San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Police Staffing Charter Amendment (November 2020)
| San Francisco Proposition E | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Local law enforcement and Local charter amendments | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Referral | Origin Lawmakers |
San Francisco Proposition E was on the ballot as a referral in San Francisco on November 3, 2020. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the city charter to remove the mandatory police staffing level, to require the police department to submit a report and recommendation for police staffing levels every two years to the police commission, and to require the commission to consider the report when approving the department's budget. |
A "no" vote opposed this measure to amend the city charter to remove the mandatory police staffing level, thereby maintaining the requirement enacted by Proposition D (1994) of having at least 1,971 full-time police officers on staff. |
A simple majority was required for the approval of Proposition E.
Election results
|
San Francisco Proposition E |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
299,528 | 71.35% | ||
| No | 120,246 | 28.65% | ||
Measure design
The amendment would remove the mandatory police staffing level passed in 1994 with approval of Proposition D that required at least 1,971 full-time police officers on staff. It would require that the police department to submit a report and recommendation for police staffing levels. The report must include overall staffing levels, workload, public service objectives, and any other relevant information. Every two years the police commission must adopt a policy for the chief of police to use to guide staffing levels. The amendment would also require the police commission to hold a public hearing on the report and consider the report in the review of the police department's proposed budget.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question was as follows:[1]
| “ | Shall the City amend the Charter to remove the requirement that the San Francisco Police Department maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn police officers and replace the requirement with regular evaluations of police staffing levels?[2] | ” |
Ballot simplification digest
The following summary of the measure was prepared by the office of the Ballot Simplification Committee:
| “ | The Way It Is Now: In 1994, San Francisco voters approved a change to the City Charter (Charter) that requires the San Francisco Police Department (Police Department):
• To have at least 1,971 full-duty sworn police officers; and • To maintain a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers for neighborhood policing and patrol. Among its duties, the San Francisco Police Commission (Police Commission) oversees the budget and staffing of the Police Department. The Proposal: Proposition E is a Charter amendment that would remove the requirements that the Police Department maintain a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers and a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers for neighborhood policing and patrol and replace them with regular evaluations of police staffing levels. Under Proposition E, the Chief of Police would provide a report to the Police Commission that evaluates the current number of full-duty sworn police officers and the number of officers recommended in the future. The Police Commission would hold a public hearing on the report. A 'YES' Vote Means: If you vote 'yes,' you want to remove the City Charter requirement that the San Francisco Police Department maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn police officers and replace the requirement with regular evaluations of police staffing levels. A NO' Vote Means: If you vote 'no,' you do not want to make these changes.[2] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
- San Francisco Board of Supervisors[1]
- San Francisco Democratic Party[1]
- Libertarian Party of San Francisco[1]
- Democratic Socialist of America San Francisco Justice Committee[1]
- League Of Women Voters Of San Francisco[3]
- San Francisco Women's Political Committee[3]
- SEIU Local 1021[3]
- San Francisco Labor Council[3]
Arguments
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition E were authored by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors:[1]
| “ | Vote YES on Proposition E - remove the outdated mandatory minimum police staffing requirement, and establish a regular process to set police staffing levels based on data and the needs of our communities.
In 1994, Voters approved a Charter Amendment, which required the City to maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn officers. This staffing requirement is arbitrary and does not allow flexibility to go up or down in response to data, the needs of our city, or crime rates. The establishment of this process would allow the Police Commission, with public input, to regularly assess how effective the department is in meeting the needs of communities, and to make changes to improve services. Staffing decisions deserve careful consideration. Staffing levels impact which neighborhoods have more officers than others, how quickly police are able to respond to emergency calls, how well police officers know our communities, and how accessible police services are to immigrant communities and community members with limited English proficiency. Police officers have tough jobs, and we should not depend on them to be social workers, mental health professionals, or substance use counselors. The Mayor and other leaders have announced that they are going to join the growing number of cities dispatching teams of social workers and substance use counselors to respond to calls seeking their skills and service when appropriate. The minimum staffing levels in the City Charter make this transition more difficult. Being “smart on crime” means being intentional about how we use all available resources to improve public safety. This Charter Amendment allows us to be more thoughtful and effective in keeping San Francisco safe. Join us in voting YES on Proposition E.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- San Francisco Taxpayers Association[1]
- San Francisco Republican Party[1]
- San Francisco Green Party[3]
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition E were authored by San Francisco Taxpayers Association:
| “ | VOTE NO ON E!
