Recall Timelines and Vacancy Appointments

Shall the City amend the Charter to further limit the period during which the voters could recall a City elected official, and when an official is recalled, to prevent the person appointed to fill that vacancy from running as a candidate to remain in that office?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: A recall allows voters to remove a local elected official before the end of the official’s term in office. To start a recall, people must collect signatures through a petition process from registered voters in the official’s jurisdiction. If the recall petition has enough valid signatures, the City holds a recall election.

Under the City Charter, no person may start a recall petition if the elected official has held office for less than six months. Under state law, no person may start a recall petition if that official’s term of office will end within six months.

If the Mayor’s position becomes vacant, the Board of Supervisors is responsible for appointing a person to fill the seat. If there is a vacancy in any other City elective office, the Mayor is responsible for appointing a qualified individual. In either situation, the person appointed to fill the vacancy may be a candidate in the following election.

The Proposal: Proposition C is a Charter amendment that would change the local recall process. Under Proposition C, a recall petition can be started only if an elected official has held office for at least 12 months. Proposition C would also prevent a recall election within 12 months of the next scheduled election for that office. For members of the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco Unified school board or San Francisco City College board of trustees, the new deadline would be based on when their seat is scheduled for an election.

Proposition C would also change the appointment process for a vacancy created by a recall. A person appointed to fill a vacancy could not be a candidate for that vacant seat in the following election. This rule would apply to all recalls, including the recall of the current District Attorney.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to change the recall process and appointment process for vacancies created by a recall.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "C"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition C:

Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would result in a moderate savings in the cost of government over time. The proposed amendment would likely decrease the number of special elections required in San Francisco in any given year.

The amendment would change the permitted timing of starting and submitting recall petitions. Recall petitions could not be started in the first 12 months of an official's term, versus the current limit of six months. Recall petitions could not be submitted that would cause an election to happen within 12 months of a regularly scheduled election for that office.

Under the proposed Charter amendment, an appointment that the Mayor makes to a vacancy created by a recall election would be an interim officer, and that officer would be prohibited from being a candidate in the following election to fill the vacancy. Similarly, if the Board of Supervisors makes an appointment to a vacancy in the office of Mayor created by a recall, that officer would be interim and would be prohibited from being a candidate in the following election.

Taken together, the amendment's provisions would likely decrease the number of special elections required and decrease the number of elective offices added to regularly scheduled elections.

How "C" Got on the Ballot

On February 15, 2022, the Board of Supervisors voted 7 to 4 to place Proposition C on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Haney, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Walton.

No: Mandelman, Melgar, Safai, Stefani.

This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition C

Proposition C would reform recalls in San Francisco to reduce costly special elections and ensure high voter turnout. Vote YES on C. Vote YES on Recall Reform.

Prop C is simple. Recall elections should not be held in the same year as a general election for that same seat.

Let’s break it down: If an official has just been elected, they deserve at least a year to do their job and fulfill their voter mandate. Recalls aren’t just a second bite at the apple for those who just lost an election.

On the other hand, San Francisco taxpayers should not be shelling out tens of millions of dollars to hold low-turnout special elections, when a general election for that seat is right around the corner.

San Francisco voters must be able to hold their elected officials accountable. Prop C does not prohibit recalls. It’s a good government measure that limits the ability of outside special interests to constantly distort and undermine our democracy.

San Francisco voters also deserve to choose who represents them. If a recall is successful, Prop C gives voters that choice by ensuring that all candidates have an equal opportunity in the next general election. Open elections mean more diverse candidates and more equitable representation in government.

Californians agree. When Governor Newsom was being recalled in 2021, costing California taxpayers over $200 million, 82% of Democrats and two thirds of all California voters supported reasonable recall reform.

It’s only June and it’s already our third election of the year. This is exhausting.

Let’s turn the page on San Francisco’s out of control recall free-for-all. Support Recall Reform. Vote YES on Prop C.

Board of Supervisors President Shamann Walton

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition C

The proponents of Prop C are Supervisors who did NOT support the recall of all three failed School Board members this year, directly at odds with the overwhelming majority of San Francisco voters.

