Elections & Propositions

Every San Francisco ballot proposition, with plain-language explainers on recent measures and what a Yes or No vote means. Search the full history or see what's next.

Next election

November 2026 Consolidated General Election

Tuesday, November 3, 2026 · ~130 days away

Ballot measures typically qualify by late summer. Check the SF Department of Elections for the certified list and voter information pamphlet.

SF Department of Elections Measures & ballot arguments

Browse past propositions

1,998 measures. Plain-language explainers are AI-generated for the most recent ones; more are added over time.

1,998 propositions

Prop A· Mar 2024· Bond

Affordable Housing Bonds

Passed · 70% yes
In plain languageHousing

This measure would authorize San Francisco to borrow $300 million through general obligation bonds to build, improve, or acquire affordable housing for low to moderate-income households, including workforce and senior housing. The bonds would be repaid over up to 30 years with an estimated tax rate of about $0.0057 per $100 of assessed property value.

Yes: You support borrowing $300 million for affordable housing development with independent oversight and regular audits.

No: You oppose this housing bond measure and do not want to authorize the city to borrow these funds.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop B· Mar 2024· Charter Amendment

Police Officer Staffing Levels Conditioned on Amending Existing or Future Tax Funding

Failed · 28% yes
In plain languagePublic Safety, Taxes

This charter amendment would establish minimum police officer staffing levels and require dedicated funding, but only if San Francisco voters approve a new or increased tax to pay for it. The measure ties police staffing guarantees to voter approval of new tax revenue.

Yes: A yes vote supports allowing the City to establish minimum police staffing levels and budget protections, contingent on future voter approval of tax funding for these requirements.

No: A no vote opposes adding charter provisions that would set minimum police staffing levels and require dedicated funding tied to voter-approved taxes.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop C· Mar 2024· Tax

Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption and Office Space Allocation

Passed · 53% yes
In plain languageTaxes, Housing

This measure would exempt properties from the real estate transfer tax when they are first converted from commercial to residential use, allow the city to amend the transfer tax rate without voter approval (though not to increase it), and increase the annual office space development limit by counting converted or demolished office space.

Yes: You support tax exemptions for commercial-to-residential conversions, greater city flexibility in managing transfer tax policy, and increased office space availability limits.

No: You oppose these changes to the transfer tax and office space development policies.

Placed by: OrdinanceVoter pamphlet
Prop D· Mar 2024· Ethics Laws

Changes to Local Ethics Laws

Passed · 89% yes
In plain languageEthics

This measure would strengthen San Francisco's ethics laws by restricting gifts to city employees, expanding bribery definitions, requiring more gift reporting, creating uniform rules across departments for outside activities, increasing penalties for violations, and expanding ethics training requirements.

Yes: A yes vote approves stricter ethics rules for city employees and officers, including gift restrictions, broader bribery definitions, and new reporting and training requirements.

No: A no vote keeps the current ethics laws in place without the proposed restrictions and additional requirements.

Placed by: Ethics CommissionVoter pamphlet
Prop E· Mar 2024· Police

Police Department Policies and Procedures

Passed · 54% yes
In plain languagePublic Safety

This measure would allow the Police Department to hold community meetings before policy changes, reduce police reporting requirements, establish new use-of-force and vehicle pursuit policies, and deploy drones and surveillance cameras with limited oversight. The Police Commission would retain the ability to modify these policies.

Yes: The Police Department gains expanded authority over its policies and surveillance technology, with community input required but not binding before certain policy changes.

No: The Police Department would not gain these new authorities, and existing oversight and approval processes for surveillance and policy changes would remain in place.

Placed by: OrdinanceVoter pamphlet
Prop F· Mar 2024· Public Assistance Requirement

Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and Treatment for Recipients of City Public Assistance

Passed · 58% yes
In plain languagePublic Assistance

This measure would require the City to screen single adults under 65 receiving public assistance for suspected drug dependency and mandate their participation in treatment to maintain eligibility for most benefits.

Yes: A yes vote would allow the City to require drug screening and treatment participation as a condition for receiving most public assistance benefits for eligible single adults.

No: A no vote would prevent the City from requiring drug dependency screening and treatment as a condition for public assistance benefits.

Placed by: OrdinanceVoter pamphlet
Prop G· Mar 2024· Public School Curriculum

Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders

Passed · 82% yes
In plain languageEducation

This measure would establish city policy encouraging the San Francisco Unified School District to offer Algebra 1 to eighth-grade students and to support the district's development of its math curriculum. It is a non-binding expression of support for accelerated math instruction at the middle school level.

