Understanding City Charters: A Local Government’s Constitution

Most residents are unfamiliar with their city’s charter, yet it shapes nearly every aspect of municipal governance they encounter. This foundational legal document functions as a city’s constitution and codifies who has the power to approve budgets, how elections are conducted, the role of the mayor, and the structure and authority of city departments and city officers. Now is a good time to get familiar with city charters, as San Francisco and Oakland are both considering changes to their charters. In this primer, we’ll explore what city charters are and how they work.

California cities are classified as either a charter city or a general law city. In a charter city, voters approve a document called a city charter that grants the city extensive authority over municipal affairs like its form of government, election procedures, and more. Alternatively, a general law city’s power comes from the California Constitution and follows state law.

While just 26% of California cities operate as charter cities, the state’s ten largest cities — including San Francisco, San José, San Diego, and Los Angeles — are charter cities. This means the majority (nearly 58%) of California’s population lives in a charter city, despite their relatively small number. About 16 of the 101 cities in the San Francisco Bay Area are charter cities.
 

What’s in a Charter?

A city charter is a city’s foundational legal document, essentially operating as a local constitution. Just as the U.S. Constitution establishes the framework for the federal government, a city charter creates the basic structure, powers, and authority for local government.

City charters vary significantly from city to city, but all address a common scope of how their government operates. A charter determines a city’s:

Form of Government. The charter outlines a city’s basic form of government, determining high level authority. There are many forms of local government, but in California, the two most popular forms are council-manager and mayor-council. In the council-manager form of government, the council makes policy and sets the budget, appointing a city manager to carry out administrative operations, while the mayor chairs the council. In the mayor-council form of government, the mayor is directly elected as the city’s chief executive, and the city council acts as the legislative body.

Some cities combine elements of both approaches, creating unique arrangements that reflect local preferences. A city might have aspects of a mayor-council system but draw on characteristics from a council-manager system for others. Neither system is inherently superior, but each creates different dynamics and priorities for the city.

Mayoral Authority. The charter sets the scope for a mayor’s executive powers, including budget authority, appointment powers, and veto authority.

City Council Structure. The charter may set the size and composition of the council, the length of councilmember terms, the council’s powers, and how members are elected.

Key Officials. Beyond the mayor and council, charters establish several other positions that shape city operations, such as the city attorney, controller or finance director, city manager, and more.

Departments and Commissions. The charter establishes specific departments and oversight commissions.

Financial Management. Charter provisions establish a city’s financial management practices, including tax and revenue powers, financial oversight, and reserve requirements.

Elections. The charter establishes electoral systems including electoral process and timing, primary elections, and rank-choice voting.
 

Bay Area City Charters

San José, Oakland, and San Francisco each have unique charters that have grown and evolved over time based on each city’s priorities and unique set of needs. The table below details a few cities’ unique governance structures set in the charter:

What makes charter cities different from general law cities is that voters have the power to change the city charter at the ballot box. Charter amendments can be initiated through several different mechanisms, each with different requirements:

1. Council and City Initiative. City councils, or sometimes a city’s mayor, can place amendments on the ballot, usually requiring a majority or supermajority vote.

2. Citizen Initiative. Residents can petition for charter amendments through gathering a specified number of valid signatures from registered voters. In Oakland and San José, a charter amendment requires 15% of registered voter signatures. In San Francisco, because of its status as a City-County, a charter amendment requires 10% of registered voter signatures.

3. Charter Review Commissions. Some cities periodically convene commissions to review their charters comprehensively and recommend amendments to elected officials.

Charter amendments appear regularly on ballots during statewide general elections, primaries, and municipal elections, but several have proven particularly significant in reshaping local governance in the Bay Area. San Francisco undertook one of the most comprehensive reforms in 1996 with Proposition E, which established an entirely new city charter designed to clarify the roles of elected officials, streamline city government operations, and simplify the existing charter. In 1998, Oakland passed Measure X, which shifted Oakland’s form of government from a council-manager to mayor-council form of government. In 2022, San José passed Measure I, which removed gendered language and established an ethics commission in the charter. This amendment emerged from recommendations by a charter review commission that examined changes across various city commissions.
 

Current Charter Reform Efforts

It’s been over 30 years since San Francisco broadly reviewed its charter, and during that time voters have amended the charter over 100 times. Last year, San Francisco voters passed a charter amendment, Proposition E, that formed a commission streamlining task force to undertake a comprehensive, evidence-based review of San Francisco’s 126 commissions, boards, and advisory bodies, and provide recommendations about which ones can be consolidated, streamlined, improved, or eliminated. That work is now underway and has a deadline of February 1, 2026, to develop the recommendations. As policymakers and the public consider these specific structural changes, it opens up an opportunity to reflect more holistically on a broader set of charter revisions.

The City of Oakland has also recently expressed renewed interest in reviewing its governance structure since the passage of Measure X in 1998. Mayor Barbara Lee, in partnership with Council President Kevin Jenkins, has put together a working group to consider changes to the charter for a future ballot measure.

In recent SPUR reports, including Designed to Serve and Balancing Oakland’s Budget, we outlined the structure of San Francisco and Oakland’s government, including the impact of the charter on both cities’ governance.

Charter reform efforts in San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities across California and the U.S. provide opportunities for residents to meaningfully shape local government. Ultimately, city charters are tools for democratic self-governance. Like any tool, their effectiveness depends on how they are designed and used. As cities face evolving challenges, from the needs for affordable housing and public safety to climate resilience and responsive city services, charters play a central role in enabling or constraining solutions. Our governing structures must be evaluated as to whether they’re helping or hindering meeting outcomes or solving challenges, and they must evolve to meet today’s realities. While no two city charters are alike, and there’s no one-size-fits-all model, understanding how they work is an essential first step in engaging with your government.