Measure D: Changes to Ballot Measure Process

San Francisco is forced to vote on too many ballot measures (https://growsf.org/research/2025-11-17-too-many-ballot-measures/). This year we have 10, in 2024 and 2022 we had 15, and in 2016 we voted on 24!

Meanwhile, Oakland voted on just three in 2024.

The problem is that San Francisco has the lowest number of required signatures in the state to put a measure on the ballot: just 2% of voters. Our peer cities range from 5% to 10%. Since it's so easy to run a ballot measure, the ballot has become an easy way for a small group of special interests to enact a law that can never be changed (https://growsf.org/research/2025-12-01-laws-cast-in-stone/) by our elected Board of Supervisors. Laws that are not easy to fix should not be this easy to enact.

Beyond just shortening the ballot, we also like that it ends the ability of a minority of Supervisors to place a measure directly on the ballot and the ability for the Mayor to unilaterally place measures on the ballot. This will end the practice of using the ballot as a backstop to pass bad laws. Now our elected leaders will actually need a majority to enact new laws!

Vote yes on Prop D to shorten your ballot.

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

Prop D raises the signature threshold to qualify a citizen initiative from 2% of registered voters to 8%, still lower than most peer cities, and ends the practice of a Mayor or a four-vote Board minority putting something directly on the ballot over a Board majority's objection.

This isn't abstract governance trivia for YIMBYs. San Francisco's rock-bottom signature threshold is exactly how a small, well-funded opposition group can lock in an anti-housing rule that the elected Board can never fix without another citywide vote. Raising the bar to put something on the ballot, and making it require an actual Board majority to route around normal legislating, cuts down on that vector for freezing bad housing and zoning policy into the Charter. Shorter ballots, more accountable lawmaking.

SPUR's Recommendation

The city’s current processes for placing measures on the ballot are more permissive than those elsewhere in California. By allowing a mayor alone or a minority of the Board of Supervisors to bypass standard public processes, these processes discourage elected leaders from building consensus to solve an identified problem and reduce opportunities for the public to participate in crafting legislative proposals. Prop. D raises barriers to qualifying voter signature initiatives, reducing grassroots and community groups' ability to qualify measures for the ballot at a time when the federal government and states, including California, are limiting voting rights and access. But the measure’s proposed signature thresholds would remain lower than those of most California cities. On balance, SPUR believes the measure's benefits outweigh its downsides and will lead to more effective policies and greater voter engagement.

What Prop. D Would Do

Proposition D would change how certain ballot measures qualify for the ballot in San Francisco. State law governs how charter amendment proposals are qualified; the measure would apply to how all other policy statements and laws are placed on the ballot.

Currently, the city charter allows measures to be placed on the ballot through (1) the legislative process, which requires a six-vote majority of the Board of Supervisors; (2) direct placement of the measure by four board supervisors or the mayor without a legislative process; or (3) a voter signature initiative. Prop. D would eliminate the second option and alter the third by increasing signature requirements for voter initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters.

The measure would allow proponents of a voter signature initiative to withdraw the initiative from the ballot before an election, which is not permitted today.

The Backstory

As noted in SPUR’s Charter for Change report, San Francisco’s charter grants unusually broad authority for placing measures on the ballot. In addition to traditional legislative referral by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, it allows the mayor or four members of the board to independently place measures before voters without majority board approval — a practice in none of California’s other 10 largest cities. Additionally, voters may qualify measures through signature gathering at relatively low thresholds compared with other California jurisdictions. San Francisco requires signatures from 2% of registered voters, versus 10% in nearly all California cities.

These relatively permissive qualification rules contribute to longer ballots and a greater reliance on voters to make policy directly. In November 2024, San Francisco voters considered 15 local measures, compared with three in Oakland and one in San José. Since 1996, San Franciscans have voted on 418 ordinances and policy statements, only 25% of which reached the ballot through the legislative process.

The distinction matters because the legislative process gives elected officials and the public opportunities to evaluate and revise proposals before they become law. It typically includes public review, analysis of policy outcomes, consideration of financial impacts, and negotiation among elected leaders. By contrast, measures placed directly on the ballot by the mayor, a minority of the board, or voters can bypass some of this deliberation. Policy disagreements may instead be resolved through electoral campaigns, where the central objective is securing voter approval rather than negotiating an effective and realistic solution to an identified problem.

