and Vapor Products Initiative d

A yes vote was a vote in favor of this initiative to do the following:

authorize the sale of electronic cigarettes and other nicotine vapor products in the city;
partially overturn 2019 city laws designed to ban vapor products not reviewed by the FDA (which currently includes all e-cigarette products) and flavored vapor products;
require additional licensing and permitting for businesses selling vapor products, including online sales;
enact additional age verification requirements, including scanned IDs, and maximum product sale restrictions; and
enact rules regarding the advertisement of vapor products with regard to minors.

A no vote was a vote against this initiative, thereby leaving in place city laws designed to ban vapor products not reviewed by the FDA (which currently includes all e-cigarette products) and flavored vapor products starting in 2020 and leaving current regulations and restrictions on vapor product vendors and advertisements.

• Proposition D: San Francisco Ride-Share Business Tax to Fund Muni, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Services and Infrastructure a

A yes vote was a vote in favor of enacting a tax on ride-share companies, such as Uber and Lyft, at a rate of 1.5% of total fares on shared rides and rides in zero-emission vehicles and 3.25% of total fares on private rides, with revenue dedicated to improving and maintaining public transportation services and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

A no vote was a vote against enacting a tax on ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft, so that the city would continue to have no business tax on ride-share companies.

• Proposition E: San Francisco Reduced Zoning Restrictions for Affordable Housing and Educator Housing Projects a

A yes vote was a vote in favor of allowing residential development consisting of 100% affordable housing or educator housing on public zoning districts, reducing the zoning requirements and restrictions for such projects, and requiring expedited reviews.

A no vote was a vote against this measure to reduce restrictions and requirements on 100% affordable housing and educator housing, thereby continuing to prevent any kind of residential development in public zoning districts and leaving the existing residential development and zoning rules in place.

• Proposition F: San Francisco Campaign Contribution Restrictions and Advertisement Disclaimer Requirements a

A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing the following requirements for campaign advertisement disclaimers and restrictions on campaign contributions:

a ban on limited liability companies or partnerships contributing to candidate committees;
a ban on contributions to a city supervisor, the mayor, the city attorney, or any candidates for these positions from someone with certain levels of financial interest in any matter concerning zoning, city planning, or land-use changes; and
requirements that specify how advertisements must display funding and what donation threshold requires a disclaimer.

A no vote was a vote against changing the city's campaign contribution restrictions and advertisement disclaimer requirements, thereby leaving the current laws in place.

2018

November 6

See also: November 6, 2018 ballot measures in California

• Proposition B: San Francisco Personal Information Protection Policy Charter Amendment a
• Proposition A: San Francisco Embarcadero Seawall Improvement Bonds a
• Proposition C: San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services Initiative
• Proposition D: San Francisco Marijuana Business Tax Increase a
• Proposition E: San Francisco Partial Allocation of Hotel Tax for Arts and Culture a

June 5

See also: June 5, 2018 ballot measures in California

• Proposition D: San Francisco Commercial Rent Tax for Housing and Homelessness Services d
• Proposition H: San Francisco Tasers for Police Officers d
• Proposition C: San Francisco Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education a
• Proposition A: San Francisco Revenue Bonds for Power Facilities Excluding Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy Charter Amendment a
• Proposition G: San Francisco Parcel Tax for the San Francisco Unified School District a
• Proposition I: San Francisco Local Policy Discouraging the Relocation of Established Sports Teams d
• Proposition B: San Francisco Restriction on Board and Commission Members Seeking Office Charter Amendment a
• Proposition F: San Francisco City-Funded Legal Representation for Tenants Facing Eviction a
• Proposition E: San Francisco Ban on the Sale of Flavored Tobacco a

• Regional Measure 3: Bay Area "Traffic Relief Plan" Bridge Toll Increase a

2016

November 8

See also: November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California

June 7

See also: June 7, 2016 ballot measures in California

• Proposition B: San Francisco Park Fund Charter Amendment (June 2016) a
• Proposition A: San Francisco Public Health and Safety Bond Issue a
• Proposition C: San Francisco Affordable Housing Requirements Charter Amendment (June 2016) a
• Proposition E: San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Changes a
• Proposition D: San Francisco Citizen Complaints Office Investigations of Police Shootings a

