This weekend, our Political Action/Endorsement Committee interviewed local and regional ballot measures and state propositions for the November 2026 election. Every PAC recommendation that follows is rooted in how the campaigns align with and advance SFWPC’s policy agenda – on gender-based violence, reproductive freedom, housing, childcare, and economic security. Alignment with our platform is the foundation for these recommendations.
We appreciate all the campaigns who made time to speak to us during their interviews this past weekend.
We also invite you to vote from August 10 – August 12, should you be an eligible member. If you have not received an electronic ballot via email by 8am on Tuesday August 11 and believe you are an eligible member, please contact our Membership Chair at membership@sfwpc.org.
For our thoughts, please read our statements below these PAC recommendations.
Local Measures
Measure A – SUPPORT – Charter Changes Affecting Various City Departments and Commissions
Measure B – SUPPORT – Establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and a Public Bank
Measure C – SUPPORT – Contributions to the Housing Fund
Measure D – OPPOSE – Changes to Ballot Measure Process
Measure E – OPPOSE – City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting
Measure F – OPPOSE – Changes to Executive Branch Management
Measure G – OPPOSE – Allowing Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park
Measure H – SUPPORT – Parcel Tax to Fund Public Muni Operations
Measure I – SUPPORT – Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax
Measure J – SUPPORT – Removal of Foreclosure Exemption for Real Property Transfer Tax
Regional Measures
Regional Ballot Measure – SUPPORT – Regional Transit Measure
Statewide Propositions
Prop 1 – SUPPORT – The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026
Prop 2 – SUPPORT – Save for California’s Future Act
Prop 3 – SUPPORT – Permanent High-Income Tax for Schools and Healthcare
Prop 4 – SUPPORT – California Fair Elections Act of 2026
Prop 5 – SUPPORT – Elections: recall of state officers
Prop 37 – SUPPORT – California Middle-Class Homeownership Act
Prop 38 – OPPOSE – California Immunology and Immunotherapy Bond Act of 2026
Prop 39 – OPPOSE – California Voter ID Initiative
Prop 40 – SUPPORT – California Billionaire Tax
Prop 41 – OPPOSE – Special Tax Audit Requirement
Prop 42 – OPPOSE – Retirement & Personal Savings Protection Act
Prop 43 – OPPOSE – Save Prop 13 – Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative
Prop 44 – SUPPORT – Require Community Health Clinics Spend 90% Of Revenue On Program Services. Initiative Statute
Prop 45 – OPPOSE – Modifies Environmental Review For Certain Projects
SFWPC Statements on our PAC Recommendations
Measure A – Charter Changes Affecting Various City Departments and Commissions (“Clean Up Our Charter”) – SUPPORT
SFWPC recommends a YES vote on Measure A. The proposal bundles a large set of unrelated changes into one measure, which is not our preferred way to amend the City’s Administrative Code and Charter — but the changes here are mostly (though not entirely!!) cleaning up older and irrelevant sections. The proposal went through numerous hearings and amendments to reflect department and community concerns, which is why we’re comfortable recommending a YES.
Measure B – Establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and a Public Bank – SUPPORT
SFWPC recommends a YES vote on the Charter amendment to establish the governance and structure for a public bank in San Francisco. To be clear, this measure doesn’t create a public bank outright, it builds the framework should funding be allocated in the future. A San Francisco public bank would keep funds local, reinvesting in public infrastructure — affordable housing, climate-resilient infrastructure, health infrastructure — instead of paying out to shareholders. Given the scale of challenges facing San Francisco, we see a public bank as a valuable future asset and recommend a YES vote on this amendment.
Measure D, E, F – Package of 3 “Clean Up City Hall” measures – OPPOSE
SFWPC recommends a NO vote on all three measures in the “Clean Up City Hall” package. We recognize that our City Charter can be improved, but not at the expense of transparency, public participation, and checks on government power. These measures do not strike the right balance.
Measure D raises the signature requirement for citizen initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters. That would make it significantly harder and more expensive for community groups — especially those representing women, people of color, and low-wage and working-class families — to bring initiatives to the ballot, while well-funded interests retain the ability to do so. Raising the barrier to direct democracy isn’t equitable; we see it as handing an outsized voice to the wealthiest.
Measure E raises the Board of Supervisors’ contract approval threshold from $10 million to $25 million, reducing public oversight of major financial decisions that affect San Franciscans and the City’s finances. That higher threshold makes it easier to slip controversial projects through with less scrutiny and severely limit transparency and accountability for the City.
