No on Prop D: Restricting Ballot Access (https://newspack-missionlocal.s3.amazonaws.com/mission/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Charter-Amendment-Fixing-Our-Broken-Ballot-Process.pdf)

Prop D  makes it harder for measures to reach the ballot, by raising the signature threshold four times, increasing from 2% of voters to 8%. Instead of requiring around 10,700 signatures, any citizens’ initiative would now require about 42,000. It also requires a majority of the Board of Supervisors, rather than just 4, to place a measure on the ballot, and removes the Mayor’s ability to unilaterally place measures.

Prop D will make it so that only the wealthy can reliably bring measures to the voters. While it’s easy for billionaires to pay an army of signature gatherers to reach these thresholds, as Lurie did for his charter amendments, measures without big money backing will struggle to qualify.

This is a blatant attempt to prevent measures that tax the rich and benefit the working class from ever reaching San Franciscans’ ballots. We know that when these measures are on the ballot, they are likely to pass – and that’s what Lurie and his allies are so afraid of. DSA San Francisco just helped gather over 20,000 signatures to place one such measure on the ballot, Proposition I (the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act (https://www.fairhousingsf.com/)), which will make sure that taxes on mega real estate sales go to fund affordable and social housing.

DSA SF has previously gathered signatures to place several major citizens initiatives on the ballot like 2022’s Prop M Empty Homes Tax, 2018’s Prop C tax on corporations to fund homelessness solutions, and 2018’s Prop F providing free attorneys to tenants facing eviction – and all passed with strong voter support.

The raising of signature thresholds threatens to deprive San Franciscans of the ability to bring future ballot measures that would provide solutions to the serious issues our city is facing, whether that is affordable housing, public transit, tenants’ rights, clean energy, or workers’ rights. Instead, only a handful of billionaire donors, and the politicians they fund, would be able to bring legislation to voters. We reject this attack on democratic ballot access and say NO on Prop D.

Source (https://dsasf.org/oppose-mayor-luries-power-grab-no-on-d-e-f/)

No on Prop E: Slashing Contract Oversight (https://newspack-missionlocal.s3.amazonaws.com/mission/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Charter-Amendment-Modernizing-City-Contracting.pdf)

Prop E reduces oversight of major spending contracts by the City. It allows the City Administrator, appointed by the Mayor, to unilaterally approve expenditure on contracts of up to $25 million. Previously, contracts over $10 million required approval by the Board of Supervisors.

While the Board of Supervisors itself is far from perfect, its oversight role allows for more public scrutiny over these kinds of contracts, improving transparency and accountability.

We have recently seen corruption in the city contracting process, with the Mayor’s awarding of a major contract to OpenGov, a firm with close financial ties to him (https://missionlocal.org/2025/10/lurie-s-f-permitting-contract-questions-deputys-impropriety/), against the recommendation of city employees for a lower-cost option. Weakening oversight of large contracts for this administration opens the door to further corruption.

Our city money going to huge private contracts, with little oversight, can mean less money for transit, housing, health care, and other key services working people rely on. With no Board inquiry into contracts under $25M, working people will be less informed and have less input into the decisions. We stand against this attempt to slash democratic accountability over our city’s spending. No on Prop E!

Source (https://dsasf.org/oppose-mayor-luries-power-grab-no-on-d-e-f/)

No on Prop F: Removing City Hall Checks and Balances (https://newspack-missionlocal.s3.amazonaws.com/mission/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Charter-Amendment-Strengthening-Executive-Branch-Accountability.pdf)

Prop F would give the Mayor sweeping power to hire and fire department heads, as well as to greatly alter departments’ core objectives, and merge departments together at will. Essentially, this would place the leadership, direction, and structure of all departments at the Mayor’s discretion.

Prop F would also give the Mayor authority to fire appointed commissioners at-will, undermining independent citizen oversight. We are currently seeing the consequences of unchecked Mayoral appointees on the SFMTA Board of Directors, who are privatizing car-free Market Street to hand over to Waymo (https://www.kqed.org/news/12065918/waymo-uber-lyft-to-expand-on-sfs-market-street-despite-pushback-from-transit-groups). This measure would further entrench Mayoral control over SFMTA and other appointees, removing crucial checks and balances that can prevent corporate power grabs like the Market street debacle.

Given Mayor Lurie’s record, Prop F would open a dangerous pathway for the further slashing of public services, giveaways to the rich, and criminalization of homelessness and poverty.

This measure would place unprecedented power in the hands of a single executive. Any future Mayor would have the ability to dramatically reshape City Hall with little check from independent departments & city commissions, whether that be for unpopular political ends or even for personal corruption. Say NO to Prop F.

Source (https://dsasf.org/oppose-mayor-luries-power-grab-no-on-d-e-f/)

Yes on I: Affordable Housing Guarantee Act

In May of 2026, DSA San Francisco members filed paperwork to put forward the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act, which was then overwhelmingly endorsed by the Chapter shortly afterwards. Now known as Prop I, the Guarantee Act will dedicate the revenue earned from 2020’s Prop I (which DSA SF endorsed, and was authored by DSA member, former Supervisor Dean Preston) to affordable and social housing, rent relief, and eviction defense. By taxing the largest real estate deals in SF, we’ve already raised over $500M, and are projected to raise more than ~$100M each year. This is one of the few ways San Francisco can directly tax the wealthy speculators fueling our housing crisis.

Learn more at www.yesonisf.org (https://www.yesonisf.org/).

Background

While 2020’s Prop I technically went to the general fund due to legal limitations, it was accompanied by a Board of Supervisors resolution (https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8747404&GUID=1C38FCA3-BD76-4238-B9B6-FFBF69E930E7) clarifying that this revenue was intended to be used on rent relief, affordable housing, and similar programs. Since then, “moderate” Mayors Breed and Lurie have taken advantage of this discrepancy between the letter of the law and spirit of the law, and have refused to spend the majority of the money as the voters intended.

In 2023, new legal precedent allowed (https://publiccounsel.org/press-releases/federal-district-court-judge-rules-to-dismiss-challenge-against-measure-ula/) cities to dedicate revenue from transfer taxes to specific purposes, like affordable housing. In February of 2026, Supervisor Bilal Mahmood and Mayor Daniel Lurie moved to undo Prop I by slashing the transfer tax (https://missionlocal.org/2026/05/build-act-san-francisco-transfer-tax/). This effort to cut taxes for the wealthy has since been shelved, in part due to DSA SF’s letter writing campaign and the momentum on the Guarantee Act, but its moderate proponents have maintained that they would still like to cut this tax in the future. Crucially, this means that this measure does not take away from other priorities: the revenue either goes towards affordable and social housing as voters intended, or it will be taken away entirely.

Details

November 2026 Proposition I, the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act, will:

Permanently dedicate funding to affordable housing, innovative social housing for all income levels, and rent relief, broken down as follows:

• At least 60% for affordable housing production, with at least half of this to social housing

• At least 25% for acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing

• At least 10% for tenant stabilization/homeless prevention programs, with at least half to eviction defense
  Be paid for by an existing tax on properties over $10 million like mega mansions and skyscrapers. This measure doesn’t raise taxes on anyone.
  Exempt new housing construction, so it doesn’t impact growth.

Source (https://dsasf.org/campaigns/affordable-housing-guarantee-act/)