Skip to content
Share
Explore
San Francisco
Everything on San Francisco ballots: local to state to national
Get future voting guides
Submit
👨💼👩⚖️ Candidates
President
US President & Vice President
Kamala Harris & Tim Walz (D)
US Congress
US Senate (Full-term, thru Jan 2031)
Adam Schiff (D)
Opposition is a MAGA Republican — choice is clear.
US Senate (Remainder-of-term, thru Jan 2025)
Adam Schiff (D)
(Same as above)
US House (District 11)
Nancy Pelosi (D)
Putting aside her incredible legacy as Speaker and whether she’s now overstaying her welcome, she delivers for the city, state, and country from funding to federal government support on critical programs. I hope she allows a new generation of leadership to come in soon.
US House (District 15)
Kevin Mullin (D)
He’s been a supporter of smart housing and transportation policies in the CA legislature. A Democratic US House majority is a safer and more prosperous America for all, and Mullin is the only Democrat in the race.
California Legislature
CA Senate (District 11)
Scott Wiener (D)
The single strongest voice for solving the root causes of homelessness, public safety, and our housing crisis. Right on policy, a total work horse — with exceptional results to show.
CA Assembly (District 17)
Matt Haney (D)
He’s shown a track record of supporting sensible policy on housing and public safety, at least versus the competition.
CA Assembly (District 19)
Catherine Stefani (D)
As supervisor, Stefani has backed generally sensible policing and housing policies and seems quite likely to keep up the work in the Assembly.
Education
SF Board of Education
Vote for all: Parag Gupta / Supryia Ray / Jaime Huling / John Jersin
Following the recent school board recalls, it’s important to get this right on election day. These candidates seem like the most likely to balance the district’s budget and deliver student outcomes (vs being distracted by unrelated issues).
SF Community College Board
Vote for all: Luis Zamora / Ruth Ferguson / Heather McCarty / Aliya Chisti
CCSF is likewise facing fiscal issues, and this seems like the slate most likely to be clear-headed in addressing those issues.
Special districts
BART Director (District 7)
Victor Flores
Seems most likely of candidates to focus on BART’s fiscal issues in a sustainable way.
BART Director (District 9)
Joe Sangirardi
Seems like strong candidate to keep BART running while focusing on using its land to build more housing.
City & county offices
Mayor
Rank choice: 1. Daniel Lurie / 2. London Breed / 3. Mark Ferrel / 4. Asha Safí
Lurie seems the most likely to be right on policy, able to execute, and unencumbered by the corrupt dealings from City Hall we’ve seen for so long. He’s an outsider so there’s some risk/ramp up time, but he’s thoughtful, has experience working across the city with an extensive network to be effective, and most likely to solve issues from public safety to slow/ineffectual government to maintaining momentum on housing production.
Breed has been generally good on policy, but less stellar on execution and ties to the political machine. Ferrel has a lot of shady campaign dealings, a bad omen for his time in office, paired with many reasonable policies but also some odd ball ones (cars back on market street? why?). Safí seems like the last best bet to make sure Peskin isn’t elected — he’s the true worst choice, a NIMBY to his core.
City Attorney
David Chiu
Chiu has been largely a steady hand notching meaningful victories as City Attorney (with a few notable exceptions) and worth keeping on.
District Attorney
Brooke Jenkins
Jenkins has certainly been better than Boudin, while still focusing occasionally on rhetoric vs what works. That said, she’s been a steady enough and worth electing for another four years.
Sheriff
Paul Miyamoto
He’s managed the previously scandal-plagued Sheriff’s office well and continued reforming the prisons. Under his watch, we saw zero COVID deaths in SF jails, an impressive feat. Worth keeping on.
Treasurer
José Cisneros
Unopposed
Board of Supervisors (District 1)
Rank choice: 1. Marjan Philhour / 2. Jen Nossokoff
Public safety, housing production, and city revitalization are Philhour’s key goals, taking smart approaches. Chan, the incumbent, has been one of the most NIMBY supervisors and very well worth removing (hence the subsequent rank-choice options).