Because they didn’t like the results, these Supervisors now want to rig the system to make it EVEN HARDER for voters to ever hold failed politicians accountable again by recalling them from office.

The proponents of Prop C use disingenuous arguments about saving money or “special interests,” ignoring the many costs to residents of keeping incompetent or corrupt politicians in office. And we profoundly disagree that the San Francisco parents – and nearly 70% of voters – who voted to recall the failed school board members this year are a “special interest.”

The Supervisors behind Prop C are pretending to solve a problem that simply does not exist. Under current law, it’s already very hard to qualify a recall election. Since 1907, just six local recall elections have ever qualified for the ballot in San Francisco. And the first successful recall in over 100 years was this year’s landslide recall of the three School Board commissioners. But it would not even have been permitted if the Supervisors behind Prop C had their way!

The recall process is our LAST protection against politicians who flagrantly ignore the will of the voters. Protect your vote and your voice. Please join parents, public education advocates and your fellow San Franciscans and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION C!

GrowSF

SF Parent Action

Autumn Looijen, Co-Leader, Recall the SF School Board*

Todd David, Chair, Concerned Parents for the Recall*

Kit Lam, public school parent

Quincy Yu, public education advocate

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition C

Protect democracy and accountability in San Francisco!

Don’t let the Supervisors change the rules to protect failed politicians like the recalled School Board members!

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION C!

This year San Francisco voters overwhelmingly recalled three members of the Board of Education because they failed to do their jobs and prioritized their personal agenda ahead of public schoolchildren. This historic grassroots victory for San Francisco parents sent a message to every politician that we will hold them accountable.

But with Proposition C, the same San Francisco Supervisors who were wrong on the school board recall now want to change the rules to make it even harder for voters to ever recall failed politicians again. If Proposition C were already law, the three failed Board of Education members would still be in office today, damaging our public schools and students. The Supervisors behind Proposition C want to prevent San Francisco voters from ever doing again what we just did!

Under Proposition C, voters would have even less time to organize a legitimate recall effort at the grassroots level. And if an elected official is recalled, their appointed replacement can never be held accountable by the voters in a future election.

At a time when democracy and fundamental voting rights are threatened at home and abroad, Proposition C is anti-democratic and even further restricts voter participation in the political process in San Francisco.

Don’t let the Board of Supervisors change the rules and rig the system to protect failed politicians from voter accountability! Please join our diverse coalition of parents, advocates and San Francisco community leaders and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION C!

GrowSF

SF Parent Action

Todd David, Chair, Concerned Parents for the Recall*

Mary Jung, former Chair, San Francisco Democratic Party*

Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

Bayard Rustin LGBT Coalition

Filipino American Democratic Club of San Francisco

Larry Mazzola, Jr., Plumbers & Pipefitters Union #38*

Mike Chen, California Democratic Party delegate

Kit Lam, public school parent

Stephanie Lehman, California Democratic Party delegate

Matt Rhoa, California Democratic Party delegate

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition C

Elections matter. The most democratic way to vote for our leaders is through regularly scheduled elections.

The opponents of Proposition C want to force low-turnout special elections that remove officials who they don’t like and replace them with political appointments. That’s not fair. That’s voter suppression.

The attempt to recall Governor Newsom cost California voters over $200 million. The current recall process has become a costly right-wing tool to create chaos and interference with good governance. Extremely wealthy donors are funding recall efforts that drive their personal agendas and distract from the task at hand.

Proposition C is common sense reform. Recalls should wait until an elected official has an opportunity to prove themselves in office. Prop C would also prevent millions of dollars in wasteful spending when a general election is around the corner. If a recall succeeds, voters would choose who represents them in the next regular election.

Vote Yes on Proposition C. It’s good for democracy.

San Francisco Labor Council

Supervisor Chan

Supervisor Peskin

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

John Avalos, SF Democratic Party member*

Keith R Baraka, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Peter Gallotta, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Anabell Ibanez, Teacher/SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Li Lovett, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Carolina Morales, SF Democratic Party member*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition C

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C

Stop Letting Billionaires Buy Our Government. Vote Yes on C for Recall Reform.

