Should San Francisco voters approve Proposition D? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Proposition D would make San Francisco’s ballot process better.

The plan would change how people and city leaders place plans before voters.

What supporters say

• A higher bar could keep some plans off the ballot and make voting less confusing.
• Fewer plans might save some money on vote guides and citywide special votes.
• The plan could push groups to build wider teams before asking voters to decide.

What critics say

• A higher bar could make it much harder for people to use citizen lawmaking.
• Taking away some ways for city leaders to send plans to voters could remove key checks.
• Rich, well-run groups might gain more power because they can gather names and fund campaigns.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more than a long list.

Proposition D would redesign San Francisco’s ballot-measure system for the November 2026 election. It could make ballots shorter and encourage broader support, but it would also make citizen initiatives harder to qualify and remove some existing routes for city officials to send measures directly to voters.

The case for

The strongest argument for Proposition D is that higher qualification requirements could reduce ballot clutter. The measure would raise the signature requirement for citizen initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters, while preserving voters’ power to place initiatives on the ballot. Research suggests that long or complicated ballots can make it harder for voters to understand and evaluate less prominent measures, and can contribute to lower participation on those items. That supports a reasonable case for screening out some proposals, although it does not show exactly how much San Francisco voters would benefit from fewer measures (see Figure 1). 1

Proposition D could also encourage campaigners to build wider coalitions before seeking a public vote. Measures placed on the ballot as ordinances would need majority approval from the Board of Supervisors, while citizen initiatives would still be available through signatures. In theory, that combination could favor proposals with either meaningful institutional backing or a substantial base of public support. But this remains a prediction about how the system might work, not a demonstrated result of the proposed threshold. 2

There could be modest financial savings as well. Fewer qualifying measures might reduce the cost of voter-information materials and some citywide special elections. The Controller estimates that a citywide special election costs at least $5 million, while each page in a voter-information pamphlet costs about $11,400. Still, the overall fiscal effect is expected to be minimal, and savings are not guaranteed because no one knows how many measures would be kept off the ballot. 3

The case against

The strongest objection is that the 8% threshold could restrict citizen lawmaking by favoring organized campaigns over smaller or less well-funded groups. Signature drives depend on money, staff, infrastructure and the ability to mobilize volunteers. Raising the requirement substantially could screen out proposals because their supporters lack those resources, rather than because the proposals have little public support. Petition campaigns can also give people opportunities to organize and participate in civic life, so fewer qualifying campaigns could mean less engagement as well as fewer ballot questions. 4

That concern raises a related, though less certain, risk: organized money could become more influential. Established groups with paid staff, advertising budgets and petition networks may be better positioned to meet the new threshold. Research supports the idea that resources affect signature collection and that organized communications can shape initiative campaigns. It does not, however, show that Proposition D would definitely give wealthy sponsors a larger or decisive role in San Francisco. 5

The measure would also remove two unilateral routes to the ballot. The mayor would no longer be able to place an ordinance before voters directly, and four or more supervisors could not do so without a Board vote. A majority of the Board could still approve a measure, but removing these alternatives could make it harder to put an issue before voters when the Board majority is unwilling to act. The same change that may reduce low-consensus measures could also remove institutional checks on legislative inaction. 6

Proposition D would let proponents withdraw a measure before the relevant submission deadline, which could keep outdated or defective proposals off the ballot. But withdrawals could give sponsors more control and create additional work for election officials. Signature validation and other administrative tasks could also offset some of the expected savings.