November 5, 2024 Election Results (Final)

Number of Ballots Cast: 412,231

Last Update: December 3, 2024 3:05 PMXML
Voter registration total: 522,265
Voter turnout: 78.93%
Precincts that have reported in-person results: 514 of 514 (100.00%)

Ballots CountedPercentage
In-person ballots cast on Election Day58,68811.24%
Vote-by-mail ballots353,54367.69%
Total412,23178.93%
Compare turnout to previous elections


If a candidate is listed in bold, it means this candidate received the most votes.

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Ballots CountedPercentage
KAMALA D. HARRIS / TIM WALZ 323,71980.33%
DONALD J. TRUMP / JD VANCE 62,59415.53%
JILL STEIN / RUDOLPH WARE 6,8961.71%
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. / NICOLE SHANAHAN 4,2391.05%
CLAUDIA DE LA CRUZ / KARINA GARCIA 3,6450.9%
CHASE OLIVER / MIKE TER MAAT 1,8710.46%
Write-in 330.01%
PETER SONSKI / LAUREN ONAK (WRITE-IN)330.01%
Total402,997100%
Under Votes8,463
Over Votes661


UNITED STATES SENATOR (term ending January 3, 2031)

Ballots CountedPercentage
ADAM B. SCHIFF 310,93282.4%
STEVE GARVEY 66,42117.6%
Total377,353100%
Under Votes34,597
Over Votes171


UNITED STATES SENATOR (remainder of the current term ending January 3, 2025)

Ballots CountedPercentage
ADAM B. SCHIFF 307,51182.43%
STEVE GARVEY 65,54717.57%
Total373,058100%
Under Votes38,960
Over Votes103


UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 2

The legal boundaries of San Francisco, and the associated State and Federal legislative districts therein, extend slightly beyond what most voters think of when they think of the City and County of San Francisco. There two small pieces of Alameda and Angel Islands that are legally part of San Francisco County and therefore several United States Representative, State Senate, and State Assembly Districts that primarily exist in Marin and Alameda Counties also exist in San Francisco County. There are no registered voters in the areas of these islands that are legally part of San Francisco County. The San Francisco Department of Elections is required to report election results to the California Secretary of State for all contests within the legal boundaries of San Francisco County regardless of the number of registered voters eligible to participate in those contests. View more information about legislative districts in California at the California State Geoportal.
Ballots CountedPercentage
JARED HUFFMAN 00%
CHRIS COULOMBE 00%
Total00%
Under Votes0
Over Votes0


UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 11

Ballots CountedPercentage
NANCY PELOSI 274,79681.03%
BRUCE LOU 64,31518.97%
Total339,111100%
Under Votes30,043
Over Votes77


UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 12

The legal boundaries of San Francisco, and the associated State and Federal legislative districts therein, extend slightly beyond what most voters think of when they think of the City and County of San Francisco. There two small pieces of Alameda and Angel Islands that are legally part of San Francisco County and therefore several United States Representative, State Senate, and State Assembly Districts that primarily exist in Marin and Alameda Counties also exist in San Francisco County. There are no registered voters in the areas of these islands that are legally part of San Francisco County. The San Francisco Department of Elections is required to report election results to the California Secretary of State for all contests within the legal boundaries of San Francisco County regardless of the number of registered voters eligible to participate in those contests. View more information about legislative districts in California at the California State Geoportal.
Ballots CountedPercentage
JENNIFER TRAN 00%
LATEEFAH SIMON 00%
Total00%
Under Votes0
Over Votes0


UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 15

Ballots CountedPercentage
KEVIN MULLIN 25,28769.95%
ANNA CHENG KRAMER 10,86330.05%
Total36,150100%
Under Votes6,726
Over Votes14


STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 7

The legal boundaries of San Francisco, and the associated State and Federal legislative districts therein, extend slightly beyond what most voters think of when they think of the City and County of San Francisco. There two small pieces of Alameda and Angel Islands that are legally part of San Francisco County and therefore several United States Representative, State Senate, and State Assembly Districts that primarily exist in Marin and Alameda Counties also exist in San Francisco County. There are no registered voters in the areas of these islands that are legally part of San Francisco County. The San Francisco Department of Elections is required to report election results to the California Secretary of State for all contests within the legal boundaries of San Francisco County regardless of the number of registered voters eligible to participate in those contests. View more information about legislative districts in California at the California State Geoportal.
Ballots CountedPercentage
JOVANKA BECKLES 00%
JESSE ARREGUIN 00%
Total00%
Under Votes0
Over Votes0


STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 11

Ballots CountedPercentage
SCOTT WIENER 291,12378.88%
YVETTE CORKREAN 77,94421.12%
Total369,067100%
Under Votes42,947
Over Votes107


STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 12

The legal boundaries of San Francisco, and the associated State and Federal legislative districts therein, extend slightly beyond what most voters think of when they think of the City and County of San Francisco. There two small pieces of Alameda and Angel Islands that are legally part of San Francisco County and therefore several United States Representative, State Senate, and State Assembly Districts that primarily exist in Marin and Alameda Counties also exist in San Francisco County. There are no registered voters in the areas of these islands that are legally part of San Francisco County. The San Francisco Department of Elections is required to report election results to the California Secretary of State for all contests within the legal boundaries of San Francisco County regardless of the number of registered voters eligible to participate in those contests. View more information about legislative districts in California at the California State Geoportal.
Ballots CountedPercentage
DAMON CONNOLLY 00%
ANDY PODSHADLEY 00%
Total00%
Under Votes0
Over Votes0


STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 17

Ballots CountedPercentage
MATT HANEY 169,49084.58%
MANUEL NORIS-BARRERA 30,90015.42%
Total200,390100%
Under Votes26,383
Over Votes50


STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 18

The legal boundaries of San Francisco, and the associated State and Federal legislative districts therein, extend slightly beyond what most voters think of when they think of the City and County of San Francisco. There two small pieces of Alameda and Angel Islands that are legally part of San Francisco County and therefore several United States Representative, State Senate, and State Assembly Districts that primarily exist in Marin and Alameda Counties also exist in San Francisco County. There are no registered voters in the areas of these islands that are legally part of San Francisco County. The San Francisco Department of Elections is required to report election results to the California Secretary of State for all contests within the legal boundaries of San Francisco County regardless of the number of registered voters eligible to participate in those contests. View more information about legislative districts in California at the California State Geoportal.
Ballots CountedPercentage
MIA BONTA 00%
ANDRE SANDFORD 00%
Total00%
Under Votes0
Over Votes0


STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, DISTRICT 19

Ballots CountedPercentage
CATHERINE STEFANI 95,42362.64%
DAVID E. LEE 56,91337.36%
Total152,336100%
Under Votes32,860
Over Votes102


MEMBER, BOARD OF EDUCATION

Ballots CountedPercentage
JAIME HULING 168,65916.65%
PARAG GUPTA 139,34013.76%
SUPRYIA RAY 127,83412.62%
MATT ALEXANDER 122,69812.11%
JOHN JERSIN 122,45012.09%
VIRGINIA CHEUNG 101,0179.97%
ANN HSU 81,0448%
MIN CHANG 48,5504.79%
LAURANCE LEM LEE 45,7364.52%
MADDY KRANTZ 33,1653.27%
LEFTERIS ELEFTHERIOU 22,2852.2%
Write-in 00%
Total1,012,778100%
Under Votes632,530
Over Votes3,616