We're outraged that a handful of bitter billionaires have raised millions of dollars to buy back elections that they lost. Even the recallers themselves admit that 3 out of 4 signature gatherers were well-paid professionals, not San Franciscans.

This isn't democracy. This isn't accountability. This creates chaos.

Regular San Franciscans Agree - Yes On C is a Vote for Democracy.

Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C

Pissed Off Voters Agree: Vote HELL YES on Prop C!

Our elections aren’t for sale!

We’re pissed off that billionaires and their paid signature gatherers can get around election laws by triggering recall elections for any reason. These recalls waste our City’s time and $$$. And under current law, if any SF elected official is recalled, we don’t get to vote on their replacement. Then whoever the Mayor picks gets to run (and usually win) as an incumbent. WTF?

Prop C would disincentivize abusing these expensive one-off recall elections, stop recalls within 12 months of a scheduled election, and reduce corruption by preventing replacement appointees from running in the next election.

Republicans, real estate moguls, and political insiders should have to play by the rules.

Vote HELL YES on Prop C!

San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters

Read more:

www.TheLeagueSF.org/PropC

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: John Blue, Alexander Cotton, Cynthia Crews, Alex Lantsberg, Julian Mocine-McQueen, Samantha Murphy.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C

As elected Democratic Party leaders, we are committed to increasing voter turnout and enhancing our democracy.

Holding elected officials accountable is important, but big-money Republican donors can easily abuse the current recall process to overturn elections that were won fair and square.

Yes on C encourages high voter turnout and open elections. Vote YES on C.

John Avalos, SF Democratic Party member*

Keith R Baraka, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Peter Gallotta, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Anabell Ibanez, Teacher, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Li Lovett, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Carolina Morales, SF Democratic Party member*

Queena Chen, SF Democratic Party member*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: SF Labor Council.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C

The San Francisco Labor Council coordinates local labor unions and builds unity among working people in San Francisco. Vote Yes on C.

The hard-working people of San Francisco deserve to have an equal voice in City Hall. Unfortunately, the broken recall process has allowed well-funded special interests to undermine regularly scheduled general elections.

Prop C fixes our broken system, while giving all San Franciscans an equal voice.

Vote Yes on C. Democracy requires fair elections.

San Francisco Labor Council

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: SF Labor Council.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C

We are a group of Chinese American leaders who support the expansion of voting rights in San Francisco, including allowing immigrant families to vote in local elections.

It is critical that we keep pushing for Asian American representation, and put an end to special interests seeking to undermine our vote.

Prop C is about Fair Elections. Vote Yes on Prop C.

Connie Chan, Supervisor

Norman Yee, former Board of Supervisors President

Sandra Lee Fewer, former Supervisor

Henry Der, former Executive Director, Chinese for Affirmative Action

Frances Hsieh, IFPTE Local 21 Vice Chair*

Queena Chen, SF Democratic Party member*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Anabel Ibanez.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C

Vote Yes on C. High-turnout, regular elections lead to more diverse, equitable representation in government.

When Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official in California, he only won fair and square because there was an open election.

Vote Yes on C. Let's Reform San Francisco's broken recall process.

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Anabel Ibanez.

End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition C

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition C

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

Aaron Peskin and 6 other elected officials have proposed a "recall reform" amendment that would make it practically impossible to recall ANY elected official in San Francisco.

The recent landslide recall of three school board members --- which Siva and I led --- would not have been possible under this law.

This charter amendment is a naked power grab by politicians afraid that the people of San Francisco will hold them accountable.

Vote No on Proposition C.

Under the current law, a recall can be initiated for 3 years out of the 4 year term of an elected official.

Under the proposed amendment it's ONLY practical to initiate a recall 8 months out of a 4 year term.

If this amendment had been in place, the school board recall --- which won in a landslide with up to 76% of SF voters supporting it --- would not have been allowed. You wouldn't have been able to recall Commissioners López, Collins or Moliga despite their utter failure on the school board.

In addition, the recalled school board members could run in the November election but the newly appointed board members couldn't. This would deny our children and our school district the steady leadership they need at a time of crisis.

Recalls are a vital tool to keep our elected leaders accountable to the public they are elected to serve. They are incredibly rare (the last successful recall in SF history occurred more than 100 years ago)! The school board recall was the first San Francisco recall on the ballot in nearly 40 years.

