Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Limit Police Department Administrative Task Time and Increase Use of Camera and Drone Technology Initiative (March 2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
San Francisco Proposition E

Flag of California.png

Election date

March 5, 2024

Topic
Local law enforcement
Status

ApprovedApproved

Type
Initiative


San Francisco Proposition E was on the ballot as an initiative in San Francisco on March 5, 2024. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported:

  • limiting the amount of time a patrol officer may spend on administrative tasks to 20% of on-duty time; 
  • requiring written reports for use-of-force events only when a physical injury occurred or if a firearm was removed from an officer's holster; 
  • allowing body camera footage to satisfy reporting requirements; 
  • allowing use of drones along with or instead of vehicular pursuits; and
  • allowing installation of surveillance and facial recognition cameras without approval from the police commission or board of supervisors.

A "no" vote opposed changing the requirements surrounding police department administrative tasks, use-of-force reporting, and increasing use of drone and camera technology.


Election results

San Francisco Proposition E

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

120,529 54.09%
No 102,288 45.91%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition E was as follows:

Shall the City allow the Police Department to hold community meetings before the Police Commission can change policing policies, reduce recordkeeping and reporting requirements for police officers, set new policies for police officers to report use-of-force incidents and to engage in vehicle pursuits, authorize the Police Department to use drones and install public surveillance cameras without further approval, and authorize the Police Department to use new surveillance technology unless the Board of Supervisors disapproves?

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.


Support

Supporters

Officials

Political Parties

  • San Francisco Republican Party


Arguments

  • San Francisco Mayor London Breed: "Prop E gives officers 21st-century technology tools. Prop E changes city policies to allow police officers to use publicly-owned cameras and public safety drones to prevent, investigate, and solve crimes. Right now, SFPD officers are prevented from using these tools in real-time to help prevent and solve crimes like retail theft, auto theft, and car break-ins. Prop E gets more officers out on the street. Prop E eliminates duplicative reporting requirements, reducing the amount of time officers are behind a desk and getting them back on the street. In most cases, the officers can use technology like body-worn cameras to record incident information, instead of filling out excessive paperwork, which keeps officers from patrolling our streets. Prop E changes rules to get more officers pursuing criminals. Prop E changes the rules to allow officers to actively pursue suspects of felonies and violent misdemeanors, including retail theft, vehicle theft, and auto burglaries, so long as the pursuit can be done safely. Right now, our officers are restricted in the actions they can take. Prop E prevents the Police Commission from putting ideology before community safety. Prop E prevents the Police Commission from micromanaging the Chief of Police and ensures that any new policies put in place do not require more than 20% of an officer's total on-duty time spent on administrative duties. Give our police officers the TOOLS to do their jobs with 21st-century technology, and change the RULES to get more officers out on the street deterring crime and pursuing criminals."
  • San Francisco County Supervisor Catherine Stefani: "San Franciscans rightly expect that our police officers spend their time fighting crime on our streets––not filling out paperwork behind their desks. The Safer San Francisco initiative will cut needless bureaucracy to allow police to focus on what matters most, without sacrificing critical reforms. As we work to recruit and retain the best and brightest, this initiative marks a significant step toward making sure San Franciscans have the efficient and effective Police Department they deserve."
  • San Francisco County Supervisor Matt Dorsey: "This is a smart-on-crime approach that will remove needless inefficiencies and enable our police officers to do their jobs more effectively. Especially in this time of unprecedented police understaffing, San Francisco needs the flexibility to use cameras and surveillance technology to protect public safety in the same way other California counties do. This ballot measure will streamline onerous restrictions on police officers’ use of cameras, and help hold criminals and drug dealers accountable. It will make San Francisco safer and it will help save lives."


Opposition

Opponents

Political Parties

  • San Francisco Democratic Party

Organizations

  • ACLU of Northern California


Arguments

  • American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California: "Proposition E is a dangerous and misleading proposal that knocks down three pillars of police reform: oversight, accountability, and transparency. The policies it targets are hard-won, community-supported initiatives that directly address SFPD’s ongoing pattern of violence, misconduct, and discrimination against communities of color. Proposition E would let the San Francisco Police Department hide officer violence by reducing the information police collect when reporting use-of-force incidents. A review of SFPD data found that in the last quarter of 2022, the department was 25 times more likely to use force on Black people than on white people. Proposition E also dramatically increases secret surveillance by allowing the police to track and monitor San Francisco residents without safety policies, public input, or oversight to protect our rights. It eliminates guardrails and lets police use highly invasive surveillance technology – even face-scanning drones, according to the City Attorney."
  • Police Commission President Cindy Elias, Police Commission Vice President Max Carter-Oberstone, and police commissioners Kevin Benedicto and Jesus Yanez: "Vehicle pursuits can be a matter of life and death: Just this year, many innocent bystanders were killed or seriously injured by police car chases. SFPD's current vehicle pursuit policy, which was enacted 10 years ago, was drafted by the police department, and championed by then-Chief Greg Suhr. The Police Commission is already reviewing data and speaking to stakeholders-including police officers-to examine whether there are ways to increase apprehension of fleeing criminals while protecting the public from the inherent risks of high speed chases. The Mayor's poorly drafted measure, by contrast, was written without input from officers, the public, or consultation of data and it shows. It inserts vague, undefined, language that will cause confusion among officers and put the public at risk, while doing nothing to increase public safety. This issue is too important to be used as a political stepping stone for the Mayor's reelection. We urge you to vote no."


Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

The measure was placed on the ballot through an initiative petition sponsored by San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to vote in California


See also

Footnotes

  1. California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
  2. California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
  3. 3.0 3.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
  4. California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
  5. SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
  6. Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  7. California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
  8. BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
  9. Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
  10. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.