San Francisco
Prop FChanges to Executive Branch Management
What your vote does
A YES vote means
Unless the Board objects, the Mayor could merge most departments, not eliminating Charter duties. Allows deputy mayors, firing most department heads, removing commissioners without cause. 3
A NO vote means
The Mayor cannot move Charter departments’ duties or fire most department heads. Most Charter departments can’t have deputy mayors. Commissioners usually need cause for removal. 3
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Shall the City amend the Charter to expand the Mayor’s authority to transfer responsibilities between departments, hire deputy mayors, and hire some and fire most department heads; and to allow City officials to remove members of boards and commissions without cause?
This is the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop F fails, current City rules stay. The Mayor cannot move the duties of Charter departments, and most of them cannot have deputy mayors. A department's board or commission can usually fire its head. 3
Why it’s on the ballot now
Prop F’s own findings say San Francisco’s Charter is the longest of any major U.S. city, and most departments are written into it, so even organizational changes need voter approval. 7
The findings say the Mayor must directly supervise nearly 50 department heads in a government of more than 30,000 employees, but can hire and fire only a small share of them. 7
Prop F’s findings say that in recent cases of serious ethical lapses, the Mayor could not immediately remove department heads. Opponents say Mayors can already remove corrupt officials by showing misconduct or with a Board majority. 76
Supporters say Prop F came from a process, starting with a Charter Reform Working Group convened by Mayor Lurie and Board President Mandelman. Opponents say the Board never heard it. 6
The money
The Controller says Prop F’s effect on government costs would be minimal, at a level that cannot be determined at this time. The Controller puts the average yearly cost of each deputy mayor at about $250,000. Merger costs or savings depend on the plan. As one example, the Controller cites a 2022-23 merger that saved an estimated $3.5 million in its first year. 4
- Amount
- Minimal; exact amount not determined (Controller)
- How long
- Permanent Charter change
- Who pays
- The Controller expects only a minimal impact on the cost of government. The Controller puts the average cost of each deputy mayor at about $250,000 a year. Costs or savings from reorganizing can’t be known until a specific plan exists. 4
- Vote needed to pass
- Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to passSome measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.
Prop F needs a simple majority (50% plus one) of yes votes to pass. 2
Who bears the cost
City government (the General Fund)
If it passes
- The Controller says Prop F would have a minimal impact on the cost of government, at a level that cannot be determined at this time. The Controller puts the average cost of a deputy mayor at about $250,000 a year. 4
- The Controller says costs or savings from restructuring depend on which departments are involved. For example, the Controller’s Office estimated a 2022-23 merger saved $3.5 million in its first year and $2.5 million in its second. 4
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: Citizen petition
Voters signed a petition to put Prop F on the ballot. It needed 53,076 valid signatures, 10% of registered voters when its petition notice was published. The Department of Elections certified it on July 23, 2026. 5
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
Prop F is backed by the moderate coalition groups GrowSF, TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF) and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and by SPUR and YIMBY Action. It is opposed by the progressive coalition groups San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters and Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, and by the League of Women Voters of San Francisco and the San Francisco Women's Political Committee. Both the San Francisco Democratic Party and the San Francisco Republican Party recommend Yes. The largest donors to Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee are Michael Moritz and Christian Larsen, and no committee opposing Prop F has reported contributions. 13911101214
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | No | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | Yes | ||
| TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF) | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Chamber of Commerce | Yes | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Republican Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | Yes | ||
| League of Women Voters of San Francisco | No | ||
| YIMBY Action | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | No | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | Yes | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
- Michael Moritz$3.1M
- Christian Larsen$1.5M
Who is this?
Executive chairman and co-founder of Ripple. Larsen earlier co-founded the online mortgage lender E-Loan. 1234
What they’ve said
- Chris Larsen - Wikipedia
- SF-based crypto firm gave $5M to Trump’s controversial ballroom project | The San Francisco Standard
- Surprise, Lurie’s charter reform campaign is raking it in | The San Francisco Standard
- Lurie’s $13.5M campaign to clean up City Hall adds Newsom to its corner | The San Francisco Standard
- Official ballot question, Proposition F (en edition), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 100
- Lyna Lam$1M
Who is this?
