Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Election Cycle Charter Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sponsor withdraws and tables charter proposal to move citywide offices to even-year elections

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee · June 26, 2007
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposal to shift mayor, district attorney, city attorney, sheriff and treasurer elections to even years was presented for voter consideration but met resistance in committee; the sponsor withdrew the item and asked it be tabled for further consideration.

The Rules Committee took up a first-draft charter amendment to change the election cycle for citywide offices, including mayor, sheriff, district attorney, city attorney and treasurer, to align those races with even-year elections in hopes of increasing turnout and saving money.

Sponsor Supervisor McGoldrick argued the realignment would capture a larger electorate and reduce the number of elections, describing a transitional five-year term for certain offices so terms would realign in 2012. "We would have election participation at a much greater rate," McGoldrick said while urging the committee to put the question to voters.

Rob Black of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce said the Chamber had not taken a position but noted its research showing most major U.S. metropolitan areas do not hold mayoral elections in even years; "Of those areas, only 2 actually do their mayoral on a, even year election. That's San Diego and Washington DC," he said.

Several committee members said their views had not changed since last year and that placing the mayor and district attorney races on the same ballot as other contests could dilute public focus. A member offered to forward the measure to the full board with a recommendation of "do not pass" so the full Board could debate it. Sponsor McGoldrick then withdrew the item and asked that it be tabled; the committee accepted the withdrawal.

The item was not advanced; no vote on the substance was taken today and the measure will not appear on a future agenda unless reintroduced by the sponsor.