No on Prop D: Restricting Ballot Access 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.

No on Prop E: Slashing Contract Oversight 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 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!

No on Prop F: Removing City Hall Checks and Balances 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 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.

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 While 2020’s Prop I technically went to the general fund due to legal limitations, it was accompanied by a Board of Supervisors resolution clarifying that this revenue was intended to be used on rent relief, affordable housing, and similar programs.