San Francisco
Prop ECity Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting
What your vote does
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Shall the City amend the Charter to give the City Administrator more authority by centralizing the City’s purchasing rules and processes, changing how the City approves purchasing rules, changing when contracts and leases require Board of Supervisors approval, and extending the City Administrator’s term?
This is the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Why it’s on the ballot now
Prop E’s own findings say more than $5 billion a year in City contracts follow rules spread across more than 100 sections of code. 8
The findings say one purchasing process costs about $25,000, many contracts take six to 12 months, and more than 14 departments can be involved in approving one contract. 8
The findings also point to repeated technology purchases, such as five separate Microsoft contracts and 14 document management systems. 8
Today, with some exceptions, the Board of Supervisors must approve contracts that cost the City $10 million or more. SPUR's paid argument for Prop E says these limits have not changed since 1996. 473
Supporters present Prop E as part of a package with Props A, D and F on this ballot. 6
The money
The Controller says Prop E would have a minimal impact on the cost of government, at a level not yet known. The Controller adds that unified purchasing may lower costs and save staff time over time, and higher approval limits may cut contract review time. Starting in 2032, the Controller would adjust these limits for inflation every five years. 43
- Amount
- Minimal; amount not determined (Controller)
- How long
- Permanent Charter change; approval limits adjusted for inflation every five years starting in 2032
- Who pays
- The Controller's opinion is that it would have a minimal impact on the cost of government, at a level not yet known. The Controller says staffing may change, but the measure does not specify staffing changes. 4
- Vote needed to pass
- Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to passSome measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.
Prop E needs a simple majority (50% plus one) of yes votes to pass. 2
Who bears the cost
City government (the General Fund)No new cost
If it passes
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: Citizen petition
Voters signed a petition to put Prop E on the ballot. It needed 53,076 valid signatures, 10% of registered voters when its petition notice was published. The Department of Elections certified it on July 23, 2026. 5
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
Prop E is backed by the moderate coalition groups GrowSF, TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF) and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and by SPUR and YIMBY Action. It is opposed by the progressive coalition groups San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club and Democratic Socialists of America, San Francisco, and by the League of Women Voters of San Francisco and Small Business Forward. Both the San Francisco Democratic Party and the San Francisco Republican Party recommend Yes. The largest donors to Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee are Michael Moritz and Christian Larsen, and no committee opposing Prop E has reported contributions. 141113121015
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | No | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Democratic Socialists of America, San Francisco | No | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | Yes | ||
| TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF) | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Chamber of Commerce | Yes | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Republican Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No | ||
| Business | |||
| Small Business Forward | No | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | Yes | ||
| League of Women Voters of San Francisco | No | ||
| YIMBY Action | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | No | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | Yes | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
- Michael Moritz$3.1M
- Christian Larsen$1.5M
Who is this?
Executive chairman and co-founder of Ripple. Larsen earlier co-founded the online mortgage lender E-Loan. 1234
What they’ve said
- Chris Larsen - Wikipedia
- SF-based crypto firm gave $5M to Trump’s controversial ballroom project | The San Francisco Standard
- Surprise, Lurie’s charter reform campaign is raking it in | The San Francisco Standard
- Lurie’s $13.5M campaign to clean up City Hall adds Newsom to its corner | The San Francisco Standard
- Official ballot question, Proposition E (en edition), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 94
- Lyna Lam$1M
Who is this?
- John Pritzker$1M
- Emerson Collective LLC(Diedra Nelson)$550K
- L. John Doerr III$500K
Who is this?
- John Wolthuis$500K
Who is this?
- Dagmar Dolby$500K
- Patrick Collison$500K
- Michael Seibel$450K
Who is this?
- The top 5 donors gave 52% of this side’s money.
- 22% came from outside San Francisco.
- 2% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $20.3K
Committees: Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee (Clean Up City Hall, Mayor Lurie's Ballot Measure Committee)
- Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee (Clean Up City Hall, Mayor Lurie's Ballot Measure Committee): includes $300,000 of 24-hour late contributions (Form 497) dated after its latest Form 460 period ended 2026-10-17.
- YES side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $20,334, mostly by: GrowSF Voter Guide $14,512; SPUR - San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Association $5,823. These are separate from, and not included in, total_raised.
- Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee (Clean Up City Hall, Mayor Lurie's Ballot Measure Committee) is a multi-measure committee (also: Yes on D, Yes on F). Its filings don't divide money by measure, so its full total and donors are shown on every measure it covers; do not add the measures' totals together.
- No opposing committee has filed campaign statements for this measure as of this refresh.
- Totals are contributions reported on Form 460 (Schedule A monetary, C non-monetary, loans) plus Form 497 late reports, from Jan 2025 or the committee's 2026 start; amended filings replace the original. Unitemized gifts under $100 are in totals but not in donor lists or geography shares. Outside-SF/CA shares use itemized gifts only.
- Source cutoff: the SF Ethics Commission data on DataSF was loaded 2026-10-27 and includes filings received through 2026-10-26. as_of is the latest filing from this measure's own committees, which can be earlier.
- Committees from the June 2, 2026 election (Props A–D on business taxes, term limits and the earthquake bond) are not counted. See pipeline/config/money_committees.yaml for each exclusion.
Sources: SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w) · SF Ethics Commission campaign finance summary totals (DataSF 9ggq-m8hp) · SF Ethics Commission campaign filers (DataSF 4c8t-ngau)
Related and competing measures
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters, including Mayor Daniel Lurie, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman and former Controller Ben Rosenfield, say the City hands out more than $5 billion in contracts each year without enough oversight. They say a single contracting process can cost more than $25,000, and basic purchases take years. They say investigators caught six department heads running contracting schemes in five years, and some went to prison. They say a professional City Administrator would set clear, transparent rules so contracts go to whoever is best for the job, not best connected. They note the Mayor or a Board majority could still reject proposed changes within 60 days. 6
Strongest case against
Larry S. Marso’s official argument against says Lurie treats checks and balances as the enemy and seeks to concentrate power through Props D, E and F. Marso says Prop E raises the contract amount that needs supervisors’ approval. Marso argues most of the Mayor’s goals could be met through regular legislation, if the Mayor led the Mayor’s party toward fiscal discipline and drove the most ideological members off the Board, and says the Mayor raised millions for paid signature gatherers to rewrite the Charter. No paid arguments opposed Prop E. Per the digest, the Board and Mayor could only approve or reject the City Administrator’s contracting laws, which pass if neither acts in 60 days; Board power over purchasing laws mainly on wages, safety, local business or labor is unchanged. 673
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Official ballot question, Proposition E (en edition), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 94
- Vote threshold for Proposition E, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 94
- Ballot Simplification Council digest of Proposition E, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 94-95
- Controller's Statement on Proposition E, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 95
- How Proposition E got on the ballot (Dept. of Elections), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 95
- Proponent's and opponent's arguments and rebuttals on Proposition E, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 96-97
- Paid arguments on Proposition E (not checked for accuracy by any official body), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 98-99
- Legal text of Proposition E, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 193-201
- Legal text of Proposition A, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 148-181
- KQED Voter Guide: Prop E (supporters and opponents listed)
- SPUR: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- League of Women Voters of San Francisco: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- YIMBY Action: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- How endorsers line up on Prop E: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-23 (compiled by this guide from SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w); data/money/sf-2026-11-e.json, main@0dcbec8)