San Francisco Propositions

Results are a combination of data provided by the Associated Press (AP) and county election offices. The AP calls winners by analyzing vote tallies and other election data. Check marks are used to denote a winner only when the AP calls a race.

San Francisco Unified School District. School bond. Passes with 55% vote.

Yes72.9%
157,925 votes
No27%
58,574 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Community health and safety bond. Passes with 2/3 vote.

Yes71.1%
154,164 votes
No28.8%
62,485 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Inspector General position. Passes with majority vote.

Yes59.5%
127,173 votes
No40.4%
86,440 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Commissions and mayoral authority. Passes with majority vote.

Yes45.3%
95,914 votes
No54.6%
115,494 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Commissions task force. Passes with majority vote.

Yes51.6%
108,499 votes
No48.3%
101,647 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Police pensions. Passes with majority vote.

Yes47.2%
98,615 votes
No52.7%
110,068 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Affordable housing. Passes with majority vote.

Yes56.6%
120,938 votes
No43.3%
92,586 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Firefighter pensions. Passes with majority vote.

Yes51.5%
108,875 votes
No48.4%
102,283 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Nurse and 911 operator pensions. Passes with majority vote.

Yes69.8%
146,573 votes
No30.1%
63,354 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. City spending. Passes with majority vote.

Yes80%
167,219 votes
No19.9%
41,638 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Permanently closing Upper Great Highway to private vehicles. Passes with majority vote.

Yes52.9%
114,485 votes
No47%
101,862 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Transportation network companies tax. Passes with majority vote.

Yes56.2%
119,525 votes
No43.7%
93,090 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Business tax. Passes with majority vote.

Yes69.1%
137,896 votes
No30.8%
61,528 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Student loan reimbursement. Passes with majority vote.

Yes51.5%
108,068 votes
No48.4%
101,725 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

San Francisco. Reproductive rights. Passes with majority vote.

Yes81.9%
175,528 votes
No18%
38,542 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Proposition A

Should the San Francisco Unified School District issue $790 million in bonds to improve school facilities?

San Francisco Unified School District. School bond. Passes with 55% vote.

Yes72.9%
157,925 votes
No27%
58,574 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“Currently, many of our classrooms are located in buildings built more than 60 years ago or housed in aging portables that must be improved to meet modern safety standards … Proposition A will replace these deteriorating portables with updated classrooms, ensuring every child can access a safe and modern learning space. Proposition A allocates funds to make essential seismic upgrades, protecting our schools and everyone inside them during emergencies.”

No Argument

“You’re being asked to swallow this gigantic, jagged $1.3 billion pill whole, increasing your debt servitude via property taxes. Paying taxes every year on something you already own hurts, especially when you don’t even own the property but see your rent increase because the landlord has to pay more. Why not cut the salaries of the superintendent ($310,000/year) and other overpaid administrators instead?”

Race to Watch

Proposition B

Should San Francisco pass a $390 million bond to fund health centers, hospitals, pedestrian safety projects and homeless shelters?

San Francisco. Community health and safety bond. Passes with 2/3 vote.

Yes71.1%
154,164 votes
No28.8%
62,485 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Funding would allocate $71.1 million to seismically retrofit and renovate the Chinatown Public Health Center and $66 million to repair and renovate Zuckerberg San Francisco General and Laguna Honda hospitals. Up to $63.9 million would be allocated for street and sidewalk safety projects. If California Proposition 5 is approved, Proposition B passes with 55% of the vote. If not, two-thirds approval is needed to pass.

Yes Argument

Proposition B would allow the city to make critical investments to repair and upgrade public hospitals and clinics. It would also reduce homelessness and improve roads, street safety and public spaces. The bond would require public disclosure of all spending, including annual independent reviews and audits by the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee.

No Argument

San Francisco is already spending millions of dollars on addressing homelessness, yet the crisis continues to worsen. This new bond asks voters to pour more money into an ineffective and mismanaged system. We need reforms to ensure that funds are effectively allocated to high-impact programs that deliver results.

Key Supporters

This list represents notable organizations and individuals who have taken a position on the ballot measure or candidate, or who are funding campaigns in support or opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.

In Support

  • London Breed, mayor, San Francisco
  • Connie Chan, supervisor, San Francisco
  • Matt Dorsey, supervisor, San Francisco
  • Joel Engardio, supervisor, San Francisco
  • Rafael Mandelman, supervisor, San Francisco

In Opposition

  • The Briones Society

Proposition C

Should the city of San Francisco create a new position of inspector general in the Controller’s Office and give the Controller’s Office additional powers to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse?

