Measure B: Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Members of the Board of Supervisors

Yes on Proposition B: Lifetime Term Limits for SF Electeds

This Proposition strengthens term limits in San Francisco. Currently, elected officials are unable to run for 3 consecutive terms, but after one term out of office are able to again win reelection. The only politician to have successfully done this is Aaron Peskin. I’m not a fan of term limits, but GrowSF’s argument that this Proposition would align SF law with the common-sense understanding of how they work is persuasive. Conversely, SPUR opposes the measure.

Prop B is a tiny change that brings the legal definition of term limits in line with how people already think they work. When voters hear "two-term limit," they assume it means two terms total, not two terms in a row. Prop B just makes the written rule match the common understanding.

Whether or not it passes, not much will change about term limits. Since San Francisco adopted term limits in 1990 (https://sfpl.org/locations/main-library/sf-government-information-center/election-results/november-6-1990), exactly one person has ever come back to serve nonconsecutive terms (https://sfstandard.com/2025/12/15/ballot-measure-term-limits-supervisors-mayor-2026/): Aaron Peskin. One person in 36 years. Everyone else has either gone on to higher office or retired from politics.

Let's be honest: Whether you vote yes or no, not much will change. It's a minor procedural update to make the law match the common understanding of term limits. We think it's better for the law to be clear and match what people already assume, but if you prefer the status quo, that's fine too.

On term limits themselves

Though term limits enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support (https://publicconsultation.org/united-states/congressional-term-limits/) among voters, and we think you should vote yes to make the law match the common understanding, we'd be remiss to not point out that the research on term limits is largely negative (https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/term-limits).

Research from the University of Chicago (https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/term-limits), Brookings (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/), and studies published in the Journal of Politics (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/706764) finds that term limits increase polarization, shift power to lobbyists and bureaucrats, and do not measurably increase diversity among elected officials. Legislators subject to strict term limits become more reliant on special interests (https://www.npr.org/2023/10/29/1207593168/congressional-term-limits-explainer) for policy expertise, and less responsive to constituents.

Most jurisdictions that have enacted strict term limits have ended up loosening them. Six states (https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/the-term-limited-states) — Idaho, Utah, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming — repealed their legislative term limits entirely. California extended its limits (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_28,_Changes_in_Term_Limits_(June_2012)) from 6/8 years to 12 years total in 2012. Arkansas and Michigan did the same (https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/the-term-limited-states). At the city level, Los Angeles extended its council term limits (https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Los_Angeles_City_Council_Term_Limits,_Measure_R_(March_2006)) from two terms to three in 2006, and Denver extended its limits (https://ballotpedia.org/Denver_Term_Limit_Extension_Amendment_(2018)) similarly. The pattern is clear: voters approve strict limits, discover they lose experienced leaders and institutional knowledge, then roll them back.

San Francisco's current two-consecutive-term limit isn't a loophole, but it is a misunderstanding. When voters passed Proposition N in 1990 (https://sfpl.org/locations/main-library/sf-government-information-center/election-results/november-6-1990), the measure specifically used the word "successive" to describe the term limit, not "lifetime." The 1995 Charter rewrite (https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2200178&GUID=4F0B1E6A-6C20-4B94-B49B-5A94F3B5E8D2) preserved this language. And in Arntz v. Superior Court (https://casetext.com/case/arntz-v-superior-court), a California court treated San Francisco's consecutive structure as intentional, not an oversight. So while it's not a loophole, unless you're a lawyer you probably didn't know that two terms didn't technically mean two terms

Peskin is the only person in SF history to serve five nonconsecutive terms (https://sfstandard.com/2025/12/15/ballot-measure-term-limits-supervisors-mayor-2026/). But let's be clear: he didn't exploit a loophole. He followed the law, and voters re-elected him every time.

These are fair points. But they're also academic. The real-world evidence from San Francisco is that voters like the term limits, termed-out officials don't come back, and the consecutive limits are a theoretical safety valve that one person used one time.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-june-2026-election/#prop-b)

WHY YES ON PROP B?

For decades, San Francisco has operated under a political culture where long tenures translate into entrenched power. We believe experience matters, but we also believe permanent jobs for life do not. Prop B restores balance to our Board of Supervisors and Office of the Mayor by ensuring leadership remains dynamic, accountable, and responsive to the people, not to single-party political networks built over decades. And let’s be clear, San Francisco is a one-party town that concentrates this “network” into an insurmountable machine. Currently, the city charter limits these offices to two consecutive four-year terms, but allows officials to run again after a break from office. Prop B ballot would replace that with lifetime term limits, meaning no one could serve more than two four-year terms ineither position, regardless of breaks in service.