Yes: You support the city encouraging SFUSD to make Algebra 1 available to eighth-graders and backing the district's math curriculum development.

No: You do not support the city formally encouraging earlier algebra instruction or committing city support to SFUSD's math curriculum planning.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop K· Nov 2022· Unknown

Measure K

In plain languageGovernance

This measure was removed from the ballot by court order prior to the November 2022 election.

Yes: Not applicable; this measure did not appear on the ballot.

No: Not applicable; this measure did not appear on the ballot.

Placed by: N/AVoter pamphlet
Prop A· Nov 2022· Charter Amendment

Retiree Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment: Retirement Board Contract with Executive Director

Passed · 65% yes
In plain languagePensions

This measure would allow the city to provide extra pension increases to employees who retired before 1996, regardless of the retirement system's funding status, and would permit the Retirement Board to have an individual employment contract with its executive director.

Yes: Early retirees would become eligible for supplemental pension increases even if the retirement system lacks full funding, and the Retirement Board could establish an individual contract with its executive director.

No: Early retirees would not receive supplemental pension increases unless the retirement system is fully funded, and the Retirement Board would continue operating under existing employment arrangements for its executive director.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop B· Nov 2022· Charter Amendment

Public Works Department and Commission, Sanitation and Streets Department and Commission

Passed · 75% yes
In plain languageGovernance

This measure would merge the Department of Sanitation and Streets back into the Department of Public Works, while keeping both the Sanitation and Streets Commission and Public Works Commission as separate oversight bodies.

Yes: The two departments would combine into one Public Works Department, though the two commissions would remain separate.

No: The Department of Sanitation and Streets would continue to operate as a separate department from Public Works.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop C· Nov 2022· Charter Amendment

Homelessness Oversight Commission

Passed · 67% yes
In plain languageHomelessness

This amendment would create a new Homelessness Oversight Commission to monitor the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and require the City Controller to audit homelessness services. It adds oversight and accountability mechanisms for homeless services spending and programs.

Yes: A new oversight commission would be established to review homelessness services and audits would be required.

No: No new oversight commission would be created and the Controller would not be required to conduct these audits.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop D· Nov 2022· Charter Amendment

Affordable Housing – Initiative Petition

Failed · 51% yes
In plain languageHousing

This measure would allow certain affordable housing projects to be approved without Board of Supervisors review if they meet specific affordability requirements or serve teachers and college employees. It streamlines the approval process for housing that serves households earning up to 140% of area median income, provides extra affordable units, or houses school and city college workers.

Yes: A yes vote streamlines approval for certain affordable housing projects that serve low- to moderate-income households or school and college employees by removing the Board of Supervisors approval requirement.

No: A no vote keeps the current requirement that all affordable housing projects using City property or financing must receive Board of Supervisors approval.

Placed by: PetitionVoter pamphlet
Prop E· Nov 2022· Charter Amendment

Affordable Housing – Board of Supervisors

Failed · 54% yes
In plain languageHousing

This amendment would streamline approval of certain affordable housing projects by reducing some review requirements, while still requiring Board of Supervisors approval for projects using City property or financing.

Yes: Affordable housing projects meeting specific income and affordability criteria would face faster approval processes.

No: Current approval processes for affordable housing projects would remain unchanged.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop F· Nov 2022· Charter Amendment

Library Preservation Fund

Passed · 83% yes
In plain languageLibraries, Governance

This measure would renew the Library Preservation Fund, which requires the city to allocate a minimum amount of money to the library system each year. It would allow the city to temporarily freeze this funding requirement if facing a major budget deficit, and would require the library to increase its hours of operation.

Yes: The city must continue dedicating annual minimum funding to the library for 25 more years, with increased weekly operating hours, though the city can pause this funding requirement during severe budget shortfalls.

No: The Library Preservation Fund requirement would expire and the city would have no ongoing obligation to fund libraries at a specific minimum level.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop G· Nov 2022· Charter Amendment

Student Success Fund – Grants to the San Francisco Unified School District

Passed · 78% yes
In plain languageEducation

This measure would amend the City Charter to provide additional funding for grants to San Francisco Unified School District for 15 years, specifically to support student academic achievement and social-emotional wellness programs.

Yes: The City would establish a dedicated funding source for school district grants aimed at improving academic and social-emotional outcomes for students over a 15-year period.