2015

November 3

See also: November 3, 2015 ballot measures in California and San Francisco, California municipal elections, 2015

2014

November 4

See also: November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California

June 3

See also: June 3, 2014 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: City of San Francisco Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond
a Proposition B: City of San Francisco Voter Approval of Waterfront Construction Exceeding Height Limits Initiative

2013

November 5

See also: November 5, 2013 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: Retiree Healthcare Trust Fund
d Proposition B: 8 Washington Street - Initiative
d Proposition C: 8 Washington Street - Referendum
a Proposition D: Prescription Drug Purchasing

2012

November 6

See also: November 6, 2012 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: City College of San Francisco Parcel Tax
a Proposition B: San Francisco "Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks" bond proposition
a Proposition C: San Francisco Creation of a Housing Trust Fund
a Proposition D: San Francisco Consolidation of Odd-Year Municipal Elections
a Proposition E: San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax on Businesses
d Proposition F: San Francisco Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration/Hetch Hetchy Reservoir
a Proposition G: San Francisco Repeal of the Notion of Corporate Personhood

June 5

See also: June 5, 2012 ballot measures in California

d Proposition A: San Francisco Competitive Bidding Required for Garbage Collection and Disposal
a Proposition B: San Francisco Limits on Commercial Development at Coit Tower

2011

November 8

See also: November 8, 2011 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: SFUSD bond proposition
a Proposition B: Road Repaving and Street Repair bond proposition
a Proposition C: Pension and Healthcare Benefits
d Proposition D: the Adachi Initiative (Pension Reform)
d Proposition E: Board of Supervisors Allowed to Amend or Repeal Voter Initiatives
d Proposition F: Campaign Consultant Ordinance
d Proposition G: Sales Tax
d Proposition H: Policies for Assigning Students to Schools

2010

November 2

See also: November 2, 2010 election in California

a Proposition AA: Vehicle Registration Fee
d Proposition A: Earthquake Retrofit Bond
d Proposition B: Pension Reform (the Adachi Initiative)
a Proposition C: Mayoral "Question Time" in San Francisco
d Proposition D: Right of Non-Citizens to Vote in San Francisco School Board elections
d Proposition E: Same-Day Voter Registration in San Francisco
d Proposition F: Health Service Board Terms and Elections
a Proposition G: Elimination of Pay Guarantees for Muni Operators (the Elsbernd Initiative)
d Proposition H: Ban on Dual Service as Elected Official and Elected Member of Political Party County Central Committee
a Proposition I: Saturday Voting Ordinance
d Proposition J: Hotel Tax Increase
d Proposition K: Hotel Tax Clarifications and Definitions
a Proposition L: Sit-Lie Ordinance
d Proposition M: Police Foot Patrol Program
a Proposition N: Real Property Transfer Tax

June 8

See also: June 8, 2010 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: San Francisco Unified School District parcel tax
a Proposition B: San Francisco Earthquake Safety Bond
d Proposition C: San Francisco Film Commission Appointments
a Proposition D: San Francisco Public Employee Pensions
a Proposition E: San Francisco Costs of Protecting Dignitaries
d Proposition F: San Francisco Rent Increase Hardship Appeals
a Proposition G: San Francisco Transbay Terminal Advisory Vote

2009

November 3

See also: November 3, 2009 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: San Francisco Budget Reform Charter Amendment
a Proposition B: San Francisco Aides for the Board of Supervisors
a Proposition C: San Francisco Candlestick Park Naming Rights Amendment
d Proposition D: San Francisco Mid-Market Arts Revitalization Sign District
a Proposition E: San Francisco No Advertising on City Property