Prop B is compelling because it opens the door to new and younger candidates. San Francisco is a city defined by innovation, creativity, and generational change, yet our political pipeline can feel closed off to first-time candidates without institutional backing. When seats are perpetually occupied by career politicians rotating between offices, emerging leaders are discouraged from even trying. Lifetime limits create predictable openings and real competition, making it more likely that educators, small business owners, public safety professionals, and community advocates step forward.

We also know from firsthand experience that deadlines increase efficiency. Who knows how many more hours we would have spent watching clips of Jack Hughes scoring the “golden goal,” if we didn’t have a deadline for this voter guide breathing down our necks?

When elected officials know their time in office is limited, incentives change. The focus shifts from political longevity to policy results. Decision-making becomes more urgent, priorities become clearer, and the legacy is defined by accomplishment rather than incumbency. In a city facing urgent challenges like public safety, infrastructure reliability, fiscal discipline, housing production, and the drug and homelessness crises, we need leaders motivated by impact, not career preservation. Voters deserve elected leaders with vision, accountability, and energy, not uninterested career opportunists who phone it in.

Regular leadership change strengthens democracy by making the government more reflective of the city as it is now, not as it was 20 years ago.

San Francisco prides itself on leading the nation. Prop B is a practical reform that promotes generational renewal, sharper focus, and healthier civic competition. A vote for Prop B is a vote for fresh leadership, greater efficiency, and a City Hall that belongs to the future, not the past. Congress should take note! VOTE YES!

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/prop-b-lifetime-term-limits)

Prop B institutes lifetime term limits for city offices. Currently a person may serve two full, consecutive terms as a supervisor or mayor, take at least one election cycle off of that role, and then return to it for up to two consecutive terms. Prop B would give each person a limit of two terms in each role, period. This aligns San Francisco’s term limits to the rules used in the California state legislature and the US president. An illustration of a politician’s hypothetical career trajectory is included below: Term limits are contentious amongst political philosophy types because they remove an option from voters (reelecting a popular politician). As a counterexample, consider how many options you’ve practically had as a Nancy Pelosi constituent at any point in the last 40 years. I think ensuring some regular turnover of city politicians creates opportunity for new officials and new ideas, and that that’s valuable – especially given recent, high-profile examples of Democrats withering and dying in office.

Formalize existing norms

San Francisco has a career politician problem. Prop B closes the loophole that allows the same officials to cycle in and out of office indefinitely, returning after a brief absence to reclaim seats they never really left behind. Real term limits mean real turnover, and real turnover means fresh perspectives, new energy, and a City Hall that reflects the city as it is today, not as it was decades ago.

Opponents point to the rare case of a former official returning with experience to offer. But one exception does not justify a system that keeps the same familiar faces circulating through power. San Francisco deserves leaders who are accountable to voters, not to their own political longevity. It is time to open the door to the next generation of San Francisco leadership.

Vote YES on Prop B. New leadership for a new San Francisco.

Source (https://sfciti.org/june-2026-sf-citi-voter-guide/)

A solution in search of a problem, Prop B would tweak the term-limit rules for the Board of Supervisor and Mayor, instituting a lifetime ban after you serve two terms. Currently, you can take four years off and run again. Is this, like, really the biggest problem facing SF right now?

Nope. Only two former Supervisors have ever tried to run after four years, and only one of them won. No Mayor has ever run again after serving two terms. (And honestly, why would any Mayor want to, if they could continue, à la Willie Brown, to maintain their machine in power and spend their time lunching and schmoozing instead?)

Meanwhile, Prop B is silent on the City Attorney, District Attorney, Assessor, and Treasurer positions, which currently have no term limits. We’ve been doing this shit since 2004 and we haven’t ever seen a single competitive election for any of those offices! 

So why do we have Prop B? Because the moderates are so scared of Aaron Peskin running again, they think this is the only way to stop him. 🙄 In general, term limits are tricky. In Washington, aging Democratic boomers holding onto power are a real problem, but we don’t see that happening here. Prop B is petty, and a waste of time.