TRUSTEE, COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD

Ballots CountedPercentage
HEATHER McCARTY 162,47719.73%
ALIYA CHISTI 149,63818.18%
ALAN WONG 140,95117.12%
LUIS ZAMORA 117,68214.29%
RUTH FERGUSON 114,13213.86%
LEANNA C. LOUIE 50,3536.12%
BEN KAPLAN 49,3205.99%
JULIO J. RAMOS 38,7414.71%
Write-in 00%
Total823,294100%
Under Votes823,782
Over Votes1,408


BART BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DISTRICT 7

Ballots CountedPercentage
VICTOR E. FLORES 5,84459.44%
DANA LANG 3,98840.56%
Write-in 00%
Total9,832100%
Under Votes4,813
Over Votes18


BART BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DISTRICT 9

Ballots CountedPercentage
EDWARD WRIGHT 86,96663.07%
JOE SANGIRARDI 50,90536.92%
Write-in 160.01%
MICHAEL PETRELIS (WRITE-IN)160.01%
Total137,887100%
Under Votes52,961
Over Votes159


MAYOR (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 Round 14 (Last Round)
DANIEL LURIE 102,720 (26.33%) 182,364 (55.02%)
LONDON BREED 95,117 (24.38%) 149,113 (44.98%)
AARON PESKIN 89,215 (22.86%) eliminated in Round 13
MARK FARRELL 72,115 (18.48%) eliminated in Round 12
AHSHA SAFAÍ 11,425 (2.93%) eliminated in Round 11
ELLEN LEE ZHOU 8,665 (2.22%) eliminated in Round 10
DYLAN HIRSCH-SHELL 2,897 (0.74%) eliminated in Round 9
KEITH FREEDMAN 2,079 (0.53%) eliminated in Round 8
NELSON MEI 1,791 (0.46%) eliminated in Round 7
SHAHRAM SHARIATI 1,613 (0.41%) eliminated in Round 6
HENRY FLYNN 1,319 (0.34%) eliminated in Round 5
PAUL YBARRA ROBERTSON 812 (0.21%) eliminated in Round 4
JON SODERSTROM 412 (0.11%) eliminated in Round 3
MARC ROTH 3 (0.00%) eliminated in Round 2
MICHAEL LIN 1 (0.00%) eliminated in Round 1
Under votes (blanks) 18,540 18,540
Over votes 1,381 2,229


MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DISTRICT 1 (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 Round 4 (Last Round)
CONNIE CHAN 16,670 (46.99%) 17,800 (51.90%)
MARJAN PHILHOUR 14,755 (41.59%) 16,499 (48.10%)
JEN NOSSOKOFF 1,810 (5.10%) eliminated in Round 3
JEREMIAH BOEHNER 1,344 (3.79%) eliminated in Round 2
SHERMAN D'SILVA 899 (2.53%) eliminated in Round 1
Under votes (blanks) 3,732 3,732
Over votes 47 54


MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DISTRICT 3 (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 Round 5 (Last Round)
DANNY SAUTER 11,272 (39.20%) 14,056 (54.97%)
SHARON LAI 8,489 (29.52%) 11,512 (45.03%)
MOE JAMIL 3,753 (13.05%) eliminated in Round 4
MATTHEW SUSK 2,800 (9.74%) eliminated in Round 3
WENDY HA CHAU 1,565 (5.44%) eliminated in Round 2
EDUARD NAVARRO 879 (3.06%) eliminated in Round 1
Under votes (blanks) 4,838 4,838
Over votes 76 100


MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DISTRICT 5 (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 Round 4 (Last Round)
BILAL MAHMOOD 11,840 (39.87%) 14,741 (52.99%)
DEAN PRESTON 12,012 (40.45%) 13,077 (47.01%)
SCOTTY JACOBS 2,796 (9.41%) eliminated in Round 3
AUTUMN HOPE LOOIJEN 2,606 (8.78%) eliminated in Round 2
ALLEN JONES 444 (1.50%) eliminated in Round 1
Under votes (blanks) 4,628 4,628
Over votes 79 108


MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DISTRICT 7 (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 Round 3 (Last Round)
MYRNA MELGAR 17,532 (46.98%) 18,916 (53.42%)
MATT BOSCHETTO 13,407 (35.93%) 16,496 (46.58%)
STEPHEN MARTIN-PINTO 5,135 (13.76%) eliminated in Round 2
EDWARD S. YEE 1,244 (3.33%) eliminated in Round 1
Under votes (blanks) 5,502 5,502
Over votes 26 32


MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DISTRICT 9 (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 Round 6 (Last Round)
JACKIE FIELDER 13,844 (42.30%) 17,546 (59.66%)
TREVOR CHANDLER 9,042 (27.63%) 11,863 (40.34%)
ROBERTO HERNANDEZ 6,606 (20.18%) eliminated in Round 5
STEPHEN JON TORRES 1,140 (3.48%) eliminated in Round 4
JAIME GUTIERREZ 931 (2.84%) eliminated in Round 3
JULIAN BERMUDEZ 600 (1.83%) eliminated in Round 2
H. BROWN 568 (1.74%) eliminated in Round 1
Under votes (blanks) 4,220 4,220
Over votes 140 177


MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DISTRICT 11 (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 Round 6 (Last Round)
CHYANNE CHEN 8,249 (29.54%) 12,001 (50.42%)
MICHAEL LAI 8,675 (31.06%) 11,803 (49.58%)
ERNEST "EJ" JONES 5,441 (19.48%) eliminated in Round 5
OSCAR FLORES 2,896 (10.37%) eliminated in Round 4
ADLAH CHISTI 1,434 (5.13%) eliminated in Round 3
JOSE MORALES 629 (2.25%) eliminated in Round 2
ROGER K. MARENCO 604 (2.16%) eliminated in Round 1
Under votes (blanks) 4,186 4,186
Over votes 160 204


CITY ATTORNEY (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 (Last Round)
DAVID CHIU 272,857 (82.89%)
RICHARD T. WOON 56,317 (17.11%)
Under votes (blanks) 80,726
Over votes 205


DISTRICT ATTORNEY (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 (Last Round)
BROOKE JENKINS 228,999 (65.92%)
RYAN KHOJASTEH 118,375 (34.08%)
Under votes (blanks) 62,474
Over votes 257


SHERIFF (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

The “Round 1” column shows the number of votes each candidate received after applying the ranked-choice voting method. This total includes all first-choice votes and any votes advanced from later rankings if a voter did not select a first-choice candidate. This process of advancing votes is known as normalization.

The “Last Round” column shows the vote totals for the two candidates who received the most votes after applying the ranked-choice method. Candidates with the fewest votes have been eliminated, and only the votes for the remaining two candidates are listed. For detailed information, view the preliminary round-by-round results of this contest. Note that until the results are final, eliminated candidates and round-by-round results may be subject to change.

Round 1 (Last Round)
PAUL MIYAMOTO 251,096 (79.75%)
MICHAEL JUAN 63,768 (20.25%)
Under votes (blanks) 94,989
Over votes 252


TREASURER (Ranked-Choice Voting Contest)

This office is elected using ranked-choice voting. However, the Department did not apply the ranked-choice voting method to this contest since only one candidate appeared on the ballot and there were no qualified write-in candidates. The table below shows the number of first-choice votes received by the one candidate based on the total number of ballots counted.