The Board of Supervisors in 1994 voted to place in the Charter a minimum number of mandated police officers. Unwitting voters allowed it. Requiring additional, unnecessary taxpayer expense, such legislation should've been in an ordinance, not requiring taxpayer costs to amend at an election as population changes. Vote NO on E.[2] |
” |
Media editorials
- See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements
Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Support
- San Francisco Chronicle: “Over 25 years ago, police ranks were set at 1,971 officers, a number that’s detached from financial or social reality. This measure would drop the figure, leaving city leaders to decide what staffing level makes the best sense. A hard-and-fast number shouldn’t be the rule. Let police leadership make the case for an optimum-sized force. There’s an echo of the Defund the Police movement in this measure, but it would still be up to the department and Police Commission to set the number. Vote Yes.”[4]
- San Francisco Bay Guardian: “Another obvious change that the city should have made years ago. Since 1994, the City Charter has mandated that San Francisco have 1,971 sworn police officers. That’s a random number that didn’t make sense 26 years ago and makes less sense now. SFPD handles at least 20,000 calls a year that are entirely about homeless people; a team of mental-health and social workers is much better trained to handle those calls. Overall, the national movement to defund the police is pushing away from armed law-enforcement response to nonviolent situations – and San Francisco should be in the forefront. But first we need to get rid of this pointless provision. Vote yes on E."[5]
- Bay Area Reporter: "Prop E would also remove the requirement that the city maintain the number of sworn officers dedicated to neighborhood policing and patrol at least at the level in fiscal year 1993-94. There seems to be broad agreement between the mayor and supervisors that sworn officers should not be responding to mental health calls and other activities, and therefore fewer officers would be needed. Police officers have tough jobs and they should not be deployed as social workers, as Yee wrote in the ballot argument. Prop E should be passed so that SFPD and the police commission — not some arbitrary number set in the charter — can determine the appropriate staffing levels for sworn officers. Vote YES on Prop E."[6]
Opposition
Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.
Background
George Floyd death and protests
On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis police officers arrested George Floyd, a black man, after receiving a call that he had made a purchase with a counterfeit $20 bill.[7] Floyd died after Derek Chauvin, a white officer, arrived at the scene and pressed his knee onto Floyd's neck as Floyd laid face-down on the street in handcuffs.[8] Both the Hennepin County Medical Examiner and an independent autopsy conducted by Floyd's family ruled Floyd's death as a homicide stemming from the incident.[9] The medical examiner's report, prepared by Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson, said that it was "not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process."[9]
Floyd's death was filmed and shared widely, leading to protests and demonstrations over racism, civil rights, and police use of force. The first protests took place in Minneapolis-St. Paul on May 26. A protest in Chicago organized by Chance the Rapper and Rev. Michael Pfleger took place the same day, making it the first major city outside of Minneapolis to host a protest over Floyd's death.[10]
Click here to read more about responses to the killing of and protests about George Floyd.