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/blog#PropB)

This measure would amend city charter sections 2.101 and 3.101 to limit members of the Board of Supervisors to no more than two four-year terms in their lifetimes. The lifetime term limit would also apply to the office of the mayor. The measure would not apply to other citywide elected offices, including the district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, sheriff, public defender, and assessor-recorder.

The Backstory

In November 1990, San Francisco voters approved Proposition N, which established term limits for supervisors: no more than two consecutive four-year terms, with eligibility to run again after a four-year break from office.

Prop. N limited consecutive service but did not cap total lifetime service. As a result, a former supervisor or mayor may return to office after sitting out for one full term. Only one individual serving on the Board of Supervisors since this measure was passed successfully returned to office after this break, serving two terms from 2001 to 2009 and two additional terms from 2015 to 2025.

The proposed measure was led by a coalition through the SF Young Democrats, and the legislation was introduced by Supervisor Bilal Mahmood to end a “boomerang” provision for term-limited politicians, encourage participation in politics by younger candidates, and limit money and network influence in elections. The underlying theory is that limiting lifetime tenure will lower structural barriers to entry, create more competitive elections, and open the door to new ideas and candidates.

The Board of Supervisors voted 7–4 to place the measure on the ballot. The measure requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

The equity impacts of this measure are unclear, and research on term limits yields mixed findings.

On one hand, longer terms tend to favor incumbents with long-standing political networks, fundraising capacity, and name recognition. These advantages can disproportionately benefit older, wealthier, and better-connected candidates. By guaranteeing leadership turnover, the measure could create more regular openings for younger candidates, first-time officeholders, or candidates from communities historically underrepresented in city government.

On the other hand, lifetime term limits can also restrict voter choice, particularly in districts where communities have successfully elected representatives who reflect their lived experience and advocate effectively on their behalf. Preventing voters from re-electing experienced and trusted leaders may disproportionately affect communities that rely on their known representatives to navigate complex city systems or to maintain political influence.

Additionally, reduced tenure can limit elected officials’ ability to build the expertise, institutional knowledge, and long-term relationships needed to advance their policies. Inexperienced officeholders may become more reliant on unelected actors, such as lobbyists, consultants, or senior staff, whose perspectives and incentives may not align with those of their constituents.

Pros

• Lifetime term limits would ensure regular turnover in the Office of the Mayor and on the Board of Supervisors. These limits could create more open-seat elections, which historically attract a wider range of candidates and reduce some advantages of incumbency, such as name recognition.
• Lifetime term limits would reduce individual politicians’ ability to build long-term influence through repeated tenures, extensive donor networks, and entrenched political alliances.
• Some voters may assume that existing term limits cap total time in office rather than only consecutive service. This amendment would clarify and simplify the rule, making it easier to understand.

Cons

• Lifetime term limits permanently bar individuals from office regardless of voter support or performance. They remove voters’ ability to re-elect leaders they believe are effective, responsive, or uniquely qualified to represent their district or city.
• Limiting total tenure may reduce the depth and likelihood of experience gained by elected officials, potentially weakening long-term policymaking capacity.
• Frequent turnover among elected officials can increase reliance on lobbyists, consultants, and long-tenured staff who possess institutional memory but are not directly accountable to voters.
• Term limits alone cannot solve problems created by the outsized influence of money in elections, including disparities in fundraising capacity, independent expenditures, and access to donor networks.
• Creating more open seats does not automatically translate to more diverse or equitable representation. Meaningful change requires investments in mentorship programs and resources that help first-time candidates from all backgrounds run competitive campaigns.

SPUR's Recommendation

San Francisco already has term limits. The existing limits balance the goals of reducing incumbency advantage and preserving voter choice. Lifetime bans permanently remove voter choice to elect representatives, and stripping that choice should require a more deliberate and robust process, which this measure did not undergo.

While term limits can increase competition and reduce incumbent power, this measure is unlikely to achieve these objectives on its own and may produce unintended negative consequences. Term limits alone do not fully address the structural factors that shape political power and electoral outcomes.

Additionally, while regular turnover can promote competition, it may limit elected officials’ ability to build long-term expertise, particularly in a city with a complex governance structure like San Francisco. The rarity of political candidates returning after a break in service suggests this measure is designed to address a problem that barely exists.