Board of Supervisors (District 3)
Rank choice: 1. Danny Sauter / 2. Matthew Susk
Sauter aims to focus on public safety, housing, and economic revitalization with a set of views on how to achieve those that seem sensible. Susk is policy aligned but less experienced, so a second choice.
Board of Supervisors (District 5)
Rank choice: 1. Bilal Mahmood / 2. Scotty Jacobs / 3. Autumn Looijen
Mahmood’s been a strong candidate for housing, public safety. The incumbent, Preston, has been quite the opposite — one of the city’s worst in ensuring we build sufficient housing and keep our city safe using policy that works (vs rhetoric that gets headlines). Other options are to ensure Preston isn’t reelected.
Board of Supervisors (District 7)
Rank choice: 1. Myrna Melgar / 2. Matt Boschetto
Melgar has been an inconsistent supervisor, flip-flopping on issues around housing to public safety. Boschetto seems like a potentially strong alternative, but his lack of experience makes it unclear if he’ll be able to deliver, while Melgar is more likely to at least deliver as the political winds turn towards public safety and housing.
Board of Supervisors (District 9)
Rank choice: 1. Trevor Chandler / 2. Roberto Hernandez
Chandler is focused on making the Mission feel safer, while continuing to build more housing. Hernandez is inconsistent on these issues, but much better than Fielder, a perpetual candidate who is running on an extreme platform aligned to the NIMBYs.
Board of Supervisors (District 11)
Rank choice: 1. Michael Lai / 2. Ernest "EJ" Jones
Lai seems most likely to focus on public safety and build housing at all income levels. Jones has some alignment, but less, though is better than some of the alternatives.
📰 Propositions
California-wide
2: Borrow $10 billion to build schools, colleges
Yes: This measure funds school infrastructure and maintenance across the state. It offers mechanisms to ensure smaller districts can access these funds that otherwise would be hard to apply for. It’s a normal and reasonable investment in the physical infrastructure for California education.
3: Reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry
Yes: This measure effectively repeals Prop 8 from 2008, which banned gay marriage in California. While the Supreme Court has since legalized gay marriage nation-wide, this updates the CA constitution to remove the archaic language.
4: Borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change
Yes: This measure funds climate resiliency infrastructure by allowing the state to issue bonds, servicing them out of the state’s budget. This won’t raise new taxes. The package seems like a reasonable set of proposals that will help the state save money down the line via prevention (e.g. around wildfires). Experts believe its costs to be reasonable given the state’s overall debt load.
5: Lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure
Yes: This proposals reduces the % vote needed to pass bond measures from 2/3rds to 55%, aligning it to the passing threshold for education bonds. It includes some restrictions on how funds are used (e.g. buying single family homes for low income housing), but because bonds tend to bring in a lot of matching $ from private sector and state/national government, it’s not really a big deal. Instead, cities are strapped for cash because of Prop 13, a measure from the 1970s that means your neighbor who moved in 20 years ago pays a fraction of the property tax you would as a young person (i.e. subsidizing the old and wealthy). This offers a reasonable balance to ensure essential city services from housing to public safety to city infrastructure can be funded without tax increases.
6: Limit forced labor in state prisons
Yes: This measure bans forced labor in California prisons — basically, legalized slavery. Today, prisons can discipline prisoners who refuse to work without pay, making California one of the last states that allows this. This proposal bans this, still allowing prison labor but for pay.
32: Raise the state minimum wage to $18
No: This proposal raises the state minimum wage from $16 to $18 over the next few years. I think programs to reduce inequality, including raising the minimum wage, can be positive. However, this is something the legislature can (and has) legislated, there are better alternatives to achieve in addition for the same goals, and it won’t affect the workers in (many many) cities and industries with higher legislated minimum wages. The minimum wage will continue to rise tracking inflation absent this measure. This analysis track with the traditional advocates for this measure offering only lukewarm support.