No: The City would not establish this new Charter funding mechanism, and the school district would not receive these additional dedicated grant funds.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop H· Nov 2022· Elections

City Elections in Even-Numbered Years

Passed · 71% yes
In plain languageElections

This measure would move San Francisco's elections for mayor and several other citywide officials to presidential election years (every four years) instead of odd-numbered years, extend current officials' terms by one year, and require local ballot measures to appear only in even-numbered years or special elections. It would also change the signature requirements for voters to place measures on the ballot.

Yes: A yes vote means elections for mayor, sheriff, district attorney, city attorney, and treasurer will be held in November of presidential election years, and local ballot measures will only appear in even-numbered years or special elections.

No: A no vote means San Francisco will continue holding elections for these citywide offices in odd-numbered years as currently scheduled.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop I· Nov 2022· Ordinance Repeal

Vehicles on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway

Failed · 65% yes
In plain languageTransportation

This measure would allow private cars to drive on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park during specified times (weekday evenings and mornings, plus weekend daytime restrictions), and would allow two-way traffic on the Great Highway while preventing its removal between Sloat and Skyline boulevards.

Yes: You support reopening JFK Drive and the Great Highway to regular car traffic with limited daytime restrictions on weekends and maintaining the Great Highway as a vehicle route.

No: You oppose reopening these roads to cars or prefer to keep the current vehicle restrictions that may be in place on JFK Drive and preserve options for the Great Highway.

Placed by: PetitionVoter pamphlet
Prop J· Nov 2022· Ordinance Affirmation

Recreational Use of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park

Passed · 63% yes
In plain languageRecreation

This measure would affirm a 2022 ordinance that closes portions of JFK Drive and connector streets in Golden Gate Park to private cars seven days a week, with limited exceptions, making them open recreation spaces. The closure would apply year-round rather than seasonally.

Yes: You support keeping JFK Drive and connector streets in Golden Gate Park permanently closed to private vehicles seven days a week for recreational use.

No: You oppose the permanent closure and would prefer to reopen these streets to private vehicle traffic, either fully or on certain days.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop L· Nov 2022· Tax

Sales Tax for Transportation Projects

Passed · 72% yes
In plain languageTransit

This measure would extend a half-cent sales tax through 2053 to fund transportation projects and allow the Transportation Authority to borrow up to $1.91 billion for these initiatives based on a new 30-year spending plan.

Yes: The half-cent sales tax continues and generates $100-236 million annually for transportation projects, with the authority able to issue bonds and increase annual spending for the next four years.

No: The sales tax expires and the Transportation Authority cannot issue the proposed bonds or increase spending as outlined in the measure.

Placed by: Board of SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop M· Nov 2022· Tax

Tax on Keeping Residential Units Vacant

Passed · 55% yes
In plain languageHousing, Taxes

This measure would impose an annual tax on owners of residential buildings with three or more units who leave units vacant for more than 182 days per year, starting at $2,500-$5,000 per unit in 2024 and potentially increasing to $20,000 with inflation. Revenue would fund rent subsidies and affordable housing programs through 2053.

Yes: You support taxing vacant residential units to discourage vacancy and fund affordable housing and rent assistance programs.

No: You oppose the tax on vacant residential units, either because you disagree with the tax approach or oppose dedicating revenue to housing programs in this way.

Placed by: PetitionVoter pamphlet
Prop N· Nov 2022· Public Funds

Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility, Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority

Passed · 75% yes
In plain languageParks, Parking

This measure would allow San Francisco to use public funds to acquire, operate, or subsidize an underground parking garage beneath the Music Concourse in Golden Gate Park, and would transfer management of the garage from the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority to the city's Recreation and Park Commission.

Yes: The city can use public money to fund the underground parking garage and the Recreation and Park Commission will manage it instead of the Concourse Authority.

No: Public funds cannot be used for the parking garage and the current management structure remains unchanged.

Placed by: MayorVoter pamphlet
Prop O· Nov 2022· Tax

Additional Parcel Tax for City College

Failed · 37% yes
In plain languageTaxes, Education

This measure would impose a new parcel tax on San Francisco properties, ranging from $150-$4,000 per parcel depending on size and use, to generate approximately $37 million annually for City College. The tax would last from 2023 to 2043 and fund student and workforce development programs.

Yes: A yes vote establishes the parcel tax, requiring property owners to pay the additional tax to support City College programs.

No: A no vote rejects the parcel tax, and City College would not receive the additional $37 million in annual revenue.

