​ Print Voter Guide

SF
Prop D
Ballot Measure Process

Charter Amendment

Changes to Ballot Measure Process

Changes how local ballot measures qualify for the ballot by eliminating the ability of the mayor or just 4 of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors to place measures directly on the ballot, increasing signature requirements for voter initiatives, and allowing initiative proponents to withdraw measures before an election.

SPUR's Recommendation

The city’s current processes for placing measures on the ballot are more permissive than those elsewhere in California. By allowing a mayor alone or a minority of the Board of Supervisors to bypass standard public processes, these processes discourage elected leaders from building consensus to solve an identified problem and reduce opportunities for the public to participate in crafting legislative proposals. Prop. D raises barriers to qualifying voter signature initiatives, reducing grassroots and community groups' ability to qualify measures for the ballot at a time when the federal government and states, including California, are limiting voting rights and access. But the measure’s proposed signature thresholds would remain lower than those of most California cities. On balance, SPUR believes the measure's benefits outweigh its downsides and will lead to more effective policies and greater voter engagement.

Vote YES

What Prop. D Would Do

Proposition D would change how certain ballot measures qualify for the ballot in San Francisco. State law governs how charter amendment proposals are qualified; the measure would apply to how all other policy statements and laws are placed on the ballot.

Currently, the city charter allows measures to be placed on the ballot through (1) the legislative process, which requires a six-vote majority of the Board of Supervisors; (2) direct placement of the measure by four board supervisors or the mayor without a legislative process; or (3) a voter signature initiative. Prop. D would eliminate the second option and alter the third by increasing signature requirements for voter initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters.

The measure would allow proponents of a voter signature initiative to withdraw the initiative from the ballot before an election, which is not permitted today.

The Backstory

As noted in SPUR’s Charter for Change report, San Francisco’s charter grants unusually broad authority for placing measures on the ballot.1 In addition to traditional legislative referral by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, it allows the mayor or four members of the board to independently place measures before voters without majority board approval — a practice in none of California’s other 10 largest cities.2 Additionally, voters may qualify measures through signature gathering at relatively low thresholds compared with other California jurisdictions. San Francisco requires signatures from 2% of registered voters, versus 10% in nearly all California cities.3

These relatively permissive qualification rules contribute to longer ballots and a greater reliance on voters to make policy directly. In November 2024, San Francisco voters considered 15 local measures, compared with three in Oakland and one in San José.4 Since 1996, San Franciscans have voted on 418 ordinances and policy statements, only 25% of which reached the ballot through the legislative process.5

The distinction matters because the legislative process gives elected officials and the public opportunities to evaluate and revise proposals before they become law. It typically includes public review, analysis of policy outcomes, consideration of financial impacts, and negotiation among elected leaders. By contrast, measures placed directly on the ballot by the mayor, a minority of the board, or voters can bypass some of this deliberation. Policy disagreements may instead be resolved through electoral campaigns, where the central objective is securing voter approval rather than negotiating an effective and realistic solution to an identified problem.

At the same time, direct access to the ballot serves an important democratic function. San Francisco’s relatively low signature threshold has historically enabled neighborhood groups, reform advocates, and grassroots coalitions to advance proposals without first securing support from established political institutions. Voter initiatives have been used to adopt open-government sunshine laws, progressive tax structures, and tenant protections. Since 2006, 45 initiative ordinances have appeared on the ballot, of which 17, or 38%, have passed. Raising the signature threshold would reduce this avenue of access at a time of heightened debate over voting rights and political participation, particularly for communities that have historically faced barriers to such participation, including communities of color.

Increasing the signature threshold could also affect the path available for certain tax measures. Under current California law, special taxes (those whose revenues are dedicated to a specific purpose) require simple majority approval (50% plus one vote) if placed on the ballot through a voter initiative, but a two-thirds approval if placed through the legislative process. Raising the threshold to place initiative tax measures on the ballot would make it more challenging to qualify these measures in the future.

Sponsored by Mayor Lurie, Prop. D qualified for the ballot through a voter signature initiative. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

The measure would likely have mixed equity impacts:

Increasing signature thresholds could reduce access to the ballot for organizations and communities with fewer financial resources, because qualifying initiatives would likely require more professional signature gathering and fundraising. Those with the resources to qualify measures for the ballot would be advantaged, while those without would be disadvantaged.

Eliminating the ability of the mayor or a minority of the Board of Supervisors to directly place a measure on the ballot would require more proposals to proceed through the standard legislative process, giving more communities, especially those without formal political access or power, an opportunity to shape laws before adoption.

Reducing ballot complexity and overcrowding could help voters with less time or fewer resources navigate long, technical ballots, understand measures, and vote.

 Pros

  • Raising the bar for measures to reach the ballot would increase the incentive to build broad political consensus while discouraging elected officials from punting issues to voters that City Hall could have adopted.
  • Reducing ballot overcrowding would decrease voter fatigue and increase voter comprehension.
  • Allowing withdrawal of initiatives may encourage negotiated compromise before elections.
  • Tax proposals, which are often complicated, would be more likely to move through the legislative process, allowing for public discussion, analysis, and amendment before placement on the ballot.

Cons

  • Prop. D would raise barriers for grassroots citizen initiatives and independent reform efforts.
  • It could advantage well-funded interests who are better able to gather signatures under higher thresholds.
  • A mayor or a minority of supervisors would have less ability to bring issues directly to voters when in disagreement with the majority of the board.
  • Passing dedicated taxes to fund public services would become more challenging, given the higher voter threshold that currently applies to non-initiative dedicated tax measures.
Vote YES on Prop D - Ballot Measure Process
Footnotes

1 Ben Rosenfield, Maeve Skelly, and Nicole Neditch, Charter for Change, SPUR, November 2025, 17–18.

2 Controller’s Office, Charter Reform Working Group Summary and Analysis, 18.

3 Controller’s Office, Charter Reform Working Group Summary and Analysis, 17.

4 Rosenfield, Skelly, and Neditch, Charter for Change, 18.

5 Controller’s Office, Charter Reform Working Group Summary and Analysis, 15.