San Francisco Mayor Seeks Expanded Executive Power on Ballot

SAN FRANCISCO (Azat TV) – Mayor Daniel Lurie and Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman have proposed three new ballot measures for the November 2026 election, seeking to significantly expand the power of San Francisco’s executive branch. The propositions, if approved by voters, would grant more authority to the mayor and city administrator, while concurrently reducing the influence of city oversight commissions and the legislative Board of Supervisors. This push for charter reform aims to address perceived bureaucratic inefficiencies and diffuse accountability within the city’s current governance structure.

In a joint letter to the city controller, Mayor Lurie and President Mandelman asserted that the existing system "locks in bureaucracy, diffuses accountability, and protects the status quo." They argue that by consolidating power within the executive branch, voters would find it easier to identify "who is accountable when services fall short." These initiatives closely mirror recommendations put forth in a November 2025 report by the think tank SPUR, which was widely seen as a precursor to such ballot propositions.

Proposed Measures to Boost Mayoral Power

One of the central measures focuses on bolstering mayoral power by shifting authority away from city commissions. This proposition would grant the mayor sole power to hire and fire most department heads, a significant change from the current system where some commissions have a say in the selection process, often by providing a list of candidates. Additionally, commissioners would transition to "at-will employment," allowing their removal by the appointing official for any reason, unlike the current requirement for a specific, legitimate cause.

The proposal also aims to give the mayor increased power to reorganize departments and remove existing prohibitions on employing deputy mayors, who could then oversee various department heads. Currently, the mayor technically serves as the direct report for nearly 50 department heads, a structure proponents argue is unwieldy and inefficient.

Reforming Ballot Access and City Administration

A second measure seeks to make it more challenging to place initiatives directly onto the city ballot. Under this proposal, a majority of the Board of Supervisors would need to support a measure for it to qualify, a rise from the current requirement of just four supervisors. The mayor would also lose the ability to place measures directly on the ballot. Furthermore, proponents of citizen-led measures would need to gather signatures from 8 percent of registered voters—approximately 40,000—up from the current 2 percent threshold.

The third proposition focuses on expanding the power of the city administrator, particularly concerning city contracts. This measure would allow the city administrator to establish city-wide contracting rules, extend their term from five to 10 years, and grant them authority to propose contracting laws, subject to mayoral or Board of Supervisors veto. It would also raise the financial threshold for contracts requiring Board of Supervisors approval and place the city administrator in charge of the city’s technology and capital projects. These proposals largely align with the initial plans shared with a 31-person Charter Reform Working Group assembled by Lurie and Mandelman in January.

Debate Over San Francisco Executive Authority

The proposed changes have ignited debate among local stakeholders. Kim Tavaglione, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, expressed skepticism during a working group meeting, stating, "I think voters are going to be very concerned with what will appear to be a consolidation of power and possible corruption come November." This sentiment highlights concerns about potential unchecked authority if the executive branch’s power expands significantly.

Conversely, supporters argue that stronger executive authority is necessary for effective governance. Steven Buss Bacio, co-founder of the political pressure group GrowSF, commented, "The correct balance of power is that if voters don’t like that executive, they vote them out in the next election." President Mandelman echoed this, suggesting the changes would align the mayor’s power with public expectations of a "strong mayor city" where the mayor functions as a CEO, a role he believes the current charter does not fully support. Mandelman expressed optimism for the measures’ passage, citing Mayor Lurie’s popularity and the public’s desire to see him succeed.

The proposal to centralize power within San Francisco’s executive branch reflects a broader national trend in municipal governance, where cities often seek to streamline decision-making processes to enhance efficiency and accountability, even as it prompts critical discussions about the balance of power between different governmental arms.