Measure F expands the Mayor’s authority to hire and fire department heads without cause, strips the Board of Supervisors of input on eliminating or merging departments. The Mayor could dismiss Board members, Commissioners, and other appointees without cause or consultation from their appointing bodies. These changes could result in more leadership roles across the City becoming political pawns. We are concerned these changes concentrate too much authority in one office and undermine the checks and balances that protect us against abuses of power.
Measure J – Removal of Foreclosure Exemption for Real Property Transfer Tax – SUPPORT
SFWPC recommends a YES vote on Measure J. Proponents estimate it will generate up to $200 million in revenue over the next three years by eliminating the foreclosure exemption from the transfer tax for commercial, industrial, and large residential properties. The exemption stays in place for single-family homes, condominiums, and residential properties with fewer than five units.
San Francisco faces substantial future deficits and difficult choices ahead on both revenue and spending. Measure J is a reasonable revenue solution that gets us part of the way there, giving the City more flexibility to maintain the services that are core to SFWPC’s mission and values.
Measure G – Allowing Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park – OPPOSE
SFWPC recommends a NO vote on reopening the Great Highway to cars, consistent with our position in November 2024 supporting Prop K, which permanently closed the road to vehicles. No new evidence has emerged to justify asking San Francisco voters to revisit a decision they made less than two years ago.
The latest SFMTA data doesn’t support claims that the closure has created a broad traffic crisis in the Sunset. While traffic has increased on some corridors, traffic remains below pre-COVID levels overall. Reopening the road would cost $10.75 million in public spending, per estimates from SF Rec & Park and SFMTA, against less than $1 million spent on park improvements and maintenance to date. Measure G commits the City to an expensive reversal without demonstrating that the benefits outweigh the costs. San Franciscans already made their choice for the Great Highway’s future — we see no compelling reason to ask them to undo it now.
Regional Transit Measure and Local Measure H Parcel Tax to Fund Public Muni Operations (“Stronger MUNI for All”) – SUPPORT
SFWPC recommends a YES vote on both the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) and Measure H (Stronger MUNI for All). Public transit in San Francisco is at risk. Post-COVID, transit agencies have absorbed cuts of over $1 billion, and efficiency measures alone will not close that gap.
These two measures work together. The RTM is a 5-county sales tax — 1% in San Francisco, 0.5% in the other counties — for 14 years. Measure H is a progressive parcel tax for 15 years. Neither measure alone sustains current transit levels; advocates for the RTM should also support Measure H.
While voters may be concerned about additional fees, SFWPC PAC feels these are modest in comparison to the wide cuts that may be devastating to our communities that rely on public transit as their primary means of getting to and from, or rely on less congested roadways to drive on. The parcel tax starts at $129 for most single-family homes, with exceptions for seniors and pass-through considerations for renters. San Francisco’s sales tax is currently lower than other Bay Area counties, which is why our share of the RTM is higher.
Cuts to MUNI and our Bay Area transit systems will mean a disproportionate impact on working families, single moms, and older adults who rely on our systems for their lives and livelihoods. While there were many proposals put forth over the last few years to find a way to continue vital transit funding, this is the measure that finally won enough support to pass through the legislature and get put on the ballot.
Conversations about what happens after these measures sunset in 15 years will need to continue, but this buys the time to have them without facing further cuts now, so SFWPC PAC recommends YES on both measures.
Prop 37 – California Middle-Class Homeownership Act – SUPPORT
SFWPC recommends a YES vote, with reservations, on Prop 37, and we’re calling for close oversight of implementation should voters approve it.
Prop 37 purports to address the “missing middle” in purchasing housing— working families who earn too much for existing housing aid but still can’t save a traditional down payment. It would let the state sell up to $25 billion in bonds to loan qualifying buyers, who earn up to 200% of local median income, up to 17% of a new home’s price — cutting the required down payment from 20% to 3%. The loan is repaid monthly, like a second house payment, and applies only to new construction with no previous owner.
In San Francisco, where median income for a family of four is about $200,800, that cutoff lands near $400,000, which could really help “missing middle” class buyers who still can’t afford to buy a home with today’s astronomical prices. These newly-built homes must fall under a price cap of roughly $1 million to $1.5 million depending on the county; San Francisco’s median home price is currently $1.7 million. On a comparatively “modest” $1 million home, that’s a $30,000 down payment instead of $170,000, at no cost to taxpayers. It may also nudge builders toward smaller starter homes, which San Francisco badly needs.
Our reservations, however, are that new construction often carries HOA fees, special taxes, and pricier insurance that may offset the savings of Prop 37. Restricting aid to new-only homes could push building outward onto open land instead of adding density where we need it. We’re also concerned that Prop 37’s author, former State Senator Bob Hertzberg, was hired this year to help speed approval of California Forever — a new city planned on Solano County farmland that would absolutely benefit from this measure.
