What does San Francisco Proposition B do?

Proposition B would change term limits for the Mayor and Board of Supervisors from consecutive to lifetime. Currently, officeholders can serve two four-year terms in a row, sit out four years, then run again with no cap. Prop B would limit both offices to two four-year terms total, whether consecutive or not.

What is the difference between current term limits and Proposition B?

Under current rules, a Supervisor or Mayor can serve two consecutive terms, wait four years, then run again indefinitely. Prop B would make the two-term limit permanent — once you have served two full terms in office, you cannot run for that office again, regardless of how much time has passed.

How does Proposition B count partial terms?

A partial term longer than two years counts as a full term under Prop B. A partial term of two years or less does not count. This means someone appointed or elected mid-term for a short period would not have that time counted against their lifetime two-term limit.

Does Proposition B apply to current officeholders?

Yes, the lifetime limits apply retroactively with a grandfathering provision. However, no current Mayor or Supervisor has served more than two terms, so this provision does not actually affect anyone currently in office. It was likely included to avoid potential legal challenges based on ex post facto principles.

Does Proposition B change how long terms last?

No. Terms remain at four years. The two-term maximum also stays the same. The only change is that the limit becomes lifetime rather than consecutive — you can no longer sit out one cycle and run again. Everything else about term length and the number of terms stays exactly as it is today.

Who put Proposition B on the ballot?

The Board of Supervisors voted 7-4 on February 3, 2026 to place Prop B on the ballot. It was sponsored by Supervisors Mahmood, Melgar, Sherrill, Dorsey, Sauter, and Wong. The measure is a Charter amendment and would have no cost to government according to the Controller's Office.

How would Proposition B affect San Francisco politics long-term?

Lifetime term limits would prevent career politicians from cycling back into the same office after sitting out a term. This could increase turnover and bring new voices to the Board of Supervisors and Mayor's office, but it also means experienced officeholders who left and want to return would be permanently barred.

Would Proposition B cost San Francisco taxpayers anything?

No. According to the Controller's Office, this measure would have no cost to government. It is a structural governance change to the City Charter that modifies term limit rules without creating any new programs, agencies, or spending obligations.

San Francisco Proposition B — Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Supervisors

Yes on Proposition B

Read the Full Voter Guide

Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Supervisors

What is it?

Proposition B would limit the Mayor and Supervisors to two terms in their lifetime.

What Prop B changes

Lifetime two-term limit, instead of two consecutive terms, for both the Mayor and Supervisors.

The current system allows for two consecutive terms, but with no lifetime cap — so a Supervisor could serve two terms, sit out for a cycle, then come back for more.

What Prop B doesn't change

Terms stay at four years.
The two-term maximum stays the same — only the lifetime vs. consecutive distinction changes.

Who does Prop B affect?

All current and former Mayors and Supervisors, including those who have already served two terms, are affected. Any Mayor or Supervisor who has already served two terms at any time in the past would not be eligible to run again.

Read the full annotated legal text →

Click to show fiscal impacts and more details

Why vote Yes?

Prop B is a tiny change that brings the legal definition of term limits in line with how people already think they work. When voters hear "two-term limit," they assume it means two terms total, not two terms in a row. Prop B just makes the written rule match the common understanding.

Whether or not it passes, not much will change about term limits. Since San Francisco adopted term limits in 1990, exactly one person has ever come back to serve nonconsecutive terms: Aaron Peskin. One person in 36 years. Everyone else has either gone on to higher office or retired from politics.

Let's be honest: Whether you vote yes or no, not much will change. It's a minor procedural update to make the law match the common understanding of term limits. We think it's better for the law to be clear and match what people already assume, but if you prefer the status quo, that's fine too.

On term limits themselves

Though term limits enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support among voters, and we think you should vote yes to make the law match the common understanding, we'd be remiss to not point out that the research on term limits is largely negative.

Research from the University of Chicago, Brookings, and studies published in the Journal of Politics finds that term limits increase polarization, shift power to lobbyists and bureaucrats, and do not measurably increase diversity among elected officials. Legislators subject to strict term limits become more reliant on special interests for policy expertise, and less responsive to constituents.

Most jurisdictions that have enacted strict term limits have ended up loosening them. Six states — Idaho, Utah, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming — repealed their legislative term limits entirely. California extended its limits from 6/8 years to 12 years total in 2012. Arkansas and Michigan did the same. At the city level, Los Angeles extended its council term limits from two terms to three in 2006, and Denver extended its limits similarly. The pattern is clear: voters approve strict limits, discover they lose experienced leaders and institutional knowledge, then roll them back.

San Francisco's current two-consecutive-term limit isn't a loophole, but it is a misunderstanding. When voters passed Proposition N in 1990, the measure specifically used the word "successive" to describe the term limit, not "lifetime." The 1995 Charter rewrite preserved this language. And in Arntz v. Superior Court, a California court treated San Francisco's consecutive structure as intentional, not an oversight. So while it's not a loophole, unless you're a lawyer you probably didn't know that two terms didn't technically mean two terms

Peskin is the only person in SF history to serve five nonconsecutive terms. But let's be clear: he didn't exploit a loophole. He followed the law, and voters re-elected him every time.

These are fair points. But they're also academic. The real-world evidence from San Francisco is that voters like the term limits, termed-out officials don't come back, and the consecutive limits are a theoretical safety valve that one person used one time.