The language atop the 33-page legal text of Prop. A, the omnibus “good government consensus measure” on November’s ballot, contains wording that, on its face, appears to invalidate June’s term limits measure, Prop. B. This was not done on purpose.
November’s Prop. A could, according to San Francisco election attorneys and politicians, inadvertently undo the term limits imposed by the June measure and make it possible for city supervisors to, once again, serve more than two terms. The city attorney denies this.
In June, 53% of San Francisco voters approved Prop. B, which limited mayors and supervisors to two terms in their lifetimes. That altered the city’s term limits law going back to 1990, which allowed two consecutive terms for elected officials, but explicitly permitted candidates to run once more after sitting out for at least four years.
Only one supervisor ever succeeded in this endeavor — Aaron Peskin. Only a handful of elected officials even tried. Prop. B would not have applied to 99.5% of the politicians who served in the past several decades.
“This is all directed at one person in San Francisco: Aaron Peskin,” former Gov. Jerry Brown told Mission Local in May regarding Prop B, which he vehemently opposed. “People are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars because they’re worried he will support policies they don’t like.”
Page one of the lengthy legal text of November’s Prop. A contains the following passage regarding term limits for supervisors, which had been eliminated from the city charter by June’s Prop. B:
No person having served two successive four-year terms may serve as a supervisor, either by election or appointment, until at least four years after the expiration of the second successive term in office.
This caught Peskin by surprise.
“Some random person pointed it out to me and I thought, ‘Huh,’” he said. “And I went and looked at it. And they were right.”
This caught Board President Rafael Mandelman, Prop. A’s author, by surprise as well. “This,” he said, “was absolutely not my intention.”
Proposition A is the measure to eliminate redundant city commissions, reporting requirements and rules that came out of the lengthy series of task force meetings triggered by Prop. E of 2024. It is facing only token opposition.
Mandelman said the language in Prop. A describing the city’s term limits rules from 1990 to June of 2026 was included “before the passage of Prop. B. I guess nobody would’ve thought or said we needed to change this.”
SEC. 2.101. TERM OF OFFICE.
(b) No person elected or appointed as a Supervisor may serve as such for more than two successive four-year terms. Any person appointed, elected, or any combination thereof to the office of Supervisor to complete in excess of two years of a four-year term shall be deemed, for the purpose of this section, to have served one full term. No person having served two successive four-year terms may serve as a supervisor, either by election or appointment, until at least four years after the expiration of the second successive term in office. Any Supervisor who resigns with less than two full years remaining until the expiration of the term shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have served a full four-year term.
The city attorney’s office stated that November’s Prop. A would not undo June’s Prop. B. “Proposition A does not impact or make any changes to term limits,” read a statement from the office.
Mandelman, himself a former Oakland deputy city attorney, agreed, theorizing that the will of the voters from June and November would be “harmonized.”
He emphasized that he would be “very surprised” if the pending legislation undid Prop. B — “but I am not the city attorney. Or a judge.”
Peskin isn’t a lawyer or a judge either, but he’s not so certain. “Whether they did this on purpose or not, it’s there in black and white,” he said. “And voters are about to vote on it.” And, presumably, approve it.
Jim Sutton, the dean of San Francisco election attorneys, said there were “valid arguments” that Prop. A shouldn’t overturn the term limits rules of Prop. B — “but that is not automatic.”
The city, Sutton continues, “can’t just unilaterally say that what voters did in November does not matter. The city would have an obligation to go to court and hash this out in front of a judge. The presumption, the starting point, is that Prop. A of November trumps Prop. B of June.”
Two legal concepts are important, Sutton says: A subsequently adopted law trumps an earlier adopted law — “that’s not rocket science.” And “voters are presumed to read everything they are voting for. That is the starting point.”
Prop. A was introduced on May 19 and was heard in the rules committee on June 22 — three weeks after Prop. B passed in June. Amendments were introduced at that June 22 meeting.
