San Francisco City Hall faces no shortage of problems. Proposition B isn’t addressing any of them, the editorial board says.

Back in 1990, San Franciscans voted to impose term limits on their supervisors by passing Proposition N. The measure dictated that supervisors could serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms in office. Prop N imposed no lifetime cap — so a supervisor could sit out for an election cycle, then come back for two more terms, and then rinse and repeat.

This system remains in effect. That is, of course, unless voters pass Proposition B in the June primary.

Get Digital Access and Stay Informed With Trusted Local News.

Get Digital Access and Stay Informed With Trusted Local News.

The measure would limit the mayor and supervisors to two lifetime terms. After eight years in each respective position, there’s no coming back.

Article continues below this ad

Since term limits were enacted in 1990, only one person would have been prevented from taking office by Prop B’s limits: former District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin.

San Francisco has no shortage of problems. Political cults of personality turning our elected offices into permanent thrones clearly isn’t one of them.

See more S.F. Chronicle on Google

So, a natural question surrounds Prop B: Why now?

The Chronicle editorial board has begun rolling out its endorsements for California’s June primary election. In the weeks to come, we will publish our assessments of all the state races, including the governor’s race, plus local races and ballot measures. To read more about how the editorial board makes its election endorsements, go here.Plus: Look out for the Chronicle’s Voter Guide to publish in early May, as ballots get mailed out across the Bay Area.

Article continues below this ad

The measure’s sponsor, supervisor Bilal Mahmood, argued in his meeting with the editorial board that he hoped to clarify “voter intent.” He noted that campaign and press coverage surrounding Prop N in 1990 framed the effort as “a two-term limit,” creating a “loophole” that needs clarification.

Vote no on S.F.’s Prop B 

He argued the proposition would align the legal definition of the city’s term limits with how people think they work. 

That’s a leap. The ballot language of the 1990 charter amendment San Franciscans voted on to impose term limits couldn’t have been clearer: 

“Shall persons be prohibited from serving more than two consecutive four-year terms on the Board of Supervisors, and be prohibited from serving as a Supervisor again until four years have elapsed …”

Moreover, an attempt to put a near-identical measure on the ballot in 2017 failed to generate the necessary public interest to qualify. 

Prop B proponents say this time is different because of the national context: 

“Our president of the United States is constantly talking about … his own third term,” said Ren Zaro Fitzgerald, campaign manager for San Franciscans for Term Limit Reform. “We can’t change that here in San Francisco, but we can give voters the opportunity to make their intention clear about how they feel about term limits (here) — which is two terms, and that’s it.”

This editorial board is as concerned as anyone with Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. But San Francisco’s charter isn’t the place for a protest statement.

As former supervisor Sean Elsbernd, president of the nonprofit policy think tank SPUR, which opposes the measure, told us: “The charter is our constitution, our governance document. We have a history of throwing things in our charter we don’t need to.”

Prop B proponents also spoke of the need to clear a runway for new candidates, specifically a new generation with new ideas and less allegiance to special interests. San Francisco State University political science professor Jason McDaniel told us Prop B would “promote regular leadership turnover, create more opportunities for new voices and neighborhoods to be represented (and) reduce the advantages of long-term incumbency.”

But San Francisco voters are already choosing new voices. In 2024, the city elected a new mayor who ousted an incumbent, along with four supervisors who’d never held office — all are in their 30s and 40s. 

Of course, a broader conversation about term limits is one worth having. Former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who served for two terms and then did so again for two terms, opposes Prop B. But he also told the Chronicle editorial board, “There are downsides with no term limits and downsides with them. It’s a choice between arrogance and ignorance. Nothing is perfect.”

Ultimately, however, Brown said that Prop B restricts democracy by banning experienced leaders from running even when voters want them.

The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.

In that vein, it’s hard not to view this measure as being explicitly directed at Peskin — who would be prevented from running for his old supervisor seat in 2028 — not at any meaningful change to governance. 

City leaders and voters should be focused on turning the political temperature down and addressing the real issues facing residents. This one feels like insider politics, not effective governance. We recommend a no vote.

Reach the Chronicle editorial board with a letter to the editor: www.sfchronicle.com/submit-your-opinion.

© San Francisco Chronicle