San Francisco. Inspector General position. Passes with majority vote.

Yes59.5%
127,173 votes
No40.4%
86,440 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“To create a more effective, accountable government, voters can approve the Inspector General Charter Amendment. This will establish our own inspector general with the power to investigate and bring to justice complaints of waste, fraud, and abuse. And since it will be part of the Controller’s Office, no new taxes will be needed to fund the office.”

No Argument

“San Francisco has a long history of corruption scandals, another bureaucrat won’t fix that. What’s needed is fresh faces in elected office, transparency and accountability. We’ve seen these ‘reforms’ before. They promise to clean up City Hall, yet the problems deepen. This is more of the same — a distraction from the real work on holding civil servants accountable.”

Race to Watch

Proposition D

Should San Francisco eliminate dozens of city commissions and cap the total number at 65?

San Francisco. Commissions and mayoral authority. Passes with majority vote.

Yes45.3%
95,914 votes
No54.6%
115,494 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Proposition D would reform the city’s commission system by reducing the number of commissions from 130 to a maximum of 65. These commissions currently provide public oversight of city departments and programs.

Yes Argument

Proposition D would cap the number of commissions at 65, streamline governance and give the mayor sole authority to appoint and remove department heads. It would also allow the police chief to unilaterally adopt and change police-conduct rules.

No Argument

Proposition D, supported by the moderate political advocacy group TogetherSF Action, could result in the elimination of several key commissions, including the police and arts commissions. It would consolidate power in the hands of the mayor and police chief and remove commissions that enable public participation and provide government oversight.

Key Supporters

This list represents notable organizations and individuals who have taken a position on the ballot measure or candidate, or who are funding campaigns in support or opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.

In Support

  • Mark Farrell, former interim mayor and supervisor, current mayoral candidate, San Francisco
  • Thomas Mazzucco, former police commissioner, San Francisco
  • Abigail Porth, former human rights commissioner, San Francisco
  • Chinese American Democratic Club
  • TogetherSF Action

In Opposition

  • ACLU of Northern California
  • Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
  • Small Business Forward
  • SOMArts
  • United Educators of San Francisco

Race to Watch

Proposition E

Should San Francisco create a task force to review the city’s 130 commissions, gather public feedback, and implement changes to the city’s charter based on their findings?

San Francisco. Commissions task force. Passes with majority vote.

Yes51.6%
108,499 votes
No48.3%
101,647 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Proposition E, supported by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, is a competing measure (to Proposition D) focused on city commissions. It would establish a task force to analyze the costs and overall necessity of these commissions, and provide reform recommendations to the mayor and Board of Supervisors.

Yes Argument

Creating a task force would increase public transparency in reviewing, changing, or potentially eliminating city commissions. It would also give voters a say in future changes to the city charter, and preserve the city’s important arts, library, health, small business and police commissions.

No Argument

A task force approach would delay much-needed reforms to the city’s commission system until 2026 and water-down the more aggressive commission cuts proposed in Proposition D.

Key Supporters

This list represents notable organizations and individuals who have taken a position on the ballot measure or candidate, or who are funding campaigns in support or opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.

In Support

  • Patrick Johnston, former president, San Francisco Arts Commission 
  • Chinese for Affirmative Action
  • San Francisco Heritage
  • San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
  • Small Business Forward

In Opposition

  • Cedric Akbar, cofounder, Positive Directions Equal Change
  • Parag Gupta, member, San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee
  • Lucy Junus, vice president, Inner Mission Neighborhood Association
  • Jade Tu, member, San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee
  • Chinese American Democratic Club

Proposition F

Should the city of San Francisco allow police officers to continue working for the Department after retiring, with pension payments deferred while they are working?

San Francisco. Police pensions. Passes with majority vote.

Yes47.2%
98,615 votes
No52.7%
110,068 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“Proposition F curbs our ongoing loss of police officers by creating a strong incentive for frontline SFPD officers, inspectors, and sergeants to postpone retirement for up to five years to focus on neighborhood patrol and investigations. San Francisco’s Police Department is severely short-staffed. SFPD is short more than 500 of the 2,074 full-duty officers needed to keep San Francisco safe. Each year since 2019, SFPD has lost more officers than it can recruit.”