Sutton noted that conditional language regarding the pending rule changes from June’s Prop. B could’ve been proactively placed into the nascent Prop. A.
Regardless of the outcome, it’s an awkward moment for the donors who backed Prop. B in June who also backed Prop. A — which may invalidate it. Chris Larsen contributed $200,000 to Prop. B and $100,000 to Prop. A; Michael Moritz contributed $80,000 to Prop. B and $150,000 to Prop. A.
And it’s an awkward moment for the city, too.
The official ballot argument for Prop. A pushes for its implementation because of “CONFUSING OR BADLY WORDED LAWS.”
“Lawmakers sometimes make typos and mistakes when writing legislation, leaving behind laws that are confusing or just don’t make sense,” reads the argument. “Prop. A cleans up some of the worst examples.”
That argument was signed by Mayor Daniel Lurie, Mandelman, seven other supervisors as well as the city’s state senator and two assembly members.
When Peskin was asked if, in the event he was given a new lease on elective life, he would choose to run again, he replied “It’s not on my list of things to do. But it wasn’t on my list of things to do last time.”
“Never say never.”
Additional reporting by Kelly Waldron
This is what happens when you write legislation using AI!
What a clown car of incompetence by Mandelman et al.
Fantastic news: human attention to detail still matters in the AI area.
Mahmood and the billionaires spent a half million dollars to pass prop B and then Bilal turned around and voted for the old language a month later😬
Danny Sauter voted for it too.
Ironic that the charter reform zealots created charter ambiguity and now the taxpayers have to foot the bill to sort out.
Love this for them.
Mandelman is distracted by his run for the assembly. Maybe we shouldn’t reward him with another job as a lawmaker if he can’t be bothered to pay attention to the job he’s doing now?
Not sure I am following, can anyone explain why do we need Prop A in November? If Prop. B already limits mayors and supervisors to two terms in their lifetimes in June, then why would we need the same Prop again in November. Unless it was put there on purpose to trick voters into invalidating Prop. B. I must be missing something.
Sir or madam —
Prop. A does a lot. It eliminates a host of redundant commissions, reporting rules, etc. But, right on page one is this section on term limits.
JE
Same person wrote both things I betcha,
Giving Peskin a chance to come back got noticed big time and seemed like a tactical error by a billionaire pen hire.
Then, there’s the seeming contradiction in first greatly empowering the position of Mayor back to where it was when Willie kept resignations in his drawers and ALL commissioners had to vote unanimously when told (Willie told Johnny Carson was it that he could get anything he wanted past the BOS but he had to “service them sometimes like mistresses”… first you give Lurie back that power and then on the other hand you take away his/her/mayoral bot’s greatest power which is to place items on the ballot by them/its self/ves.
Don’t get me started on pronouns.
go Niners !!
h.
The secret of Peskin’s legendary powers or yore was always just… being willing to read more. And being willing to yell at you about it.
Well, Jim Sutton …
C’mon, DOOoooowwnnn !!
Great to see you finally being lucky enough to have Jim Sutton answer your questions.
Since you’re the best, Joe, you should talk to all of the truly bright and powerful people around town.
Sometimes it could be the person driving the politico.
Sutton has been the the embodiment of man-behind-the curtain/Top Adviser/Consigliore for SF’s Swells since God wrote this scene into the Simulation billions of years ago.
Probably a slight exaggeration.
But, seriously to you and Jim, thank you for getting your valued thoughts into this Lefty territory Symposium I guess it is.
Tell me, was I right about you writing the language that would take away Daniel’s power to put things on the ballot by himself ?
And, did you do that in case he or a future Progressive Mayor might want to wind back the clock on mayoral power just as Gonzo and Aaron and Ammiano and Sandoval and Daly were able to do n their Class of 2000.
I done never heard of such a thing.
lol
go Niners !!
h.
They would have to admit that no one really read the language in full and it passed anyway. Sounds like if peskin wants to run, he should do so while they’re still figuring out what to do in the courts.