San Francisco, California, Vacancy Appointments, Proposition D (November 2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Local ballot measure elections in 2016

Proposition D: San Francisco Vacancy Appointments
San Francisco City and County Seal.png
The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
Defeatedd Defeated
Topic:
City governance
Related articles
City governance on the ballot
November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California
San Francisco County, California ballot measures
Local charter amendments on the ballot
See also
San Francisco, California

A charter amendment concerning appointments to vacancies in local offices was on the ballot for San Francisco voters in San Francisco County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of requiring the mayor to appoint a temporary replacement to fill a vacancy in city government who could not run in the replacement election, requiring a replacement election within five months, and setting deadlines for vacancy-related appointments and elections.
A no vote was a vote against this proposal, thereby leaving the mayor's appointment to fill a vacancy in office until the next regularly scheduled city election and allowing the appointee to run as a candidate in the election to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the office's term.

Election results

Proposition D
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No180,36952.43%
Yes 163,642 47.57%
Election results from San Francisco Department of Elections

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]

“

Shall the City amend the Charter to require the Mayor to make a temporary appointment to fill a vacancy in a local elected office within 28 days of the date of the vacancy; provide that the person who temporarily fills a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors cannot run in the election held to fill that vacancy for the remainder of the term; and require the City to hold an election to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors within 126 to 154 days if there is no City election scheduled, within 180 days if another election is already scheduled within that period, or more than 180 days later if requested by the Director of Elections and approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors?[2]

”

Simplification digest

The following summary of Proposition D was provided by San Francisco's Ballot Simplification Committee:[1]

“

The Way It Is Now: When a vacancy occurs in a local elected office, the Mayor must appoint a qualified person to fill the vacant office temporarily. These local elected offices are Assessor-Recorder, City Attorney, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Treasurer, and members of the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Education and the Community College Board of Trustees. The Mayor does not have a deadline for making these temporary appointments.

The City fills the vacancy for the remainder of the term of office by holding an election, which generally occurs on the date of the next scheduled City election. The person appointed by the Mayor to temporarily fill a vacancy may run in the election.

The Proposal: Proposition D is a Charter amendment that would require the Mayor to make a temporary appointment to fill any vacancy in a local elected office within 28 days of the date the office becomes vacant.

Proposition D would establish new procedures for filling a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors. The Mayor would continue to make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy until the City holds an election. The temporary appointee could not run in the election held to fill that vacancy.

The City would be required to hold an election to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors on a date determined by the following rules:

• within 126 to 154 days if there is no City election scheduled, or

• within 180 days if another election is already scheduled within that period, or

• more than 180 days later if requested by the Director of Elections and approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.

A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to amend the Charter to:

• require the Mayor to make a temporary appointment to fill a vacancy in a local elected office within 28 days of the date of the vacancy;

• provide that the person who temporarily fills a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors cannot run in the election held to fill that vacancy for the remainder of the term; and

• require the City to hold an election to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors within 126 to 154 days if there is no City election scheduled, within 180 days if another election is already scheduled within that period, or more than 180 days later if requested by the Director of Elections and approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.

A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes.[2]

”

Fiscal impact

The following fiscal impact statement about Proposition D was provided by the San Francisco Controller:[1]

“

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

Should the proposed charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would moderately increase the cost of government.

Over a typical election cycle of four years, the amendment could be expected to result in at least one additional special election for a seat on the Board of Supervisors that would not have otherwise occurred. Based on Department of Elections’ costs, there would be an estimated expense of approximately $340,000 for the City to hold a special election in a supervisorial district as triggered by the proposed amendment.[2]

”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]

Arguments in favor

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]

“

Proposition D Ensures Vacancies are Filled Promptly:

Currently, there is no deadline for the Mayor to fill vacancies in local elected offices. When the Assessor-Recorder's office became vacant in 2012, the Mayor left the office vacant for 86 days!

Prop D protects our democracy by closing this troubling loophole, ensuring vacancies are filled promptly and safeguarding against the potential for a Mayor purposefully leaving an elected office vacant.

Proposition D Ensures Voters Get to Elect Our Elected Officials:

We know of no other city or county where the Mayor unilaterally appoints members of the Board of Supervisors or City Council. This violates our democracy's principle of Separation of Powers between the executive and legislative branches.

The power of incumbency for a Mayoral-appointed Supervisor comes with valuable name recognition and access to donors that puts challengers at a daunting disadvantage. Prop D gives voters the opportunity to elect Supervisors in competitive elections without an appointed incumbent.

The last time District 4 elected a Supervisor without an incumbent running was 2006. Because the Mayor has appointed the last two District 4 Supervisors, it is likely Sunset residents will not vote in an election without an incumbent until 2022!

Because two members of the Board of Supervisors are running for the State Senate, we know there will be a vacancy on the Board in January. There is no election in 2017, so either District 6 or District 8 would have to wait 18 months before they could vote for their Supervisor! How would you feel about an appointee representing you for 18 months before you get to vote?

Let's Elect Our Elected Officials! Vote Yes on Proposition D for Democracy![2]

”

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]

Arguments against

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]

“

Proposition D is Unnecessary, Wasteful & Un-Democratic.

Proposition D sounds appealing, but it will really result in costly special elections and the installation of temporary “caretaker” Supervisors who have NO accountability to their constituents for the time they are in office.

Under the current system, when there is a Supervisor vacancy, the Mayor appoints a person to fill the vacancy until the next regularly scheduled election. If the appointed supervisor wants to continue in office, he or she must run and be elected. In recent years, mayoral appointees have been both elected by their constituents AND rejected. Voters already decide who represents them on the Board.