2008

November 4

See also: November 4, 2008 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: San Francisco Hospital bond proposition
d Proposition B: Housing Fund
d Proposition C: No Staff on Boards
a Proposition D: Pier 70 financing
a Proposition E: Number of Signatures Required for a Recall
d Proposition F: City Elections in Even-Numbered Years
a Proposition G: Retirement Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave
d Proposition H: Clean Energy Act
d Proposition I: Ratepayer Advocate
a Proposition J: Historic Preservation Commission
d Proposition K: Decriminalization of Prostitution
d Proposition L: Community Justice Center
a Proposition M: Anti-Harrassment of Tenants
a Proposition N: Real Estate Transfer Tax Rates
a Proposition O: Telephone Tax
d Proposition P: Transportation Authority Board
a Proposition Q: Modification of the Payroll Tax
d Proposition R: Sewage Plant Named After George Bush
a Proposition S: Budget Set-Asides and Replacement Funds
a Proposition T: Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
a Proposition U: Policy Against Funding the Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq
a Proposition V: "Save Junior ROTC"

June 3

See also June 3, 2008 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: SFUSD parcel tax
a Proposition B: Health and Pension Benefits
a Proposition C: Criminals Forfeit Retirement
a Proposition D: Boards and Commission Diversity
a Proposition E: Public Utilities Commission
d Proposition F: Hunter's Point Redevelopment
a Proposition G: Bayview Jobs and Housing
a Proposition H: No Campaign Contributions from City Vendors

February 5

See also: February 5, 2008 ballot measures in California

a Proposition A: Park Bonds
a Proposition B: Police Deferred Retirement
d Proposition C: Alcatraz Peace Center

2007

November 6

See also: November 6, 2007 ballot measures in California

a San Francisco Transit Reform and Parking Regulation, Proposition A (November 2007)
a San Francisco Limits on Hold-Over Service on Boards and Commissions, Proposition B (November 2007)
a San Francisco Public Hearings on Ballot Measures, Proposition C (November 2007)
a San Francisco Library Preservation Fund, Proposition D (November 2007)
d San Francisco Mandated Mayor Appearances, Proposition E (November 2007)
a San Francisco Retirement Benefits for Police Department Employees, Proposition F (November 2007)
a San Francisco Golden Gate Park Stables Matching Fund, Proposition G (November 2007)
d San Francisco Regulation of Parking Spaces, Proposition H (November 2007)
a San Francisco Small Business Assistance Center, Proposition I (November 2007)
a San Francisco Free City-Wide Wireless High-Speed Internet, Proposition J (November 2007)
a San Francisco Street Furniture and City Building Advertising Restrictions, Proposition K (November 2007)

2002

March 5

• San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Ranked-Choice Voting Measure (March 2002): ✔

A "yes" vote supported this charter amendment to adopt ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, for city officers in San Francisco.

A "no" vote opposed this charter amendment to adopt ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, for city officers in San Francisco.

1999

November 2

a Proposition G: San Francisco "Sunshine Ordinance Amendment"

Archival information

The San Francisco Public Library sponsors a San Francisco Ballot Propositions Database, which includes information about San Francisco ballot measures going back to 1907.

External links

San Francisco Department of Elections website

Footnotes

↑ The Local Initiative in California, "Tracy M. Gordon, Public Policy Institute of California," accessed September 8, 2015

[1] The Local Initiative in California, "Tracy M. Gordon, Public Policy Institute of California," accessed September 8, 2015

[1]

	v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? \| Elections in 2024 \| How to vote \| How to run for office \| Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? \| U.S. President \| U.S. Congress \| Federal courts \| State executives \| State legislature \| State and local courts \| Counties \| Cities \| School districts \| Public policy

San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures

2024

November 5

March 5

2022

November 8

June 7

2020

November 3

March 3

2019

November 5

2018

November 6

June 5

2016

November 8

June 7

2015

November 3

2014

November 4

June 3

2013

November 5

2012

November 6

June 5

2011

November 8

2010

November 2

June 8

2009

November 3

2008

November 4

June 3

February 5

2007

November 6

2002

March 5

1999

November 2

Archival information

See also

External links

Footnotes

Information about voting

2024 Elections

2024 Election analysis

2025 Elections

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION