Ballot recommendations

Proposition A would allow the City to issue a bond to help fund updates to facilities, health, and safety measures at San Francisco public schools. These updates are sorely needed. The League supports a public schools system that meets the educational needs of all students, adequate funding for public schools, and a teaching and learning environment that provides access and equitable opportunity for all children.

Vote YES on Prop A

Proposition B would allow the City to issue a bond to finance infrastructure needed to provide shelter and housing for unhoused people. It would also fund improvements to community health and medical facilities (including mental health), street safety, and public spaces in order to sustain economic development and improve health, safety, and living standards.

The League supports actions to reduce and eliminate homelessness, including providing shelters and permanent supportive housing. We also support access to affordable quality healthcare, including integrated behavioral and physical healthcare, and the promotion of the economic health of cities and the quality of urban life.

Vote YES on Prop B

For democracy to thrive, we must be on the lookout for corruption in government and take decisive action when it is found. The public also needs a way to report suspected fraud, waste, or abuse, as well as the confidence that those who commit corruption will be held accountable.

Proposition C would create an Inspector General position in the Controller’s Office to review complaints and lead investigations to prevent and detect corruption. It would also give the Controller’s Office subpoena power to compel evidence, records, and witness testimony — power that’s needed for effective oversight and investigations. While we wish this proposition required public hearings for greater transparency, the Inspector General would need to publish two public reports a year.

The League supports enhancing political equality for all people, ensuring transparency, protecting democracy from distortion by undisclosed contributions and big money, and combating corruption and undue influence in government. Much like Proposition D in March 2024, Proposition E in June 2022, and Proposition D in November 2020, all of which we supported, creating this Inspector General position would advance those goals.

Vote YES on Prop C

Proposition D is a cynical, manipulative, and poorly conceived attempt to limit the ability of regular people to have their voices heard and their needs considered in decisions about essential government services, operations, and policies. LWVSF strongly opposes this anti-good government proposition.

This proposition would impose an arbitrary limit on the number of commissions the City can have at 65. Instead of a process where all San Franciscans can share their views about which commissions in the Charter are critically needed and helpful, the proponents behind Proposition D have decided which to keep, change, and eliminate.

Our City commissions perform essential roles for residents, neighborhoods, businesses, and communities, some roles which are required by law. Some of the Commissions that would be eliminated from the Charter include those that the League — and voters — recently supported the creation or restructuring of, such as the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board (Proposition D, November 2020), Building Inspection Commission (Proposition B, June 2022), and Homelessness Oversight Commission (Proposition C, November 2022). Other eliminated commissions include Arts, Environment, Health, Human Services, Library, Parks and Recreation, Sanitation and Streets, Small Business, Status of Women, Youth, and many others.

These commissions also are sometimes the best or only practical way for our government to hear directly from people before taking action. By cutting off so many of these opportunities for community input, Proposition D could increase the undemocratic influence of big money, campaign donors, and lobbyists in our government. This conflicts with League positions that support effective commissions as well as public participation in government decision-making.

The League also supports more accountability and transparency in government. Proposition D would end essential checks and balances between the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. It would give the Mayor exclusive authority to appoint and remove all department heads, removing the oversight and involvement of commissions. It would also give the Mayor a majority of appointments to commissions, substantially increasing the Mayor’s power.

Further decreasing transparency, Proposition D would end the current practice where the Board of Supervisors reviews many of the Mayor’s commission appointments. Because the Mayor is not required to have public hearings about appointees, the Board’s review is usually the only opportunity for the people of San Francisco to share whether they support or oppose someone the Mayor wants to put in a position of influence.

Proposition D would also prohibit the City from giving stipends or other compensation to commissioners. The League supports diversity, equity, and inclusion in participation in government and public service. The lack of financial compensation for volunteer commissioners is, all too often, a major barrier to equitable participation. It can especially dissuade those who are low-income, students, parents, caregivers, working class, or young people from serving on commissions.

On top of all that, Proposition D would also weaken police oversight. San Franciscans deserve independent police oversight that is more transparent, not less.

The City has some commission clean up to do, but this aggressively overreaching and undemocratic proposition is not the answer.

It’s important for voters to know that Proposition D and Proposition E are competing measures. If Proposition D passes with more votes than Proposition E, then Proposition E would fail.

Read the joint statement denouncing Prop D TV ads as erasing women and people of color from San Francisco government.

Vote NO on Prop D!

Commissions perform essential roles for residents, neighborhoods, businesses, and communities, some of which are required by law. The City has some commission clean up to do, and Proposition E would create a transparent public process to accomplish that goal.

The League believes in making government efficient, accountable, and democratic. That’s what we said when we participated in the robust public review process that led to the last major update of the City Charter (Proposition E, November 1995), the legal framework for our government. And that’s still true today.

Proposition E would create a Commission Streamlining Task Force to review all City commissions and recommend which to keep, change, and eliminate. The task force process would be transparent and subject to public meeting laws. This would provide an opportunity for all San Franciscans to take an active and informed role in any significant changes to commissions and share their views about which ones are critically needed and helpful.

This is how good government happens — in public view with the participation of the governed.

It’s important for voters to know that Proposition D and Proposition E are competing measures. If Proposition E passes with more votes than Proposition D, then Proposition D would fail.

