San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie is popular — and, if he gets his way this November, he’ll be even more powerful, too.
For months, his campaign to pass three ballot measures, which is backed by some $9 million from wealthy allies and would further centralize power at City Hall, had roused no formal objections. Until now.
A group of progressive activists and campaign consultants filed papers on Friday to form an official ballot committee called “Fair Ballot Access” to oppose one of the three charter amendments Lurie wants voters to pass in November.
The new committee opposes the Lurie measure that would increase the number of signatures needed for a citizen-led initiative to qualify for the ballot. The threshold would rise from 2 percent of registered voters (some 10,700 today) to 8 percent (about 42,000).
The measure would raise the hurdle for residents putting their own issues before voters. It would also bring San Francisco closer in line with other large California cities, which typically have much higher requirements (Oakland and San Diego are 10 percent, and Los Angeles is 15 percent).
Fair Ballot Access is the first committee to form against any of the mayor’s ballot measures, which are being heavily funded: Political donors have rallied and put in $8.6 million so far.
Of that, $2 million comes from Silicon Valley venture capitalist Michael Moritz, who previously backed the losing city charter fight that went before voters in 2024.
That year, he and the since-defunct moderate group TogetherSF (now rebranded as Blueprint for a Better San Francisco) supported Prop. D, which would have dramatically cut the number of city commissions.
The measure failed despite its backers heavily outspending its opponents, which included former Board President Aaron Peskin and former mayor London Breed: Prop. D had roughly $9 million in support vs. some $130,000 against.
But the TogetherSF measure was also tied at the hip to mayoral candidate Mark Farrell, who was backed by Moritz and who had a committee that put $2 million into the measure.
Farrell was a polarizing figure, and campaign strategists said it was his unpopularity that likely tanked the measure. This time around, the charter efforts are tied to a very popular mayor.
If approved, another of Lurie’s measures would give the mayor power to reorganize departments without a charter amendment, and effectively allow the mayor to fold and merge departments unilaterally. Another would expand the city administrator’s power over city contracts.
The ballot-access measure would also require six members of the Board of Supervisors to place measures on the ballot; currently only four are needed.
“Our contention will be, this is not about the mayor. This is about removing a right that San Francisco voters have had for a long time,” said Daniel Anderson, the leading progressive consultant for Fair Ballot Access. “I think there will be people who like the mayor but still think the measure goes too far.”
Fair Ballot Access organizers say Peskin isn’t involved, as did Peskin himself when Mission Local asked.
San Francisco is known to have had the longest ballot in the state: In 2024, city voters weighed in on 15 local measures, while Los Angeles had seven, Oakland had three and San Jose had one. Lurie touted his ballot reform measure as a way of decluttering the political fights residents must sift through on election years.
He is also, notably, moving to slash his own powers: The initiative would remove the mayor’s ability to unilaterally put measures on the ballot.
Ajai Nicole Duncan, who serves as the co-president of the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, is courting donors for the Fair Ballot Access committee. In 2024, Duncan helped lead the successful opposition, alongside Peskin, to Prop. D.
Of the three measures proposed by Lurie, “We’re specifically going against the mayor’s ballot access measure this year because we feel that one is most important,” said Duncan. “We’re trying to safeguard voting rights, and we’re up against so much money.”
Anderson — who previously worked on the campaigns of Peskin, Supervisor Jackie Fielder and supervisorial candidate Natalie Gee — said “Fair Ballot Access” would likely need a few hundred thousand dollars in order to put up a good fight. He could not yet provide details on fundraising, as the committee is just a couple of days old.
He does not see a situation of dueling heavyweights at hand.
“Of course, I would not turn down millions, but I don’t see where that’s coming from,” said Anderson. “I anticipate this committee will be a home for a pretty wide swath of the city, from neighborhood groups, community groups, Democratic clubs, and unions.”
On the Lurie side, Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen, his spouse Lyna Lam, and investor John Pritzker have given $1 million each to the committee, called “Clean Up City Hall,” backing Lurie’s measures.
Other donors include Laurene Powell Jobs’ Emerson Collective and, most recently, Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman. The campaign has also touted the endorsement of Rep. Nancy Pelosi for all three measures.
Those against the measures, said Lurie’s campaign spokesperson Max Szabo, “want the status quo — a bureaucracy that has received international ridicule for its dysfunction and absurd outcomes — while Mayor Lurie fights for historic reforms that will deliver accountability, results, and end the excuses.”
Szabo and other proponents argue that many ballot measures over the last 30 years could have been decided legislatively.
“Voters will have the opportunity to choose a system that works for city hall insiders, or a system that works for everyday San Franciscans,” Szabo said.
Chris Larsen, his spouse Lyna Lam, John Pritzker, Laurene Powell Jobs, Jeremy Stoppelman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
It’s a poor look when it’s deep pockets like that trying to limit access to ballot measures without a corresponding pursuit of limiting access to elected officials through campaign finance vehicles such as PACs. Additionally, question: Where were these people when the rules changed recently, allowing central party committees pushing massive funds towards local elections?
This likely will hurt supervisors that prefer to make resolutions that are not binding vs. actual legislation. Sounds great. It should hold supervisors more accountable as they will need to be the ones writing the new laws which is how our system is supposed to work. Representatives need to represent.
Lurie is trying to increase the number of signatures required for people to place things on the ballot. His ballot measure won’t stop people with power and money from placing things on the ballot or passing legislation, but it will make it much harder for everyday working class people to use their collective power to fight back when their voices are ignored by electeds. I hope voters are smart enough to see this for the power grab it is.
Melissa H, exactly.
I think there’s a critical difference between now and two years ago. Progressives had a competing measure in Prop E that aimed to accomplish some of the same goals. We don’t have a similar vehicle here, which worries me about the chances of opposition.
The “international ridicule” is led by folks like Mr. Szabo, who further the interests of billionaires who can’t see past their own swelling coffers. Those are the “insiders,” not the little people who vote under the burden of confusing, cash-infused campaigns.
Terms like “clean up” and “declutter” add to the confusion. Ask yourself why these profiteers are so willing to invest their precious dollars into efforts to consolidate the power of a mayor dazzled by his office. By the time they’re done, the all-powerful mayor will have little need to place measures on the ballot, so these sweeteners shouldn’t distract us from what’s going on.
Finally, in an age when social-media-driven populism fuels the impression of “likeable” candidates, why start off this article with references to Aaron Peskin? He’s been set up as a long-time bogeyman, and your readers will line up the usual likeable vs. unlikeable sides and stop paying further attention.
Please call corporate conservatives “conservative” and not “moderate.”
These are extremists.
There is NOTHING moderate about them!
Referring to them as “moderate” just caters to their deceptive rebranding.