If this amendment passes, it will severely restrict the ONLY tool we the people have to remove elected officials who fail to do their job. Don't let it pass.

Vote NO on Proposition C.

Autumn Looijen

Co-lead, Recall SF School Board

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Recall School Board Members Lopez, Collins & Moliga.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Arthur Rock, 3. Garry Tan.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION C

San Francisco adopted the recall process in 1907 as a Progressive reform mechanism to hold local politicians accountable. The importance of the recall is that it gives power to voters to remove elected officials before their term expires.

The recall mechanism was designed to be hard to trigger so that elected officials would be removed only as a result of intense voter dissatisfaction.

Since 1907, there have been only six instances in which recalls qualified for the ballot.

The first successful recall in San Francisco in over 100 years was the recent landslide recall of three school board commissioners.

The current recall process has a high bar to succeed. It is used sparingly and reflects the will of the voters of San Francisco.

The proposed charter amendment is an attempt by current elected officials to curb the power of the voters. It would, in effect, protect current and future elected officials from recall for 42 months out of a 48-month term.

Additionally, by not allowing the appointee to run for office in the next election, it would relegate the appointee to lame duck status, discouraging qualified candidates and inhibiting accountability.

Don't let the Board of Supervisors take away your vote. The recall is our last protection against politicians who flagrantly ignore the will of the people.

Vote NO on Proposition C.

Families for San Francisco

familiesforsanfrancisco.com

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Families for San Francisco.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

Protect democracy. Vote No on Proposition C.

On the same day as the historic recall vote of three School Board members, our Supervisors defied the almost 80% of San Franciscans who voted for the recall by putting Proposition C on the ballot. Proposition C restricts our democratic right to recall irresponsible elected officials and prioritizes insiders and incumbents over the voters.

Recalls are a rarely used but important part of the people's voice in a democracy. The School Board recall was the first successful San Francisco recall in 110 years. Our last attempted recall was 1983. Hardly, a recall "free-for-all." Yet, this charter amendment, introduced by Supervisor Peskin and supported by Supervisors Chan, Haney, Mar, Preston, Ronen and Walton, would shield irresponsible incumbents from recall for over half their terms of office, and would prohibit their replacement from running in the following election.

Proposition C would prolong the chaos in the District Attorney's office. We wouldn't be able to vote on the Mayor's replacement, and that replacement would not be able to run to fill out the rest of the term. If the appointee cleans up the mess left by the recalled incumbent, and the voters approve and want that appointee to continue, Proposition C takes that right away from the voters, the appointee and the mayor.

Proposition C is based on a mistrust or fear that voters do not know the difference between elected officials they want to recall and those they don't. We know the difference, and we know that taking away voting rights simply because citizens are using them, is not democracy.

Protect the people, not the politicians. Vote No on Proposition C!

John Trasviña

Marie Hurabiell, SOAR-D1

Martha Conte, D2Unite

Julie Paul, D2Unite

Paulina Fayer, activ8sf

Laurance Lee, activ8sf

Simon Timony, Advocates11

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Edwin M Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club PAC, sponsored by Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Association of Realtors.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

It should outrage every San Francisco voter that a handful of our elected officials are attempting to limit the public's ability to hold City Hall leaders accountable. This is exactly what members of the Board of Supervisors propose: to severely restrict the window of opportunity for the public to democratically undertake a recall, making it nearly unworkable, and furthermore - if a recall election does succeed - to then prohibit an individual appointed as replacement from running as a candidate in the next scheduled elections.

It literally takes tens of thousands of voters to commence a recall effort, collecting signatures to qualify a petition when a city's elected official has crossed the line and deserves to be recalled. It's extremely rare. It's a highly important option of last resort. Our California constitution guarantees recalls as part of a healthy democracy. It's as potent a solution as an impeachment, to remove egregiously incompetent, scandalous and corrupt officials.

Don't let city hall radicals push false narratives about recalls in hopes of covering up their own (or their colleagues') misdoings to avoid accountability.