Vote YES on Prop E

The League is generally opposed to "ballot-box budgeting," which limits the City’s flexibility to make budgetary decisions and adjust priorities based on emerging and essential needs. Most budgetary decisions should be made by the Mayor, City departments, and the Board of Supervisors through the budget process, not by earmarking funds through ballot initiatives. Often, earmarking can undermine San Francisco’s fiscal stability and its ability to effectively respond to changing conditions.

We supported Proposition E in November 2020 because San Francisco must have a process for making decisions about police staffing based on facts and data. Now, four years later, Proposition F intends to undermine the transparency and accountability of the evaluation process. 

The League believes the demographics of the San Francisco Police Department should generally reflect our community. This means we also believe the City should regularly evaluate the number of full-duty sworn police officers in the Police Department and consider whether it reflects the number of people living in San Francisco’s neighborhoods and meets their needs. 

The City has to balance social and economic investment with funding policing. Criminalization is more expensive and less effective than other approaches to housing, mental health, and harm reduction. Proposition F obfuscates that City funds are being reprioritized. The data shows a previous Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) was a failure, so this proposition is not based on facts. During a period of budget cuts, it is unacceptable to earmark yet more funding for a failed police program.

As strong champions of equality of opportunity, pay equity, and affirmative action, this measure is particularly egregious to the League. Those eligible for this proposition’s new Deferred Retirement Option Program will be, by a large margin (80%), male. Claiming that these funds will support the department’s “30% female by 2030” gender pledge is at best delusional. There are far better strategies SFPD could implement to support women in policing, if that is their real goal.

Vote NO on Prop F

Proposition G would create a fund to pay for rental subsidies for affordable housing developments serving extremely low-income households of seniors, families, and people with disabilities. While we would have preferred to see the funds go directly to tenants, not housing development owners, these vulnerable households would still benefit.

The League supports rent subsidies and subsidized low-income housing programs. We also support funds with an end date and oversight, which this has. This $8.25 million annual fund would be appropriated from the annual budget, not raise taxes, and could be reduced if there’s a budget deficit.

Vote YES on Prop G

The League has no positions relevant to this proposition. You can learn about the proposition in our Pros & Cons Guide.

The League has no positions relevant to this proposition. You can learn about the proposition in our Pros & Cons Guide.

The League supports programs and policies that expand the supply of affordable, quality child care for all who need it and that promote the well-being, development, and safety of all children. We also support government transparency and accountability.

Proposition J would not create new funds, but instead make sure that existing funds are managed transparently and used more effectively on services and programs for children, youth, and their families. 

Vote YES on Prop J

Climate change is taking a toll on the Great Highway, which runs alongside Ocean Beach. It is constantly being eroded, and the City spends an increasing amount of time, money, and resources to maintain it for car traffic. It’s not a matter of if we should close the Upper Great Highway to cars, but when and how.

Proposition K is aligned with our League positions on climate change, transportation, and the quality of urban life. However, it falls short on our position on meeting basic human needs because it lacks adequate funding so all people can equitably access the space. We’re also concerned with the timing of Proposition K, since the Great Highway Pilot Project, which goes through the end of 2025, will provide more data and public feedback on the long-term future of the space. 

Because of the conflicting positions, LWVSF’s board of directors carefully considered Proposition K and came to the consensus to remain neutral.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which provides Muni bus, train, and metro services, is massively underfunded. Proposition L would generate much-needed funds for public transit through a business tax on rideshare and driverless car companies like Uber, Lyft, and Waymo. This is not a tax on individual rides, but on the revenue of these businesses. The companies might decide to protect their profits by passing the cost of this tax onto its customers through increased fares.

The money raised through this reasonable tax would prevent many cuts to Muni services and routes. The tax revenue would be used to improve Muni services to public schools, libraries, and parks. It would also provide free and discounted fares to people with disabilities, seniors, youth, students, and people with low-income. Proposition L aligns with the League’s positions on transportation, local finances, and meeting basic human needs, such as access to transportation.

It’s important for voters to know that Proposition M is a competing measure with Proposition L. If Proposition M passes with more votes than Proposition L, then Proposition L would have no legal effect. If Proposition L passes with more votes than Proposition M, both propositions would have legal effect. Proposition L would directly benefit the people of San Francisco, and is deserving of support.

Vote YES on Prop L

Proposition M would change the taxes and fees that businesses pay the City. One key change would be a reduction in some of the taxes paid by the largest companies. San Francisco’s government is continuing to experience a severe budget deficit, which is negatively affecting the government’s ability to deliver essential services. 

The League supports adequate revenue as well as effective and equitable methods of paying for City services. According to the Controller’s analysis, Proposition M could lead to a $40 million annual revenue reduction for the next three fiscal years, a time when the City’s fiscal situation is already fragile.

It’s important for voters to know that Proposition M is a competing measure with Proposition L. If Proposition M passes with more votes than Proposition L, then Proposition L would have no legal effect. We support Proposition L, and cannot justify supporting Proposition M.

Vote NO on Prop M

The League has no positions relevant to this proposition. You can learn about the proposition in our Pros & Cons Guide.

Reproductive rights are being attacked around the country. Because the federal government has not passed laws to protect the right to abortion, state and local laws play an enormous role in determining whether constituents have the right and access to reproductive healthcare. Without the ability to make fully informed reproductive decisions for one’s own body, women and those who can become pregnant cannot participate equally in our democracy.

Proposition O would support, protect, and expand reproductive rights and services in San Francisco. The League believes that public policy must affirm the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices. We also believe that every U.S. resident should have access to a basic level of quality health care at an affordable cost, including abortion.

Vote YES on Prop O