On balance, the potential benefits outweigh the risks, as Prop 37 raises no taxes and risks no public funds. At worst, it underdelivers. We recommend a YES vote, with reservations, and call for close oversight of implementation should voters approve it this November.
Prop 38 – California Immunology and Immunotherapy Bond Act of 2026 – OPPOSE
SFWPC recommends a NO vote on Prop 38. We strongly support investment in immunology and immunotherapy research, particularly because diseases like cancer and autoimmune disorders disproportionately affect women. However, Prop 38 is not the right way to advance that goal.
The measure commits the state to billions of dollars in long-term debt at a time when California faces mounting budget pressure and difficult choices about essential public services. It’s written narrowly enough that only one research center stands to benefit, and the measure’s main backer is affiliated with that organization. California should keep supporting research, but taxpayer money should move through a transparent, accountable process, not a narrowly tailored proposal built around a single beneficiary.
Prop 39 – California Voter ID Initiative – OPPOSE
SFWPC recommends a NO vote on Prop 39.
This is a poorly veiled attempt to advance conservative and MAGA priorities in California, one that would disenfranchise young people, communities of color, people without driver’s licenses, people with disabilities, and senior citizens. It imposes burdensome new requirements to “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist — numerous systems already verify eligibility at registration, and California’s elections are already among the most secure and trusted in the country, with mandatory audits for every election.
Props 40, 41, 42 — Billionaire Tax and Sabotage Measures
These three measures are on the ballot together and directly affect each other: whichever draws the most votes can invalidate the other two. A YES on Prop 40 only holds if Prop 41 and Prop 42 both fail. SFWPC recommends a YES vote on Proposition 40 and NO votes on Proposition 41 and 42.
For Prop 40, the Billionaire Tax, SFWPC PAC recommends a YES vote. It applies a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of the state’s roughly 200 billionaires, raising an estimated $100 billion over five years for healthcare, food assistance, and education. Congress has cut tens of billions from Medi-Cal, and those cuts disproportionately affect women, who rely more heavily on Medicaid for reproductive health, maternity care, and long-term care, and who make up the majority of both Medi-Cal enrollees and the workforce that depends on it. The revenue from Prop 40 would help backfill these losses, directly funding the healthcare, food assistance, and education programs women and their families depend on the most.
Proposition 41, Special Tax Audits, is bad policy under the guise of good governance. SFWPC recommends a NO vote on Prop 41. It’s framed as accountability, but its real function is procedural sabotage. If it draws more votes than Prop 40, it will invalidate the billionaire tax outright, and with it, the funding stream meant to backfill Medi-Cal cuts that impact women most. Layering new audits and pending mandates onto future special taxes is not a neutral measure. It is a tool build by a billionaire-backed campaign meant to make it harder to tax billionaires, which could provide much-needed funding for the healthcare and family-support programs that women rely on the most.
Prop 42, “Gann Limit Exemption Ban”, is similar to Prop 41, as it is a sabotage strategy designed to fight against Prop 40. SFWPC PAC recommends a NO vote on Prop 42. By barring any new voter-approved special tax revenue from being excluded from the state’s spending cap, it would force future revenue measures like Prop 40 to compete against the Gann Limit for the entire budget, gutting their practical value. That includes crowding out the healthcare, food assistance, and education dollars Prop 40 is designed to protect for the women and families losing ground to federal Medicaid cuts. It’s a constitutional change engineered to reduce the impact of progressive taxation, not to protect. This is a sabotage strategy tied to a technical limit established in 1979, that would not apply to past voter-approved revenue measures.
Prop 45 – Modifies Environmental Review For Certain Projects – OPPOSE
SFWPC recommends a NO vote on Prop 45. California needs to build more affordable housing, but Prop 45 uses housing as cover to weaken environmental protections across a much broader range of infrastructure projects. Supporters claim these CEQA changes will drive a construction boom, but that’s a false promise. Our housing challenges are shaped by construction costs, climate change, natural disasters, and more, and weakening CEQA won’t fix them.
Moreover, we are concerned about the measure’s broad scope, which could potentially be used in the future to extend beyond housing to include policing facilities and potentially data centers. While supporters of the policy say this is not possible through current law, we are concerned about giving well-funded corporate interests an easier path to build commercial projects like data centers, while making it harder for communities to challenge them. The promise of more housing shouldn’t be a vehicle to roll back community and environmental safeguards that make our neighborhoods more vulnerable to polluting commercial projects.
Leave a Reply