No Argument

“Proposition F is a City Hall insider redo of a policy that’s already been tried and was a massive failure. Voting Yes on F would be a vote for an extremely expensive program that San Francisco cannot afford, that won’t keep us safer. Proposition F would force taxpayers to pay some individual officers up to half a million dollars by allowing them to double dip into salaries and banked pension statements.”

Race to Watch

Proposition G

Should the city of San Francisco spend at least $8.25 million to subsidize rent for seniors, families and persons with disabilities earning extremely low incomes?

San Francisco. Affordable housing. Passes with majority vote.

Yes56.6%
120,938 votes
No43.3%
92,586 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

One way San Francisco creates affordable housing is by providing loans to developers for projects that benefit lower-income residents who earn no more than 80% of the area median income. But for people earning 35% of area median income, the existing loan programs fall short. Proposition G would create a fund to help those on extremely low incomes by requiring the city to contribute $8.25 million of its general fund starting in 2026 through 2046.

Yes Argument

San Francisco is committed to expanding housing opportunities for seniors, families and people with disabilities. Proposition G helps achieve this goal by committing a stable and consistent level of funding, creating hundreds of more affordable units and establishing a public process for the development and oversight of the program.

No Argument

Proposition G diverts the city’s general fund to subsidize rent, a short-term “fix” with harsh long-term consequences. The measure drains critical resources from essential services like public safety, infrastructure and education. Committing general funds to dubious subsidies raises prices and drives up rents across the city.

Key Supporters

This list represents notable organizations and individuals who have taken a position on the ballot measure or candidate, or who are funding campaigns in support or opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.

In Support

  • Aaron Peskin, president, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 
  • London Breed, mayor, San Francisco
  • Faith in Action
  • Mission Housing
  • Self-Help for the Elderly

In Opposition

  • Larry Marso, technology executive and attorney

Proposition H

Should the city of San Francisco lower the age at which members of the Fire Department can receive the highest pension?

San Francisco. Firefighter pensions. Passes with majority vote.

Yes51.5%
108,875 votes
No48.4%
102,283 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“Cancer is the leading cause of occupational death among firefighters. Firefighters have a 14% higher risk of dying from cancer than the general population. Since 2006, over 300 active and retired San Francisco firefighters have died because of cancer. More than 160 have been diagnosed with cancer in the past six years alone … Proposition H would allow San Francisco’s firefighters to cut their cancer risk by retiring at age 55.”

No Argument

“San Francisco firefighters hired after Jan. 6, 2012 were made aware of the new full pension retirement age of 58 (it was previously 55). The modification to the pension age was needed due to decades of fiscal mismanagement by the city government. By increasing employee contribution rates for hires after that date, voters were protecting firefighters’ pensions.”

Proposition I

Should the city of San Francisco allow registered nurses who are members of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System to purchase credits toward their total pension years of service?

San Francisco. Nurse and 911 operator pensions. Passes with majority vote.

Yes69.8%
146,573 votes
No30.1%
63,354 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“Nurses are the only city employees not allowed to buy back pension time after becoming permanent employees. Proposition I fixes this loophole by giving temporary RNs the opportunity to join the ranks of our full-time nurses, with pension options for time worked, saving taxpayers 14%. Proposition I is a win-win-win for San Francisco’s budget, taxpayers, and safety.”

No Argument

“The controller costs the right to buy three years’ past service credit at anywhere from $1.5 million to $4.4 million, given the uncertainty as to how many nurses will exercise it. But one popular website currently gives the median pay for a registered nurse in San Francisco as $147,104 per year (85% above the national average, attributing the high wage to the high cost of living and a strong union).”

Proposition J

Should the city of San Francisco create a new group to evaluate city spending on children, youth and their families?

San Francisco. City spending. Passes with majority vote.

Yes80%
167,219 votes
No19.9%
41,638 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“While San Francisco has always prioritized our children, there is a need for better transparency and efficiency in the way we allocate our funding so we can address growing unmet needs and improve our outcomes. Without raising taxes and by using resources we already have, this measure will coordinate and align city departments and SFUSD to develop a unified Plan and Outcomes Framework to improve the outcomes for children and youth, and ensure budget accountability.”

No Argument

None filed.

Race to Watch

Proposition K

Should the Upper Great Highway become a permanent oceanside park?

San Francisco. Permanently closing Upper Great Highway to private vehicles. Passes with majority vote.

Yes52.9%
114,485 votes
No47%
101,862 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Proposition K would ban all car traffic on the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard and convert the road into permanent public recreation space. Authorized vehicles, such as emergency vehicles and intra-park shuttles, will still have access to the road.