Emphatically vote NO on Proposition C, restricting the timeline for recall process and prohibiting subsequent appointee's right to run as a future candidate.

Richie Greenberg, Chairman

YES on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee

RecallChesaBoudin.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

The world is acutely aware of the devastating impact our public officials have on San Francisco. It's time to create a healthy city, beginning with protecting the democratic, constitutionally-guaranteed right to recall officials who abuse their power, holding accountable those who believe they should be able to do anything they want once in office.

Aaron Peskin, city supervisor who authored Proposition C, wants to exempt himself - and his fellow bureaucrats - from repercussions when they fail and hurt our community. We do not accept this move toward despotism. Stand up to bureaucrats and vote NO.

Proposition C has dire consequences for San Franciscans who care deeply about all who live, work, and visit here. We must always have a voice in the way our city is managed. Three disgraced School Board members who've harmed our public school system were recently ousted by recall in a landslide. This is progress. Yet, dangerous, squalid, depressing scenes still play out on San Francisco's streets, a direct result of bad policy and poor leadership. Officials who are responsible need to be held accountable, and to ensure this, we need our right to recall them when proven to be especially egregious.

Now San Franciscans overwhelmingly want district attorney Chesa Boudin out of office before he does even more damage. Boudin assured voters he would produce a safer city for all. Instead, chaos and crime increased; he broke his promise with devastating results. Recalling him is the appropriate action. When his recall is successful, Mayor London Breed would appoint an interim district attorney, yet if Proposition C passes, the interim replacement won't have the ability to run in the next election.

For these reasons, Vote NO on Proposition C.

Erica Sandberg

RecallChesaBoudin.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

Vote NO on Proposition C ...

Preserve the Democratic Right of Recall.

When a politician wins election, it's not "job security" for the full term of office. Depending on the job, a politician can be censured, impeached, recalled, removed, or criminally prosecuted.

Recall is a sacred right of the voter under California law. The Board of Supervisors has exploited loopholes to strip San Franciscans of their rights.

This Charter Amendment is a diversion to neuter the Recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin. If Proposition C passes, the District Attorney's replacement —appointed by the Mayor — can't run for re-election next year. In other words, the Mayor has to hire a "temp," who won't be the most qualified person for D.A.

(San Francisco already suffers that problem.)

Proposition C, had it been in effect, would have prevented the School Board Recall of Collins, López and Moliga, because it cuts in half the months to organize and schedule a recall.

Mayor Breed's School Board appointees — Ann Hsu, Lainie Motamedi and Lisa Weissman-Ward — would also have been "temps" disqualified from running again, because Proposition C forbids this.

In fact, the Mayor wouldn't have had the appointment power! Under Proposition C, other members of the School Board would have selected replacements — including commissioners who voted with Collins, López and Moliga to end merit-based admissions to Lowell, to rename the schools, to paint over murals, to keep the schools closed.

Remember, recall organizers wanted to remove more School Board members but couldn't, because of date limitations. Proposition C makes these restrictions worse!

Also, under Proposition C, if voters ever recall a Supervisor, the Board of Supervisors would appoint the replacement.

Vote NO on Proposition C.

Larry Marso

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

It is notoriously difficult to qualify a recall proposition for the ballot in San Francisco, and most efforts never make it. But once in a great while enough San Franciscans decide they're so fed up with a politician that they sign petitions and vote to recall. That's what recall elections are about - they're a safety valve that allows the people to take power away from elected officials who abuse or misuse it. They are democracy in its purest form.

But Proposition C seeks to put a stop to that by closing the window of opportunity between the initiation and closure of a recall, which will make future recalls all but impossible. And the anti-democratic ideas don't stop there! Proposition C further seeks to keep potentially good interim office holders from running for the same office in the next election — even if they are popular with the people of San Francisco.

Proposition C, which was proposed by a member of the Board of Supervisors and backed by five more, is the Board's attempt to grab power not only from the Mayor, but from the San Francisco voting public. Don't be fooled by this naked power grab. Vote for democracy by voting NO on Proposition C.

Zach Georgopoulos

Attorney

RecallChesaBoudin.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

Voters, don't give away any more of your power. Proposition C greatly limits the window to recall an incompetent public official. Recent successful recalls have made some in government nervous. Keep politicians accountable to voters and retain your right to vote for appointees who get the job done. Vote NO.