At the same time, direct access to the ballot serves an important democratic function. San Francisco’s relatively low signature threshold has historically enabled neighborhood groups, reform advocates, and grassroots coalitions to advance proposals without first securing support from established political institutions. Voter initiatives have been used to adopt open-government sunshine laws, progressive tax structures, and tenant protections. Since 2006, 45 initiative ordinances have appeared on the ballot, of which 17, or 38%, have passed. Raising the signature threshold would reduce this avenue of access at a time of heightened debate over voting rights and political participation, particularly for communities that have historically faced barriers to such participation, including communities of color.

Increasing the signature threshold could also affect the path available for certain tax measures. Under current California law, special taxes (those whose revenues are dedicated to a specific purpose) require simple majority approval (50% plus one vote) if placed on the ballot through a voter initiative, but a two-thirds approval if placed through the legislative process. Raising the threshold to place initiative tax measures on the ballot would make it more challenging to qualify these measures in the future.

Sponsored by Mayor Lurie, Prop. D qualified for the ballot through a voter signature initiative. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

The measure would likely have mixed equity impacts:

Increasing signature thresholds could reduce access to the ballot for organizations and communities with fewer financial resources, because qualifying initiatives would likely require more professional signature gathering and fundraising. Those with the resources to qualify measures for the ballot would be advantaged, while those without would be disadvantaged.

Eliminating the ability of the mayor or a minority of the Board of Supervisors to directly place a measure on the ballot would require more proposals to proceed through the standard legislative process, giving more communities, especially those without formal political access or power, an opportunity to shape laws before adoption.

Reducing ballot complexity and overcrowding could help voters with less time or fewer resources navigate long, technical ballots, understand measures, and vote.

Pros

• Raising the bar for measures to reach the ballot would increase the incentive to build broad political consensus while discouraging elected officials from punting issues to voters that City Hall could have adopted.
• Reducing ballot overcrowding would decrease voter fatigue and increase voter comprehension.
• Allowing withdrawal of initiatives may encourage negotiated compromise before elections.
• Tax proposals, which are often complicated, would be more likely to move through the legislative process, allowing for public discussion, analysis, and amendment before placement on the ballot.

Cons

• Prop. D would raise barriers for grassroots citizen initiatives and independent reform efforts.
• It could advantage well-funded interests who are better able to gather signatures under higher thresholds.
• A mayor or a minority of supervisors would have less ability to bring issues directly to voters when in disagreement with the majority of the board.
• Passing dedicated taxes to fund public services would become more challenging, given the higher voter threshold that currently applies to non-initiative dedicated tax measures.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/sf-prop-d-ballot-measure-process)

Prop D raises the signature threshold to qualify a citizen initiative from 2% of registered voters to 8%, still lower than most peer cities, and ends the practice of a Mayor or a four-vote Board minority putting something directly on the ballot over a Board majority's objection. This isn't abstract governance trivia for YIMBYs. San Francisco's rock-bottom signature threshold is exactly how a small, well-funded opposition group can lock in an anti-housing rule that the elected Board can never fix without another citywide vote. Raising the bar to put something on the ballot, and making it require an actual Board majority to route around normal legislating, cuts down on that vector for freezing bad housing and zoning policy into the Charter. Shorter ballots, more accountable lawmaking.

This charter amendment tightens San Francisco's lax rules for getting measures onto the ballot, bringing us in line with other California cities like San Diego and LA. This charter amendment would eliminate the Mayor’s unilateral ability to put a measure on the ballot. It would also eliminate the ability of four supervisors to put a measure on the ballot. The Board of Supervisors could still place measures on the ballot, but only with a six-vote majority. Additionally, the charter amendment would raise the signature threshold for citizen-led initiatives to 8% of registered voters and raise the signature threshold to call a special election on an initiative ordinance to 10% of registered voters. Finally, the charter amendment would allow backers of a signature initiative to withdraw their measure 102 days before the election.

We recommend voting Yes on D. We support this measure because San Francisco’s current ballot measure system is flawed and results in overly long ballots in which residents are asked to vote on a wide variety of measures that can be quite complex in nature. 2023’s Rose Report (https://roseinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Together-SF-Report_081723_DIGITAL_SINGLE.pdf) (commissioned by our predecessor organization, TogetherSF) and good government think tank SPUR have both highlighted how San Francisco requires a lower signature threshold for placing measures on the ballot versus other major California cities like San Diego and Los Angeles.  These lax requirements lead to numerous problems: elected leaders deflecting from making tough decisions (sometimes on complex topics like taxes) and deferring them to voters, special interest groups placing misleading measures on ballot to support their own interests i.e. June 2026 “CEO” tax, and electeds/groups using measures to wage political battles/confuse voters i.e. dueling measures like Nov 2022 Prop D and E (both related to housing) or Nov 2024 Prop D and E (both related to commission reform).