33: Allow local governments to impose rent controls
No: This proposal would repeal a law that constrains the rent control laws cities can implement. While on the surface, it seems like a way to avoid the challenges of our housing crisis — keep housing prices steady! — it will only worsen our housing crisis, raising housing costs for all. The biggest single issue is that cities who don’t want to build housing can use it to make any new housing uneconomical for developers; the wealthy city of Huntington Beach’s officials are already salivating at doing so according to recent Council transcriptions. The supporters list is revealing: the NIMBYs are unified in backing it. Housing price controls can be a useful measure and voters expanded them last cycle. This give the NIMBYs too potent a weapon.
34: Require certain providers to use prescription drug revenue for patients
Yes: Ostensibly, this is about ensuring certain healthcare companies use their revenue for healthcare expenses. Really, this is about a single non-profit — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) — that has chosen to use their vast profits to fund NIMBY propositions, lobbyists in Sacramento, and more to block housing production. I’m hesitant about weaponizing the proposition system, yet the real world harms AHF has caused to increase homelessness in CA are worth the compromise.
35: Make permanent a tax on managed health care plans
No: This proposal extends an existing tax on certain healthcare plans to fund certain healthcare programs. Ostensibly, it’s to ensure Medi-Cal (CA’s Medicaid program) is fully funded but actually it locks in funding for certain programs while defunding others like Medi-Cal for young children, community health workers. This tax should continue to exist and likely will via the legislative process — but while ensuring the state has the flexibility to continue to support the programs that matter and keep funding them even if the US Govt stops granting the permissions for certain uses of the tax revenue, a not-so-unlikely problem to emerge. Instead, this proposal constrains our legislature and picks winners/losers, likely tied to the organizations putting the measure on the ballot.
36: Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking
Yes: This measure repeals parts of Prop 47 from 2014, which raised the threshold to charge a felony vs a misdemeanor to $950 for theft and similarly for certain drug crimes. This year’s measure also creates a felony category that would waive charges if participants successfully completes a drug treatment program.
I’m quite conflicted on this measure. I think the perception, but also too often the reality, is that there are few consequences for certain crimes, especially shoplifting and drug-related ones. This raises costs for consumers, hollows out commercial districts, and contributes to homelessness. Equally, the data for decades doesn’t show locking up many people who have an underlying medical condition as an effectively way to combat criminal behavior once they depart prison; in fact, Prop 47 is estimated to have saved the state $1 billion, which instead was used for the very programs we need to reduce recidivism and homelessness.
The opposition to this measure is notable, as it’s not just the traditional left: it includes Gov. Newsom (someone not known for his political courage) and fairly mainstream newspapers.
On balance, I think this measure is worth supporting. I think enough theft is happening due to organized crime — crimes of opportunity, not just crimes of desperation — that we need to raise the consequences for bad behavior.
San Francisco
A: Schools Improvement and Safety Bond
Yes: This measure lets the city issue bonds to fund school infrastructure improvements, the typical way to fund these projects. These changes are important for the school district’s continued operation and don’t raise new taxes, while the funds from this measure are likely to go further when paired with state/national funds matching.
B: Community Health and Medical Facilities, Street Safety, Public Spaces, and Shelter to Reduce Homelessness Bond
Yes: This proposal lets the city issue bonds to fund general city infrastructure improvements. From ensuring we have the infrastructure to curtail our homelessness crisis to making parks more livable, this is a typical means to fund a typical set of projects for the city and worth passing.
C: Inspector General
No: This measure creates a new oversight office to investigate malfeasance in city government, including with contractors. We need better oversight — corruption and fraud are major issues in SF’s government today. However, due to the role’s structure and how it shuffles responsibilities vs creating the right new authorities, it is unlikely to yield the outcomes we need.
D: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority
No: Props D and E are about reforming the many board and commissions that form part of the byzantine and bureaucratic SF government. Prop D imposes a hard limit of 65 boards, while E directs the city to investigate charges, with no binding changes. Prop E was placed on the ballot in response to Prop D.
There’s agreement across the spectrum for reform on this issue, though not necessarily on how. While certainly too many of these boards and their organization isn’t good, some have important responsibilities. Prop E is toothless and will require voters to yet again pass changes, thinking they’ve passed this one. Prop D is harsh, choosing 65 arbitrarily (the backing org claims research to back this, but I find this dubious as they’ve refused to publicly share it). From talking to some of the people behind the very studies around this issue, if D passes, it’ll force the city to spend a year cleaning up after it, while if neither pass, it’ll be a year assembling the better plan.
