Read on for our recommendations on the November 8, 2022 ballot measures and VOTE with the League! Curious how we make our nonpartisan endorsements? Learn more.
LWVSF has no policy positions relevant to this ballot measure.
No position on Prop A
Prop B would eliminate the Department of Sanitation and Streets and transfer its duties back to the Department of Public Works (DPW) while retaining the Sanitation and Streets Commission and Public Works Commission created by Prop B passed by voters in the November 2020 election. The League was neutral on Prop B from November 2020 because we supported the increased oversight with the creation of the Sanitation and Streets Commission and Public Works Commission, but we were concerned about the duplication of functions between departments. Therefore, we support November 2022’s Prop B because this would reduce some expenses of the government by eliminating duplication of functions between departments while maintaining the public’s right to know and public participation through government oversight.
Vote YES on Prop B
Prop C would provide better oversight to critical city government departments that provide services to a vulnerable population. The Homelessness Oversight Commission would be largely structured in a way that meets League policy positions and includes a range of viewpoints. While improvements could undoubtedly be made, the commission as described in this proposition is a good start.
Vote YES on Prop C
While Prop D would streamline the approval of affordable housing projects, it would also expand the definition of affordable housing to include housing with a higher income ceiling up to 140% AMI (Area Median Income). Since 2015, San Francisco has attained 21,023 housing permits for Above Moderate Income (greater than 120% AMI) housing, but has only attained a combined 9,236 housing permits for Moderate Income (80 to 120% AMI), Low Income (50 to 80% AMI), and Very Low Income (less than 50% AMI) housing. Prop D’s increased income ceiling could further disadvantage Moderate Income, Low Income, and Very Low Income households that already struggle to compete for the limited amount of housing stock that is dedicated to them. The League is concerned that Prop D would further reduce the construction of Low and Moderate Income housing and privilege construction for Above Moderate Income housing. Although Prop D is aligned with our League position on Meeting Basic Human Needs, it falls short on our positions on Housing and Homelessness, Privatization, Land Use, Public’s Right to Know/Public Participation, and DEI Policy on Equity. The LWVSF board of directors carefully considered Prop D and came to the consensus to remain neutral on this ballot measure.
Neutral on Prop D
Prop E would streamline the approval of affordable housing projects, and would concentrate the streamlined approval to housing for households up to 120% Area Median Income (AMI). Since 2015, San Francisco has attained 21,023 housing permits for Above Moderate Income (greater than 120% AMI) housing, but has only attained a combined 9,236 housing permits for Moderate Income (80 to 120% AMI), Low Income (50 to 80% AMI), and Very Low Income (less than 50% AMI) housing. The League supports the removal of barriers that inhibit the construction of Low and Moderate Income housing. Additionally, Prop E would also expand transparency by requiring the City to annually prepare an Annual Affordable Housing Allocation Progress Report on all affordable housing and supportive housing efforts from all involved city departments and city agencies. Prop E is aligned with the League positions on Meeting Basic Human Needs, Housing and Homelessness, Privatization, Land Use, Public’s Right to Know/Public Participation, and DEI Policy on Equity.
Vote YES on Prop E
The League supports a free public library system that meets the informational, educational, and recreational needs of all city residents. Prop F would continue to maintain a free library system that supports city residents by renewing the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years, allow the City to temporarily freeze the annual minimum funding for the Library when the City anticipates a budget deficit over $300 million, and require the Main Library and its branches to increase the minimum hours they must be open per week.
Vote YES on Prop F
The League does not have a recommendation on Prop G.
No recommendation on Prop G
The League knows that the strength of our democratic government depends on everyone’s active participation — and Prop H would contribute to that participation. The League supports electoral systems that encourage voter participation and provide the most broad voter representation possible. The last decade (2011–2020) has shown that San Francisco’s voter turnout in odd-year general elections (39.72% average) is significantly lower than voter turnout in even-year general elections (73.42% average). Most elections for citywide offices are already held in even-year elections (16 of 21 offices: seven seats for Board of Education, seven seats for Community College Board, Assessor-Recorder, and Public Defender). Therefore, by moving the remaining elections for citywide offices from odd-year to even-year general elections, Prop H would make it easier for people to remember to vote and participate in elections. Also, Prop H would change the signature threshold for local ballot initiatives to ensure that voters are not penalized for turning out to vote.