San Francisco Republican Party

John Dennis

Chairman

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Republican Party.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

VOTE NO ON PROP C - It's Cockamamie!

Fair minded citizens banded together for the first time in almost four decades and ousted incompetent elected school board officials and seek to do the same with District Attorney Chesa Boudin for not doing his job.

Now City Hall is firing back!

Prop C is an undemocratic, unnecessary and unworthy measure deserving a NO vote.

Masquerading as good government and taxpayer issue, Supervisor Peskin is meddling with a standard set by our state's Constitution and one that has served our Charter City for 150 years.

This pure trickery, designed to keep the political class free from accountability and the power of electors - us.

Under current law, any elected official can be recalled after 6 months. Prop C doubles that time to 12 months as the time these officials are free from recall at the beginning of their terms and adds a new 18-month period during which they are also exempt!

This second "safe space" is not tied to the end of their four-year terms but to "a regularly scheduled election," which is almost always less than two years away. So, for 42 months out of their 48-month term, they are free from recall!! In other words, even in the face of massive dissatisfaction with, or misconduct by, a member of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, City College Board, or it will almost always be either "too early" or "too late" for voters to seek a recall except for a small six-month window every four years.

Prop C should be called the Political Class Protection Act - VOTE NO!

San Francisco Taxpayer's Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Quentin L. Kopp.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

VOTE NO ON PROP C

The Board of Supervisors is notorious for supporting democratic movements around the world but when San Francisco voters used their century-old constitutional authority to recall three errant School Board members, these same Supervisors banded together to stop us.

If this were done by a Southern or Republican state legislature, it would be called voter suppression.

In San Francisco, it's called the Peskin Charter Amendment or Proposition C. I call it the Incumbent Protection Act and we should all say No.

Aside from Judge Charles Weller in 1913 and Senator Edwin Grant in 1914, San Francisco voters had never recalled local public officials. And we hadn't even had a recall vote since 1983 against then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein. That is, until the School Board recall in February. The overwhelming voter response to the mis-spending and unlawful acts of the School Board (ending Lowell academic admissions; 44 schools renamed, etc.) was too much for this Board of Supervisors.

On the very same day that 75% of the voters in Supervisor Peskin's district and 81% in Supervisor Mar's district voted for the recall, these and other Supervisors placed Proposition C on the ballot to strip away at our right to recall. Organizations across the spectrum have termed the recall process a vital part of our electoral system. It ensures that public officials are held accountable. Opponents reveal their contempt for the democratic process.

Finally, Proposition C allows the recalled official to immediately run again for the same office but prohibits the replacement appointed to clean up after them from running. The replacement may or may not be better. But Proposition C takes away our right to make that choice.

Proposition C gives more protection to failed incumbents than to our voting rights.

Vote No on Proposition C!

Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.)

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Quentin L. Kopp.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition C

Please vote NO on Proposition C.

Proposition C would limit when San Francisco voters could remove local elected officials who have breached the public trust. Recalls are rarely used and there is no need to amend the Charter for this.

The power of the people to elect and recall local officials is important to our democracy. While we try to elect the best qualified candidates in local elections, sometimes officials act in ways that are not illegal, but prompt efforts to remove them from office. That's what a recall is.

There have been several recent recall elections, both local and statewide, but it's not a permanent problem requiring a radical local solution. A recall can now be started after a local official has been in office for six months, and until six months before their term ends. A three-year window during a four-year term is an effective tool to have if it becomes necessary.

Proposition C would reduce that to barely more than a year and make local elected officials more difficult to remove from office through a recall.

It would also change how vacancies are filled after a successful local recall. A fundamental power of the Mayor is to appoint people to offices and positions, including filling vacancies. It's one of the reasons we elect a Mayor, and something to consider in candidates for Mayor.

The process for local recalls and filling vacancies is fine. There's no good reason for this change.

Please vote NO on Proposition C. Thank you.

