San Francisco Voters Pass Two Major Public Safety Propositions

Residents of San Francisco voted to pass Proposition E, which greatly expands the power of law enforcement in the city, and Proposition F, which will require welfare recipients in San Francisco County to undergo drug screening and receive treatment if they are to continue receiving city funds, on Tuesday, helping to continue to reverse progressive policies in the city.

Amid a high crime rate, polls showing over half of Americans finding San Francisco unsafe, rising drug usage, and a record number of overdose deaths in the city in 2023, San Francisco residents have continued to support more and more reversals of policies in the last few years to allow for public safety concerns to grow. Most notably, in June 2022, voters in the city recalled then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin over his policies that included deciding not to prosecute in many cases where public safety was involved, such as robberies. Mayor London Breed, following years of support for such progressive policies, also reversed course in recent years, vowing to hire more police and expanding law enforcement. The support continued on Tuesday with the passage of both Prop E and Prop F.

Proposition E, also known as the Limit Police Department Administrative Task Time and Increase Use of Camera and Drone Technology Initiative, was passed 59,818 votes to 40,053 votes, or 60% to 40%. It allows for the expansion of when police pursuits are acceptable, limits the amount of time officers will have on administrative duties, allows body camera footage to satisfy reporting requirements, expands the use of drones, and allows the SFPD to pass and enact more things without permission from the Board of Supervisors or the Police Commission.

Thank you to the voters for passing Prop E! This will help us build on our work to make San Francisco a safer city for all.

We are giving our @SFPD officers more tools to do their jobs and getting them out on the street to take care of our community.

— London Breed (@LondonBreed) March 6, 2024

Proposition F was passed by an even greater Margin than Prop E, 63,295 votes to 37,139 votes, or 63% to 37%. Prop F requires drug screening of individuals receiving County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) benefits for individuals suspected by the city to be using illegal substances and requiring the individual to participate in treatment programs (if the treatment program is free) to continue receiving assistance benefits. As CAAP benefits go up to $687 per month, this would be a significant amount of money for those under the program.

Thank you to the voters for passing Prop F to bring more treatment and accountability to San Francisco.

This is how we get more people the help they need and change what’s happening in our City.

— London Breed (@LondonBreed) March 6, 2024

Response to both propositions being passed was largely positive on Tuesday and Wednesday.

“It is clear that people want to see changes around public safety. What’s exciting about this for me is I get the kind of tools I need to continue the work we’re doing,” said Mayor Breed.

Joe Arellano, Mayor Breed’s spokesman, added, “Mayor Breed placed Prop F on the ballot to give San Francisco another tool to get people suffering from addiction into treatment and save lives. Prop F will create more accountability and eliminate the ‘drug tourism’ where outsiders come to San Francisco to secure government-funded benefits and buy illegal drugs.”

“San Franciscans were fed up and want more action to address crime. Our current public safety policies are outdated and make it difficult for police officers to chase suspects, even in a felony or violent misdemeanor. Prop E makes common-sense changes to City rules to get more officers on the street fighting crime. It provides police with helpful new tools such as cameras and drones and expanded power to pursue criminals. Over the last few years, the City’s policies swung too far to the left. Now, it’s time to send a message that San Francisco is closed to criminals and brazen theft will not be tolerated.”

Props E, F pass

Rachel Garcia, a pollster who covers Marin County, San Francisco County and San Mateo County, told the Globe Wednesday, “The response has been overwhelmingly positive. First off there was the vote total, showing a lot of people wanted them. But we’ve been tracking both of these props through keyword usage on social media. The general consensus amongst San Francisco voters is that the city went too far and that these will both help the city recover. They don’t like their city becoming a joke.”

“Had this been only four or five years ago, you would not have seen this level of support. Even three years ago after all the George Floyd changes. But things got that bad, with the problems being visible. Everyone in the city suddenly knew someone who had a crime committed against them. They knew the drug problem was still bad despite what the city told them because they could see them on the streets everyday.”

“Breed knew this. A lot of this happened on her watch, and she quickly reversed course the last few years. These props came at a very opportune time for her too. She’s behind in the Mayoral race right now, with a lot of voters wanting more done about drug use, homelessness, public safety, and affordable housing. Her support of these props could help convince some voters that she is really trying now.”

However, groups such as the ACLU and many on the Board of Supervisors denounced the passage of both props, saying that they hurt addicts who need the money to survive and is an unnecessary expansion of law enforcement. Others said that the support is skewed, with the large amount of money going into the passage of the props obscuring what most residents actually want in the city.

“I think that the piles of money thrown into the more conservative positions and candidate’s campaigns this year serves to obscure what the true sentiment of the SF public is right now,” said anti-Prop. F campaign manager Sara Shortt. “With such David and Goliath proportions in terms of resources, it’s impossible to know whether tides are indeed turning or if it is simply a result of massive marketing campaigns that have manufactured results.”

Garcia disputes this: “Proponents spent well less than half a million dollars on the campaign in San Francisco. The best advertisement for the passage of both propositions was just letting residents walk around and see what happened to their city. The most effective way to bring out the vote were reports by the city showing all time highs of drug overdose deaths in the city. People were fed up. That’s why they passed.”

More on how the city will begin implementing both propositions is to be released soon.