Vote YES on Prop H
Prop I makes motor vehicles the primary means of transportation and does nothing to enable access for seniors and disabled people. Prop I is in opposition to the League positions on Climate Change and Transportation.
Vote NO on Prop I
Prop J would affirm the Ordinance the Board of Supervisors adopted in May 2022, reserving portions of John F. Kennedy Drive and certain connector streets in Golden Gate Park as open recreation spaces, closing those streets seven days a week to private motor vehicles with limited exceptions. While Prop J is aligned with our League positions on Climate Change and Transportation, it falls short on our League position on Meeting Basic Human Needs around transportation accessibility where Prop J is missing adequate provisions for seniors and disabled people to access Golden Gate Park and its resources. The LWVSF Board of Directors carefully considered Prop J and came to the consensus to remain neutral on this measure.
Neutral on Prop J
This was removed from the ballot by order of the San Francisco Superior Court. You will not vote for this proposition on your ballot.
Prop L would continue the one-half cent sales tax into 2053 to pay for transportation projects described in a new 30-year spending plan, allow the Transportation Authority to issue up to $1.91 billion in bonds to pay for these projects, and increase the total amount of money the Transportation Authority may spend each year for the next four years. Prop L aligns with our League positions on Transportation, State and Local Finances, and Meeting Basic Human Needs.
Vote YES on Prop L
The need to increase the housing stock in San Francisco is critical, but Prop M as written includes a new earmarked fund with a sunset date 30 years in the future. While the League’s position on State and Local Finances can consider earmarks in compelling situations, given the number of exemptions in this proposal, the amount of property affected is estimated to be about 4,000 units. Given that number of units, the impact to the availability of housing does not justify the earmark, particularly with such a long sunset date. The LWVSF Board of Directors carefully considered Prop M and came to the consensus to remain neutral on this measure.
Neutral on Prop M
Prop N would allow the City to use public funds to acquire, operate, or subsidize public parking in the underground parking garage below the Music Concourse in Golden Gate Park and direct the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority to dissolve. Prop N enables greater access to the park for seniors and disabled people. Prop N is aligned with the League positions on Meeting Basic Human Needs, Privatization, and Urban Policy.
Vote YES on Prop N
Prop O would establish an additional parcel tax on some San Francisco property owners based on the square footage and use of their properties and transfer those tax funds to City College for student and workforce development programs. Prop O is aligned with our League position on Community College Systems, but the LWVSF Board of Directors were mixed about whether it aligned with the League’s position on State and Local Finances with the annual administrative cost to administer the tax being 8% and thus exceeding the 1% administrative cost allowance. The LWVSF Board of Directors carefully considered Prop O and came to the consensus to remain neutral on this measure.
Neutral on Prop O
✅ Prop 1: Reproductive Freedom — SUPPORT
__ Prop 26: In-Person Sports Betting In Tribal Casinos — NO POSITION
__ Prop 27: Online Sports Betting — NO POSITION
⚪ Prop 28: Funding Arts And Music Education — NEUTRAL
⚪ Prop 29: Kidney Dialysis Clinics Requirements — NEUTRAL
Recommendations for California measures prepared by the League of Women Voters of California.
A voting plan is just what it sounds like: figuring out how and when you will vote.
Get unbiased information on the pros and cons of local ballot measures.
Our members will answer your election questions during virtual office hours.
Each election cycle, the League of Women Voters of San Francisco reviews each of the San Francisco ballot measures to determine whether to support, oppose, take no position, or remain neutral. The decisions are made based on analyses that apply to existing relevant positions from the national, state, Bay Area, and/or San Francisco levels of the League.
Our positions on issues as varied as the environment, transportation, housing, and governance have been adopted over the years—and updated as necessary—after League study and consensus.
The analysis of ballot propositions begins with our dedicated volunteers in the Advocacy Committee, which gathers publicly-available information and conducts additional outreach and research as needed. The Advocacy Committee drafts recommendations on each of the ballot measures and forwards these to the board of directors, which then votes to accept or not accept the recommendations.
Unlike some other organizations, we do not hold endorsement meetings at which proponents and opponents are invited to present their respective views. Instead, what drives our analysis are the League's existing positions on issues related to the ballot measures.
In some cases, we have no relevant positions so we take 'no position.' In other instances, we have competing positions and remain 'neutral.' For recalls, we have 'no recommendation' because the League does not support, oppose, or advocate for or against a recall because of our nonpartisan policy. A recall deals with candidates, and the process is legally valid.