I think reform is needed. I think waiting a cycle for the right reforms to be decided is useful, especially given the broad support for change. I’d rather hold off on either and then vote for reform with a plan in hand.
E: Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions
No: See Prop D explanation; these measures are linked.
F: Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement
No: This measure provides incentives for police officers to continue working past 25 years, when they can retire, through a larger pension. SF needs more police officers, and in theory, this could stem existing attrition. However, the costs are massive (a commitment to pay officers for many years into the future) and similar programs in other cities have not shown success. Dollar for dollar, there are much better alternatives to grow our police force.
G: Funding Rental Subsidies for Affordable Housing Developments Serving Low Income Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities
No: This measure locks in existing subsidies for low income senior housing. This program already exists, but this measure reduces the Board of Supervisors’ ability to manage the program in the regular budgeting process. There is no need for this restriction, especially when we’re facing a massive budget deficit.
H: Retirement Benefits for Firefighters
No: This measure reduces the retirement age from 58 to 55 for newer firefighters to receive a full pension. It was raised to 58 in the last financial crisis but hasn’t been reduced since. SF’s budget issues are massive, and while there are reasonable arguments for a lower retirement age for firefighters, I don’t think this is the highest priority issues to pay for amidst a budget crisis with our already large pension costs.
I: Retirement Benefits for Nurses and 911 Operators
No: This measure is another proposal to improve pension benefits for certain workers — in this case, letting temporary nurses buy into our pension plan and vastly improving pension benefits for 911 operators. This was put on the ballot to solve a nursing staffing crisis, which following a 17%+ pay raise no longer exists: unfilled roles are <1% now. The improved pension benefits may be useful, but the city cannot pay for them amidst a massive budget shortfall. Not a useful set aside, yet again.
J: Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth, and Families
Yes: This proposal centralizes how funding for these groups is distributed across the city. Today there are many departments who fund these groups, and there have been scandals in how these funds have been used. This is a sensible way to coordinate our efforts with greater oversight and without raising costs.
K: Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space
Yes: This measure makes permanent the closure of the Upper Great Highway, turning it into a park, while providing a traffic mitigation plan to help car drivers. The Upper Great Highway closure was one of the coolest new parks to come out of COVID in SF, letting you cruise on a bike or walk down a beautiful ocean-front promenade. The arguments about car impact seem quite overblown with massive upside for San Franciscans. I’m all for this new green space.
L: Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation
Yes: This measure taxes companies like Uber and Lyft to avoid cutting public transit services. Absent this proposal, SFMTA will likely start laying off staff after federal COVID funds run out next year. This would be disastrous — if you’re concerned about traffic in SF as an Uber rider, it’s only going to worsen with less transit options. It targets exactly the companies that are the major cause of traffic increases and keeps the bedrock of why so many folks can live without a car in SF alive. SFMTA will still have fiscal problems even with this measure, but this goes a long way.
M: Changes to Business Taxes
Yes: Prior to COVID, the city changed business taxes to be based on the number of employees a company has in the city. With the rise of hybrid/remote work, this serves as a deterrent to employee more folks in SF offices. This measure rolls back some of those changes to instead base the tax on revenue. It also reduces licensing costs for businesses, particularly aiding small businesses. These seem like great mechanisms to encourage more economic activity in the city without harming the city’s fiscal situation in the short-term too meaningfully.
N: First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund
No: This measure creates a fund for first responders education expenses, collected from private donations. While potentially a useful tool, there’s no need for this to be a proposition; it’s the Board of Supervisors deferring their job to voters. This should come from the normal legislative process to ensure it’s well written and fits into our existing recruiting incentives.
O: Supporting Reproductive Rights
Yes: This measure provides certain protections to women seeking an abortion in SF. This measure should have been passed through the normal legislative process; voters shouldn’t do the Board of Supervisors’ job for them. However, the proposals are sensible, and given the urgent potential Trump administration powered by Project 2025, it’s worthwhile getting these protections on the books sooner than later.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.