For these reasons, this measure is not a comprehensive solution to the challenges of incumbency power, electoral competitiveness, and equitable representation. Achieving the desired outcomes of generating new ideas and leaders requires reform related to campaign finance and pathways for political leadership development.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-06/sf-prop-b-lifetime-term-limits)

Proposition B strips voters of their right to choose the candidates they want and permanently disqualifies diverse, experienced leaders from serving our communities. A proven record of service and community trust are assets, not liabilities. The League of Women Voters has long opposed term limits because they reduce government accountability and effectiveness, and also believes in empowering voters, so we oppose Proposition B.
.
The proposition imposes a lifetime two-term limit on Mayors and Supervisors, an unnecessarily rigid ban. The "loophole" the proposition claims to close — a former Mayor or Supervisor running for office again after a mandatory four-year break — has only happened once in San Francisco’s history. And returning candidates must still win over a majority of voters. If voters want new leadership, they will vote for a new person.
.
People should have the power to vote for any qualified candidate, without the government narrowing the field.
.
San Francisco communities work hard to elect diverse leaders who will represent their interests and fight for them. Women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ candidates all face greater obstacles to getting elected. Once they break through, lifetime term limits mean they can never come back, no matter the experience they've gained, how much more they still have to offer, or if their community wants them to lead again.
.
If the goal is truly to help new and diverse candidates compete fairly, there are reforms that actually accomplish that: strengthening ethics enforcement, improving campaign finance laws to limit the influence of special interests and wealthy donors, and expanding public financing for candidates.
.
Ultimately, the only loophole Proposition B closes is the voters’ own right to choose.
.
Vote NO on Prop B
.
Source: https://lwvsf.org/ballot-recommendations

Lifetime term limits that apply only to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors—and not down ballot offices that often serve as entry into SF politics—is a solution to a problem that does not exist. We absolutely need to build a bench of new, young leaders. But Prop B would not do that. That takes organization, youth leadership development, and getting our people engaged in politics. And organized money can't stand a chance when billionaire funded groups are buying elections at all levels of local government. These groups have been the strongest proponents and largest donors of Prop B and we find that troubling. So, No on B.

Source (https://www.milkclub.org/endorsements)

Prop. B - NO     Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Members of the Board of SupervisorsThe mayor and a supervisor would be allowed to serve only two four-year terms for each office. These limits would apply whether the terms are consecutive or nonconsecutive.

Although the Controller stated there is no cost to government, only one San Francisco politician has qualified for this ballot measure. If this proposition had applied at the state level, Jerry Brown would not have been both the youngest and the oldest governor in California history.

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/6_2_26_endorsement_partial)

NO, NO, NO

This is a ridiculous solution in search of a problem. Prop. B would impose a lifetime ban on the mayor or supervisors serving more than two terms.

This, frankly, has not been a problem: Only once since the return of district elections has a supervisor served more than two terms, and that was Aaron Peskin—who was a good supervisor his first eight years, and a better supervisor when, after a break, he returned to office. No mayor has ever sought more than two terms.

The proponents claim this will “make room for a new generation” to lead at City Hall. Nonsense: New, younger supervisors have always won under district elections (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse).

Term limits for executives make sense; term limits for legislators are almost always a bad idea. Term limits have given lobbyists and special interests more control over the state Legislature. Experience matters in politics. To make things more ridiculous, the lifetime two-term limit would apply only to the mayor and the supes, not any of the city’s other elected officials.

More important, this takes control away from the voters. Under district elections, incumbency is not that powerful; two incumbents, Gordon Mar and Dean Preston, were defeated in the past two elections. Telling the voters in, say, D3, that they had no right to send Peskin back to City Hall would be unfair.

Under the ranked-choice district system, we already have term limits: They’re called elections,

Vote no on B.

Source (https://www.sfbg.com/2026/05/06/endorsements-for-the-june-2-election/)

In San Francisco, a Supervisor is elected by the district it resides and represents.  Districts in San Francisco are made up of communities of neighborhoods and ethnicities with their own distinct interests that may or may not be the same as the rest of the City, particularly because of the huge income disparities among these districts.  What is “sensible politics” in Pacific Heights and the Marina in District 2 may not be the same for people in the Mission or Outer Sunset.  Limiting the choice of these communities to pick the best person to represent them at the Board and fight for their rights and interests is anti-democratic and not in line with San Francisco values.

Source (https://sftu.org/endorsements)

Don't get fooled again with latest Contra Costa sales tax increase. Measure B would hike the rate over 10% in a majority of cities.