Chronicle board rejects Prop B, calls term-limit measure insider politics

San Francisco voters are being asked to decide whether term limits should mean two terms total, ever, for the mayor and supervisors, or only two terms in a row. Prop B would rewrite the city charter so officeholders could no longer leave City Hall for four years and then come back for another run.

The measure is on the June 2, 2026 ballot as a qualified charter amendment, and it would change Charter Sections 2.101 and 3.101. Under the proposed language, anyone who has already served two successive four-year terms, or who has already served two terms at any point under the new lifetime rule, would be barred from running again. Current officeholders could still finish their terms even if they would otherwise be caught by the new limit.

That is the practical change voters need to understand. Prop B does not redraw districts, cut taxes or change the city budget process. It changes who gets to keep coming back to power in San Francisco, and it does so by closing the door on nonconsecutive comebacks that have been legal since the city adopted term limits in 1990.

Supporters have sold the measure as a cleanup fix, a way to create real term limits. But the Chronicle editorial board rejected that pitch and said the measure feels like insider politics rather than meaningful governance reform. The argument lands especially hard in a city where ballot measures often arrive wrapped in process language but carry obvious political consequences.

The clearest example is Aaron Peskin, the only San Francisco politician who has ever returned to serve nonconsecutive terms since the city adopted term limits, according to GrowSF. If Prop B passes, that path would be closed for future candidates. The people most directly affected would not be the current officeholders finishing their terms, but the next generation of politicians who might otherwise step away and come back later with a fresh coalition.

The money behind the campaign shows who is already lined up on each side. As of April 17, the pro-Prop B committee, Term Limits Now - Yes on B!, had raised about $112,000, while the opposition committee, No Lifetime Ban, had raised about $2,500. Top disclosed supporters of the yes campaign included Michael Moritz, Jerome Guillen, Leah Culver, Nicholas Josefowitz, the San Francisco Apartment Association Political Action Committee and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco. The campaign site also listed Chris Larsen, Moritz and Guillen among its top funders.

SF.gov says the official ballot pamphlet already includes proponent and opponent arguments, plus rebuttals, so this is no quiet housekeeping change. It is a live fight over who gets to return to City Hall, and which San Francisco interests will have a longer grip on the city’s political future.