Placed by: PetitionVoter pamphlet
Prop F· Jun 2022· Ordinance

Refuse Collection and Disposal

Passed · 71% yes
In plain languageGarbage Services

This measure would change how the Refuse Rate Board is structured and how it makes decisions about garbage collection rates and regulations in San Francisco. It would modify the rules for how rates can be changed in the future.

Yes: The Refuse Rate Board's membership, decision-making process, and procedures for setting and changing garbage rates would be altered as specified in the ordinance.

No: The Refuse Rate Board would continue to operate under its current membership structure and existing procedures for setting garbage rates and regulations.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop A· Jun 2022· Bond

Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond

Failed · 65% yes
In plain languageTransit

This measure would authorize San Francisco to issue $400 million in bonds to fund improvements to Muni bus service, transit infrastructure, and street safety projects including repairs to bus yards, increased subway capacity, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Taxpayers would repay the bonds over up to 30 years at an estimated average rate of $0.010 per $100 of assessed property value.

Yes: A yes vote approves issuing $400 million in general obligation bonds to improve Muni reliability, frequency, and safety while enhancing streets, sidewalks, and accessibility.

No: A no vote rejects the bond measure and does not authorize these transit and street safety improvements or the associated property tax increase.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop B· Jun 2022· Charter Amendment

Building Inspection Commission

Passed · 62% yes
In plain languageGovernance

This measure would change how Building Inspection Commission members are appointed and their qualifications, and would give the Mayor the power to appoint the Director of the Department of Building Inspection instead of the current process.

Yes: Yes means the Mayor will have direct appointment authority over the Building Inspection Commission and its director.

No: No means the current appointment process and qualifications for the Building Inspection Commission will remain unchanged.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop C· Jun 2022· Charter Amendment

Recall Timelines and Vacancy Appointments

Failed · 42% yes
In plain languageGovernance

This measure would shorten the time period during which voters can recall elected officials and would prevent an appointed replacement from running for the seat in the next election. Currently, recalls can happen throughout an official's term, and appointed replacements can run to keep the position.

Yes: Voters would have a limited window to recall officials, and appointed interim replacements could not run to retain their position.

No: Current recall rules would remain unchanged, allowing recalls at any time during an official's term and permitting appointed replacements to run for election.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop D· Jun 2022· Ordinance

Office Victim and Witness Rights; Legal Services for Domestic Violence Victims

Passed · 59% yes
In plain languagePublic Safety

This ordinance would create a new City office dedicated to supporting crime victims and witnesses, with a focus on providing or coordinating free legal services specifically for domestic violence victims.

Yes: Yes means the City will establish the Office of Victim and Witness Rights and work to provide legal services and support programs for domestic violence victims.

No: No means the City will not create this new office or establish these specialized legal services for domestic violence victims.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop E· Jun 2022· Ordinance

Behested Payments

Passed · 69% yes
In plain languageGovernance

This ordinance would prohibit Board of Supervisors members from requesting behested payments (donations made at an official's request) from contractors who received Board approval, and would require both the Ethics Commission and a two-thirds Board vote to change behested payment rules in the future.

Yes: A yes vote supports restricting Board members from soliciting behested payments from approved contractors and making future changes to behested payment law more difficult.

No: A no vote opposes these new restrictions on Board members' behested payment solicitations and keeps the current process for changing behested payment rules.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop G· Jun 2022· Ordinance

Public Health Emergency Leave

Passed · 64% yes
In plain languageLabor Rights

This ordinance would require larger employers to provide up to 80 hours of paid leave per year to their San Francisco employees for public health emergencies. The requirement would apply to employers with more than 100 employees worldwide.

Yes: A yes vote means employers with over 100 employees worldwide must provide paid public health emergency leave to their San Francisco workers.

No: A no vote means the city will not require employers to provide paid public health emergency leave.

Placed by: SupervisorsVoter pamphlet
Prop H· Jun 2022· Recall

Recall Measure Regarding Chesa Boudin

Passed · 55% yes
In plain languageGovernance

This measure asks whether voters want to remove Chesa Boudin from his position as District Attorney of San Francisco before his term ends.

Yes: Chesa Boudin would be removed from office as District Attorney and a replacement would be appointed or elected.

No: Chesa Boudin would remain in office as District Attorney for the remainder of his term.

Placed by: PetitionVoter pamphlet

Source: DataSF · SF Ballot Propositions Database. This dataset currently extends through 3/5/2024; for measures since then, see the official links above. Explainers are AI-generated and informational, not voting advice.