Under Proposition D, the Mayor will still appoint a temporary Supervisor to a vacant seat, but that temporary Supervisor will not be allowed to run to stay in that office . This means that the temporary Supervisor appointee will vote on legislation and make decisions that impact their constituents WITH NO NEED TO RESPOND TO CONSTITUENT NEEDS AND NO ABILITY TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE VOTERS.

What’s more, Proposition D WASTES VOTERS’ TIME AND MONEY by holding Special Elections to fill vacancies. In addition to requiring a temporary caretaker Supervisor, Proposition D calls for a Special Election with nothing but the Supervisor race on the ballot, which means few voters will participate, give even more power to special interests, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars. Proposition D is another wasteful, unnecessary and costly measure that won’t make City government any more responsive or effective.

Please join us, along with former Mayor and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, in opposing Proposition D.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION D![2]

”

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support: $19,500
Opposition: $2,051,542[3]

Note: Opposition contributions featured multiple ballot measure activity. Therefore, contributions were made to multiple measures on the 2016 ballot -- Propositions D,H,L & M.[4]

Support

In support of Proposition D, there was $19,500 in contributions and $2,000 in expenditures.[4]

Top donors

As of October 29, 2016, the following were the top donors in support of the measure:[4]

Donor Amount
Yerba Buena Consortium LLC $19,500

Opposition

Opposition contributions featured multiple ballot measure activity. Therefore, contributions were made to multiple measures on the 2016 ballot -- Propositions D,H,L & M. Contributions totaled $2,051,542, while expenditures totaled $1,755,992.[4]

Top donors

As of October 29, 2016, the following were the top donors in opposition:[4]

Donor Amount
Committee on Jobs Government Reform Fund $285,000
SEIU United Healthcare Workers West Political Issues Committee $250,000
Sean Parker $249,000
George M. Marcus $100,000
Diane B. Wilsey $100,000

Media editorials

Support

  • San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Prop. D is one of the more important items on the ballot, and could have a huge, lasting impact on local politics. It would end the practice of allowing the mayor to fill vacancies on the Board of Supervisors and instead give the voters that chance. It’s textbook good government: There is no other example we can find where the executive branch of government fills vacancies in the legislative branch. If a state Assembly or Senate member steps down, the governor doesn’t appoint a replacement – the voters do. If a member of Congress steps down, the president doesn’t make an appointment – the voters do. The odd San Francisco charter rules have allowed all kinds of corrupt political manipulations; at one point, when Willie Brown was mayor, six of the supervisors were his appointees. Under Prop. D, if a vacancy on the board occurs, a special election would be held within 180 days. The mayor could appoint a temporary caretaker to fill in, but that person could not run for a full term. It makes perfect sense and is long overdue. Vote yes."[5]
  • San Francisco Examiner: "If approved, Prop. D will have an immediate impact since the the [sic] District 11 state Senate race between Supervisor Jane Kim, who represents District 6, and Supervisor Scott Wiener in District 8, will leave a vacancy. Under the current rules, the mayor’s appointee to either seat would serve for a full 18 months before the next scheduled election occurs. The new supervisor should enter City Hall with the backing of their constituents, not a hand out from the mayor."[6]

Opposition

  • San Francisco Chronicle: "When a city supervisor leaves office before a four-year term ends, the mayor names a replacement who fills out the months that remain or until there’s a scheduled election. This measure would weaken the mayor’s hand by forbidding the interim supervisor from running for a full term. That means an appointee would have a mayfly life with little clout or ambition, since there’s no political future. Residents couldn’t expect much from such a placeholder. For progressives, who’ve had better luck running board candidates, it would be a definite advantage since an appointed incumbent would be out of the way. Depending on the timing, there could be a need for a special election to fill out a term. According to the city controller, that vote would cost $340,000, a needless expense for a contrived political idea. Vote NO."[7]
  • The Bay Area Reporter recommended a no vote for Proposition D.[8]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a 6-5 vote of the San Francisco board of supervisors.[1]

"Yes" votes

The following supervisors voted in favor of putting Proposition D on the ballot:[1]

"No" votes

The following supervisors voted against putting Proposition D on the ballot:[1]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco vacancy appointments Proposition D. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

San Francisco, California, Vacancy Appointments, Proposition D (November 2016) - Google News

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 San Francisco Elections Office, "San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot," accessed September 26, 2016
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ Note: Opposition contributions featured multiple ballot measure activity. Therefore, contributions were made to multiple measures on the 2016 ballot -- Propositions D,H,L & M.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 San Francisco Ethics Commission,"Campaign Finance Dashboards - June 7, 2016 and November 8, 2016 Elections - Total Contributions and Contributors," accessed October 29, 2016
  5. ↑ San Francisco Bay Guardian,"ENDORSEMENTS! The case for six progressive supes, Kim for state Senate …," accessed October 6, 2016
  6. ↑ San Francisco Examiner,"Examiner Endorsements: City measures," October 13, 2016
  7. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle,"The Chronicle recommends: Vote No on S.F. Propositions D, H, L and M," September 3, 2016
  8. ↑ The Bay Area Reporter,"B.A.R. election endorsements," accessed October 9, 2016
v • e
Local ballot measures in California
Counties
California
Analysis
Political topics
Tax measures
Flag of California
v • e
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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=San_Francisco,_California,_Vacancy_Appointments,_Proposition_D_(November_2016)&oldid=10218079"