David Pilpel

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: David Pilpel.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Legal Text

Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election to be held on June 7, 2022, to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to extend the ban on the initiation of recall petitions from six to twelve months after the official has assumed office; prohibit the submission of a recall petition to the Department of Elections, if the subsequent recall election would be required to be held within twelve months of a regularly scheduled election for the office held by the official sought to be recalled; and provide that any interim officer appointed to fill a vacancy created by a recall election, held on or after June 7, 2022, may not be a candidate in the subsequent vacancy election.

The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on June 7, 2022, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County by revising Sections 13.101.5 and 14.103, to read as follows:

NOTE: Unchanged Charter text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions are ~~strike-through italics Times New Roman font~~.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Charter subsections.

SEC. 13.101.5. VACANCIES.

(a) If the office of Assessor-Recorder, City Attorney, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Treasurer, or Member of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or Governing Board of the Community College District becomes vacant because of death, resignation, ~~recall,~~ permanent disability, or the inability of the respective officer to otherwise carry out the responsibilities of the office, the Mayor shall appoint an individual qualified to fill the vacancy under this Charter and state laws.

(b) If the office of Assessor-Recorder, City Attorney, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Treasurer, or Member of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or Governing Board of the Community College District becomes vacant because of recall, the Mayor shall appoint an individual qualified to fill the vacancy under this Charter and state laws to serve as an interim officer. The interim officer shall carry out the responsibilities of the vacated office and serve until a successor is elected pursuant to subsection (e). No person appointed as an interim officer may be a candidate in the following election held to fill the vacancy. This subsection (b) shall apply to any vacancy created due to a recall election held on or after June 7, 2022.

~~(b)~~ (c) If the Office of Mayor becomes vacant because of death, resignation, ~~recall,~~ permanent disability or the inability to carry out the responsibilities of the office, the President of the Board of Supervisors shall become Acting Mayor and shall serve until the Board of Supervisors appoints a successor ~~is appointed by the Board of Supervisors~~.

(d) If the Office of Mayor becomes vacant because of recall, the President of the Board of Supervisors shall become Acting Mayor and shall serve until the Board of Supervisors appoints an interim Mayor. The interim Mayor shall carry out the responsibilities of the vacated office and serve until a successor is elected pursuant to subsection (e). No person appointed as an interim Mayor may be a candidate in the following election held to fill the vacancy.

~~(c)~~ (e) Any person filling a vacancy pursuant to subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) ~~or (b)~~ of this Section 13.101.5 shall serve until a successor is selected at the next election occurring not less than 120 days after the vacancy, at which time an election shall be held to fill the unexpired term, provided that (1) if an election for the vacated office is scheduled to occur less than one year after the vacancy, the appointee shall serve until a successor is selected at that election or (2) if an election for any seat on the same board as the vacated seat is scheduled to occur less than one year but at least 120 days after the vacancy, the appointee shall serve until a successor is selected at that election to fill the unexpired term.

~~(d)~~ If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast at an election to fill a vacated office, the two candidates receiving the most votes shall qualify to have their names placed on the ballot for a municipal runoff election at the next regular or otherwise scheduled election occurring not less than five weeks later. If an instant runoff election process is enacted for the offices enumerated in this Section, that process shall apply to any election required by this Section.

SEC. 14.103. RECALL.

(a) An elected official of the City and County, the City Administrator, the Controller, or any member of the Airports Commission, the Board of Education, the Ggoverning Bboard of the Community College District, the Ethics Commission, or the Public Utilities Commission may be recalled by the voters as provided by this Charter and by the laws of the State of California, except that:

(1) no recall petitions shall be initiated with respect to any officer who has held office for less than ~~six~~ 12 months; and

(2) no recall petition shall be submitted to the Director of Elections within 18 months before a regularly scheduled election for the office held by the elected official sought to be recalled, in order to ensure that no recall election may be held, pursuant to subsection (b), within 12 months of that regularly scheduled election.

(b) Upon certifying the sufficiency of the recall petition’s signatures, the Director of Elections shall immediately call a special municipal election on the recall, to be held not less than 105 nor more than 120 days from the date of its calling unless it is within 105 days of a general municipal or statewide election, in which event the recall election shall be consolidated with ~~shall be submitted at~~ such general municipal or statewide election.

Text-only version