- John Pritzker$1M
- Emerson Collective LLC(Diedra Nelson)$550K
- L. John Doerr III$500K
Who is this?
- John Wolthuis$500K
Who is this?
- Dagmar Dolby$500K
- Patrick Collison$500K
- Michael Seibel$450K
Who is this?
- The top 5 donors gave 52% of this side’s money.
- 22% came from outside San Francisco.
- 2% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $27.6K
Committees: Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee (Clean Up City Hall, Mayor Lurie's Ballot Measure Committee)
- Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee (Clean Up City Hall, Mayor Lurie's Ballot Measure Committee): includes $300,000 of 24-hour late contributions (Form 497) dated after its latest Form 460 period ended 2026-10-17.
- YES side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $27,590, mostly by: GrowSF Voter Guide $21,768; SPUR - San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Association $5,823. These are separate from, and not included in, total_raised.
- Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee (Clean Up City Hall, Mayor Lurie's Ballot Measure Committee) is a multi-measure committee (also: Yes on D, Yes on E). Its filings don't divide money by measure, so its full total and donors are shown on every measure it covers; do not add the measures' totals together.
- No opposing committee has filed campaign statements for this measure as of this refresh.
- Totals are contributions reported on Form 460 (Schedule A monetary, C non-monetary, loans) plus Form 497 late reports, from Jan 2025 or the committee's 2026 start; amended filings replace the original. Unitemized gifts under $100 are in totals but not in donor lists or geography shares. Outside-SF/CA shares use itemized gifts only.
- Source cutoff: the SF Ethics Commission data on DataSF was loaded 2026-10-27 and includes filings received through 2026-10-26. as_of is the latest filing from this measure's own committees, which can be earlier.
- Committees from the June 2, 2026 election (Props A–D on business taxes, term limits and the earthquake bond) are not counted. See pipeline/config/money_committees.yaml for each exclusion.
Sources: SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w) · SF Ethics Commission campaign finance summary totals (DataSF 9ggq-m8hp) · SF Ethics Commission campaign filers (DataSF 4c8t-ngau)
Related and competing measures
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters include Mayor Daniel Lurie, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman and former Controller Ben Rosenfield. They say departments now act as separate units, not as one coordinated government. They say the system protects insiders. They say six department heads have been indicted or investigated for corruption in the last decade. They say the Mayor can now hire and remove only a handful of department heads when self-dealing is exposed or they fail at the job. Letting the Mayor hire and remove most of them, they argue, creates clear lines of accountability. They say better-organized departments will deliver faster permits and cleaner streets. They say a Board majority can reject any reorganization. They also say the Ethics Commission and police oversight stay independent. 6
Strongest case against
Opponents include Small Business Forward, Supervisor Jackie Fielder and former Supervisor Dean Preston. They say it removes checks and balances. They say it lets the Mayor “merge and eliminate departments” and “alter departments’ core objectives,” and gives the Board only 60 days to object, without hearings. They say commissioners could be removed for any reason, and department heads fired without commission hearings. They say Mayors can already remove corrupt officials for misconduct or with a Board majority, and warn of political firings of whistleblowers. They say the Board never heard it, and wealthy tech donors paid to put Props D, E and F on the ballot. 63
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Official ballot question, Proposition F (en edition), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 100
- Vote threshold for Proposition F, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 100
- Ballot Simplification Council digest of Proposition F, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 100-101
- Controller's Statement on Proposition F, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 101
- How Proposition F got on the ballot (Dept. of Elections), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 101
- Proponent's and opponent's arguments and rebuttals on Proposition F, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 102-103
- Legal text of Proposition F, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 201-220
- Legal text of Proposition A, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 148-181
- SPUR: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- League of Women Voters of San Francisco: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- YIMBY Action: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- San Francisco Women's Political Committee: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- How endorsers line up on Prop F: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-23 (compiled by this guide from SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w); data/money/sf-2026-11-f.json, main@0dcbec8)