Yes Argument

San Francisco closed the Upper Great Highway to car traffic during a COVID-19 pandemic-era pilot program, allowing thousands of people to bicycle, skate, walk and listen to live music performances along the historic road. The southern portion of the Great Highway is already slated to be permanently closed due to environmental erosion. Banning cars will environmentally benefit the coastline, and benefit local vendors, who can boost the neighborhood’s economy.

No Argument

Turning the Upper Great Highway into a permanent park will force car commuters on the city’s west side to pivot their route and risks pushing more cars, pollution and noise into neighboring residential streets.

Key Supporters

This list represents notable organizations and individuals who have taken a position on the ballot measure or candidate, or who are funding campaigns in support or opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.

In Support

  • Sharky Laguana, former president, Small Business Commission
  • Kid Safe SF
  • Outer Sunset Neighbors Richmond Family San Francisco
  • San Francisco Parks Alliance

In Opposition

  • Richard Correia, vice president, Planning Association for the Richmond
  • Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco, Sunset Branch
  • Chinese American Democratic Club
  • Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

Proposition L

Should the city of San Francisco impose an additional tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses?

San Francisco. Transportation network companies tax. Passes with majority vote.

Yes56.2%
119,525 votes
No43.7%
93,090 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“Families, seniors and workers need reliable trains and buses to bring them to school and work, run errands, and visit loved ones. Service cuts will leave transit-dependent riders stranded and force many into driving or paying for expensive ride-hail services. Underfunding Muni will also lead to more traffic and more competition for parking, making travel throughout the city harder for those who must drive.”

No Argument

“Proposition L burdens San Francisco’s vulnerable populations. It harms San Franciscans who rely on rideshares for essential needs. Rideshares discourage impaired driving and help workers get home safely during non-traditional hours. Seniors and disabled residents with limited transit access rely on rideshares to get around the city. Making rideshares more expensive punishes these vulnerable groups.”

Proposition M

Should the city of San Francisco adjust business tax rates, increase small business tax exemptions, and change how the city calculates taxes?

San Francisco. Business tax. Passes with majority vote.

Yes69.1%
137,896 votes
No30.8%
61,528 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“San Francisco currently has some of the highest business tax rates in the country, penalizing both small and large businesses for continuing to operate here. Proposition M will lower taxes and by doing so, create a better environment for future investments and growth. This is a proactive step towards helping our economy and ensuring San Francisco continues to be a place of innovation and opportunity.”

No Argument

“This isn’t a ‘tweak,’ it’s a massive increase that could drastically alter the financial future of major companies. Proponents claim the measure is ‘revenue neutral.’ The controller disagrees: It’s a $50 million/year tax increase. It shifts the burden heavily onto businesses still reeling from San Francisco’s COVID collapse. These steep tax hikes will force companies to reduce investments, cut jobs and reconsider operating in San Francisco entirely.”

Proposition N

Should the city of San Francisco create a fund to help reimburse city employees and first responders for their student loans, education and training programs?

San Francisco. Student loan reimbursement. Passes with majority vote.

Yes51.5%
108,068 votes
No48.4%
101,725 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“By offering student loan reimbursement assistance, Proposition N creates more appealing career paths for prospective candidates, helping San Francisco attract highly skilled, trained, dedicated first responders. In a highly competitive job market, that’s essential.”

No Argument

“Proposition N sets a troubling precedent by using taxpayer money to pay off personal debts. This could open the door to similar demands from across the San Francisco civil service. City resources are strained, and diverting funds to personal debts may come at the expense of critical services like public safety, housing, and education.”

Proposition O

Should it be city policy and law to support, protect, and expand reproductive rights and services?

San Francisco. Reproductive rights. Passes with majority vote.

Yes81.9%
175,528 votes
No18%
38,542 votes
Updated at 1:28 AM PT on Nov 6, 2024
San Francisco County

Yes Argument

“Passing Proposition O is not just about preserving rights; it’s about protecting lives. Comprehensive reproductive care leads to healthier families and communities. Proposition O ensures that women and all people who can become pregnant are not forced into dangerous or untenable situations.”

No Argument

“This measure goes way beyond ‘pro-life versus pro-choice.’ Proposition O will discriminate against life-affirming health care facilities that San Francisco citizens depend on and lessen the number of services they can provide to the community.”

More Results

See results for all elections on the San Francisco ballot.

Have a correction? Contact voterguide@kqed.org.