Related 2020 ballot measures
Ballotpedia identified 18 local police-related or law enforcement measures on the ballot for November 3, 2020, that qualified following the death of George Floyd. The local ballot measures were on the ballot in nine cities and four counties within six states. The local ballot measures concerned police practices, police oversight boards and auditors, police staffing and funding levels, recordings from police body and dashboard cameras, and other policies.
| State | Jurisdiction | Title | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | Los Angeles County | Measure J | Requires that no less than 10% of the county's general fund be appropriated to community programs and alternatives to incarceration |
|
| California | Oakland | Measure S1 | Changes the powers, duties, and staffing of the Oakland Police Commission and creates the Office of Inspector General |
|
| California | San Diego | Measure B | Replaces the Community Review Board on Police Practices with the Commission on Police Practices that would be appointed by the city council to conduct investigations and subpoena witnesses and documents related to deaths resulting from police interactions and complaints made against police officers |
|
| California | San Francisco | Proposition D | Creates the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board and the Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General |
|
| California | San Francisco | Proposition E | Removes the mandatory police staffing level from the city's charter |
|
| California | San Jose | Measure G | Authorizes the independent police auditor to review reports and records related to officer-involved shootings and uses of force |
|
| California | Sonoma County | Measure P | Makes changes to the powers and duties of the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO) | /
|
| Illinois | DuPage County | Law Enforcement Budget Advisory Referendum | Advises the county to continue to consider law enforcement and public safety as its top budgeting priority |
|
| Illinois | DuPage County | Law Enforcement Injury Risk Training Advisory Referendum | Advises the county to continue to fund and support law enforcement training methods that decrease the risk of injury to officers and suspects |
|
| Ohio | Akron | Release of Recordings from Police Body and Dashboard Cameras after Use of Force Charter Amendment | Requires recordings from police body and dashboard cameras documenting police use of force that results in death or serious injury to be released to the public |
|
| Ohio | Columbus | Issue 2 | Creates the Civilian Police Review Board to investigate alleged police misconduct, subpoena testimony and evidence during the investigations, make recommendations to the Division of Police, and appoint and manage the new position of Inspector General for the Division of Police |
|
| Oregon | Portland | Measure 26-217 | Establishes a new police oversight board in the city's charter |
|
| Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | Question 1 | Adds language to the Philadelphia City Charter calling on the police department to "eliminate the practice of unconstitutional stop and frisk, consistent with judicial precedent" |
|
| Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | Question 3 | Creates a Citizens Police Oversight Commission to replace the Police Advisory Commission |
|
| Pennsylvania | Pittsburgh | Independent Citizen Police Review Board Charter Amendment | Requires police officers to cooperate with investigations conducted by the Independent Citizen Police Review Board |
|
| Texas | Kyle | Proposition F | Amends the city charter to authorize the city council to adopt procedures and a committee to review the police department |
|
| Washington | King County | Charter Amendment 1 | Requires investigations into all police-related deaths and to provide public attorneys to represent the decedent's family in the investigation |
|
| Washington | King County | Charter Amendment 4 | Amends the county charter to authorize the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO) to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other evidence in its investigations of law enforcement personnel |
|
| Washington | King County | Charter Amendment 5 | Returns the office of the sheriff from an elected position to an appointed position that is appointed by the county executive and confirmed by the county council |
|
| Washington | King County | Charter Amendment 6 | Gives the county council the authority to specify the duties of the sheriff |
|
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a unanimous vote of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on July 21, 2020.[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 San Francisco Elections Office, "Qualified Local and District Measures," accessed October 12, 2020 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "BallotLanguage" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 California Choices, "San Francisco Ballot Endorsements," accessed October 20, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, “Editorial: San Francisco ballot recommendations cover taxes, housekeeping and social change.,” October 6, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Bay Guardian, "Endorsements Fall 2020," October 1, 2020
- ↑ Bay Area Reporter, "Editorial: Vote yes on all SF props," September 23, 2020
- ↑ Washington Post, "The death of George Floyd: What video and other records show about his final minutes," May 30, 2020
- ↑ The New York Times, "8 Minutes and 46 Seconds: How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody," May 31, 2020
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 USA Today, "Medical examiner and family-commissioned autopsy agree: George Floyd's death was a homicide," June 1, 2020
- ↑ CNN, "Protests across America after George Floyd's death," accessed June 2, 2020
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
