Putting Democracy Up for Sale
San Francisco voters are being swamped with ads for Mayor Lurie’s measures D, E and F. The message: we need these initiatives to stop $1.7 million toilets, help small businesses and make City Hall run more efficiently.
But Prop D has nothing to do with these goals. Instead, Prop D reduces City Hall’s accountability to voters. Prop D turns the historic ballot initiative process into an exclusive playground for the rich.
Prop D quadruples the number of signatures required to quality ballot measures. It goes from about 10,600 to about 42,500. This 42,500 number is for valid signatures. Campaigns always have invalid signatures so typically would collect at least 55,000 signatures to ensure the measure qualifies.
It’s become much harder to gather signatures in San Francisco. When I supervised a signature drive in 1992 it was easy to get people to sign. But as corporations produced ballot measures that did the opposite of what they claimed, San Franciscans became more hesitant. Grassroots groups have to pay a lot more to signature gatherers. That’s why Prop D’s quadrupling of the number of valid signatures is an initiative killer.
Prop D essentially puts democracy up for sale. It prevents the non-rich from using ballot measures to address City Hall inaction. But it keeps the door to the ballot wide open to billionaires. They can pay whatever it takes to qualify their measures (which is how Props D, E, and F got on the ballot in the first place).
As the No on D League of Women Voters puts it, “If Prop D passes only the wealthy will have access to the ballot.”
Ads Ignore What Prop D Does
Prop D has nothing to do with improving City Hall efficiency. It does nothing to help small businesses. It instead prevents groups whose concerns have been ignored or opposed at City Hall from going to the voters for support.
Turning ballot measures into an exclusive strategy for the wealthy isn’t popular. Prop D backers know this. That’s why their ads avoid talking about what Prop D does.
Instead, its all about “Cleaning Up City Hall.” Who can be against that?
The irony of claims that Prop D will help “Clean up City Hall” is that it makes City Hall politicians far less accountable to voters. Why compromise with community groups when they have no recourse to a ballot measure?
Is San Francisco Democracy for Sale?
Patrick Hoge of the SF Examiner reported last week that backers of Props D, E and F have spent $12.6 million. Hoge also reported that Prop D “would increase the cost of qualifying initiatives from $320,000 to $1.5 million, according to estimates in a new report from the Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst.” The report also found Prop D “could disproportionately constrain citizen-led campaigns and reduce the range of organizations able to qualify measures for the ballot
$1.5 million is small potatoes to those spending $12.6 million to pass D, E and F.
I’ve written many books profiling grassroots campaigns that overcame big money opposition. Big money can be defeated.
In fact, big money in San Francisco has a long history of failing to sell bad ideas to voters. That’s why Prop D, the ballot measure to eliminate commissions in San Francisco, was handily defeated in November 2024.
But Prop D backers learned from their defeat. They could disguise unpopular plans by including them in a multi-initiative campaign to “Clean Up City Hall.” Key to this strategy is having popular Mayor Lurie promoting three measures as necessary for the city’s “comeback.”
This conceals the actual impact of Prop D under a “good government” patina.
Should Prop D pass its backers will claim the voters have spoken. But does anyone believe Prop D would pass if spending were equal? Or if backers only spent $5million? Clearly backers believe that they need to spend $12.6 million or more to convince voters to limit ballot access to the wealthy.
Ballot Question Provides Hope
The Prop D ballot question specifically cites the quadrupling of signatures. This might be the first time many voters see what Prop D actually does.
This gives the No on D campaign a chance. The No on D campaign has also attracted a lot of grassroots and labor support.
Having devoted much of my life to ballot measures from 1992 to 1994, I know how impactful they can be. Prop H in 1992 cut annual rent increases by more than half. It has saved tenants billions of dollars. Prop G in 1994 revolutionized city housing code enforcement. It has improved living conditions for hundreds of thousands of tenants.
Prop D would have prevented many ballot measures that have made San Francisco a more inclusive city. It should be rejected.