Ballots CountedPercentage
JOSÉ CISNEROS 300,411100%
Total300,411100%
Under Votes109,691
Over Votes3


PROPOSITION 2 — AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 290,90576.07%
NO 91,50023.93%
Total382,405100%
Under Votes27,399
Over Votes89


PROPOSITION 3 — CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 327,87784.74%
NO 59,05815.26%
Total386,935100%
Under Votes22,851
Over Votes107


PROPOSITION 4 — AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 307,52280.08%
NO 76,51219.92%
Total384,034100%
Under Votes25,798
Over Votes61


PROPOSITION 5 — ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 236,11162.42%
NO 142,16537.58%
Total378,276100%
Under Votes31,537
Over Votes80


PROPOSITION 6 — ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 250,15766.87%
NO 123,92233.13%
Total374,079100%
Under Votes35,724
Over Votes90


PROPOSITION 32 — RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 271,30670.98%
NO 110,94529.02%
Total382,251100%
Under Votes27,562
Over Votes80


PROPOSITION 33 — EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
NO 217,30857.36%
YES 161,55142.64%
Total378,859100%
Under Votes30,820
Over Votes214


PROPOSITION 34 — RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
NO 191,86552.63%
YES 172,68847.37%
Total364,553100%
Under Votes45,179
Over Votes161


PROPOSITION 35 — PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 290,38478.23%
NO 80,79521.77%
Total371,179100%
Under Votes38,540
Over Votes174


PROPOSITION 36 — ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

► View the measure text
This measure required 50%+1 affirmative votes statewide to pass
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 241,91663.86%
NO 136,90236.14%
Total378,818100%
Under Votes30,984
Over Votes91


MEASURE A — Schools Improvement and Safety Bond

► View the measure text
This measure requires 55% affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
BONDS - YES 282,96875%
BONDS - NO 94,32925%
Total377,297100%
Under Votes32,146
Over Votes72


MEASURE B — Community Health and Medical Facilities, Street Safety, Public Spaces, and Shelter to Reduce Homelessness Bond

► View the measure text
This measure requires 66 2⁄3% affirmative votes to pass. However, this measure will require 55% to pass if voters also approve State Proposition 5.
Ballots CountedPercentage
BONDS - YES 274,18772.8%
BONDS - NO 102,45027.2%
Total376,637100%
Under Votes32,831
Over Votes47


MEASURE C — Inspector General

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 225,70460.94%
NO 144,66239.06%
Total370,366100%
Under Votes38,991
Over Votes158


MEASURE D — City Commissions and Mayoral Authority

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
NO 207,60456.67%
YES 158,72343.33%
Total366,327100%
Under Votes43,036
Over Votes152


MEASURE E — Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 192,54052.92%
NO 171,31447.08%
Total363,854100%
Under Votes45,520
Over Votes141


MEASURE F — Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
NO 197,83654.7%
YES 163,83545.3%
Total361,671100%
Under Votes47,715
Over Votes129


MEASURE G — Funding Rental Subsidies for Affordable Housing Developments Serving Low Income Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 217,80758.74%
NO 153,01741.26%
Total370,824100%
Under Votes38,594
Over Votes97


MEASURE H — Retirement Benefits for Firefighters

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 192,60152.63%
NO 173,34147.37%
Total365,942100%
Under Votes43,492
Over Votes81


MEASURE I — Retirement Benefits for Nurses and 911 Operators

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 261,31871.9%
NO 102,14128.1%
Total363,459100%
Under Votes45,993
Over Votes63


MEASURE J — Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth, and Families

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 297,97282.13%
NO 64,81317.87%
Total362,785100%
Under Votes46,680
Over Votes50


MEASURE K — Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 206,04254.73%
NO 170,44745.27%
Total376,489100%
Under Votes32,912
Over Votes114


MEASURE L — Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 210,37556.92%
NO 159,20043.08%
Total369,575100%
Under Votes39,843
Over Votes97


MEASURE M — Changes to Business Taxes

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 237,93069.51%
NO 104,38030.49%
Total342,310100%
Under Votes67,068
Over Votes137


MEASURE N — First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 187,97951.72%
NO 175,45348.28%
Total363,432100%
Under Votes45,990
Over Votes93


MEASURE O — Supporting Reproductive Rights

► View the measure text
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Ballots CountedPercentage
YES 312,91483.84%
NO 60,33516.16%
Total373,249100%
Under Votes36,175
Over Votes91