Source (https://www.sfblueprint.org/advocacy/november-2026-voter-guide)

Prop D - Ballot Measure Process

What it does: Prop D would 1) require six or more supervisors to place an ordinance on a ballot; 2) increase the voter signature threshold for initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters; 3) eliminate the mayor's unilateral authority to add an ordinance to a ballot; and 4) allow proponents to withdraw a flawed ballot measure after it qualifies.

Endorsement: Reluctant YES on Prop D

San Francisco ballots are a Costco-sized variety pack of breakfast cereal: numerous dueling initiatives riddled with questionable clarity. Prop D tries to mitigate that. Most of the proposals in D are positive. Making it harder for special interests to rig our elections is a big plus. What’s not? The measure makes it more difficult to recall elected officials. And truly volunteer-led campaigns will face higher hurdles. As such, we understand if you need to vote "No." While we are still recommending a “Yes” vote for the greater good of streamlining our ballots, we must be transparent and share that our Members were almost evenly split.

Reluctant YES.

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-d)

What it does: Prop D would 1) require six or more supervisors to place an ordinance on a ballot; 2) increase the voter signature threshold for initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters; 3) eliminate the mayor's unilateral authority to add an ordinance to a ballot; and 4) allow proponents to withdraw a flawed ballot measure after it qualifies.

Endorsement: Reluctant YES on Prop D

San Francisco ballots are a Costco-sized variety pack of breakfast cereal: numerous dueling initiatives riddled with questionable clarity. Prop D tries to mitigate that. Most of the proposals in D are positive. Making it harder for special interests to rig our elections is a big plus. What’s not? The measure makes it more difficult to recall elected officials. And truly volunteer-led campaigns will face higher hurdles. As such, we understand if you need to vote "No." While we are still recommending a “Yes” vote for the greater good of streamlining our ballots, we must be transparent and share that our Members were almost evenly split.

Reluctant YES .

Prop D increases the number of signatures needed for voter initiatives, making it much harder for anyone but the super-wealthy (who can buy armies of paid signature-gatherers) to get props on the ballot. It even makes it harder for the Board of Supes to put something on the ballot! If Prop D passes, we’d have to collect 4 times as many signatures to put anything on the ballot, which would further silence the voice of everyday San Franciscans at the ballot box. Vote Hellllllll No! on Prop D.

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#PropD)

Changes San Francisco's rules governing how certain measures qualify for and appear on the local ballot. CADC opposes Prop. D because it would effectively eliminate grassroots volunteer signature-gathering as a practical path to the ballot, leaving well-funded campaigns better able to qualify measures by paying professional petition circulators—currently around $18 per signature. CADC has led all five successful grassroots recall campaigns that qualified for the ballot through voter signatures and believes ordinary residents must retain a meaningful and affordable way to petition their government and bring measures directly to voters.

CADC 反對提案 D，因為它大幅限制草根義工通過收集簽名提交公民聯署提案到選舉投票的途徑，使財力雄厚的競選團體 - 有能力支付 $18一個簽名的專業財團更具優勢。CADC 曾成功帶領五次公民聯署的草根罷免運動，因此認為必須保留一個普通市民可以通過聯署將議題直接交由選民做決定的可行途徑。

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/11_2026_propositions)

Restricting ballot access for future propositions

Source (https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/123-november-2026-endorsements)

Prop D would quadruple the signatures required to place a citizen initiative on the ballot — from 2% to 8% of registered voters. The initiative process belongs to the people, not the politicians. Vote NO.

Source (https://sfgop.org/nov-2026-endorsements)

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 D, Mayor Lurie’s anti-democracy charter amendment: The initiative process enables we, the people, to alter our laws without having to wait for politicians to follow our will. When our elected officials get cold feet because lobbyists oppose something, it’s up to us to make it happen. Don’t let Mayor Lurie take our power away from us—vote NO on this power grab.

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

NO ON PROP D: Increases Signatures for Ballot Initiatives

Prop D (https://sfnoond.com/) quadruples the number of signatures and increases the number of Supervisors' votes needed to place an initiative on the ballot. Only billionaires will be able to get a measure on the ballot.

Source (https://www.repsf.org/blog/repsf-voter-guide-nov-2026)