Stop recycling San Francisco politicians

By Ruth Ferguson and Adrianna Zhang

San Francisco stands for progress. But our city charter stands for something else: a policy that lets termed-out politicians wait in the wings and reclaim their seats, again and again. 

Under current rules, an elected official can serve two terms, sit out one term, then run again for two more — indefinitely. There is no cap on how many times someone can play this game. 

But there’s a simple fix. We’re launching a petition (opens in new tab) calling on the Board of Supervisors and the mayor to place a measure on the June ballot that would end this boomerang provision.

Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin used this tactic to remain in power for 16 of 20 years before he termed out (for the second time) in 2024. He is free to run again in 2028. Former Supervisor John Avalos tried the same tactic in 2020 and failed. Now, Michela Alioto-Pier, who spent eight years as supervisor, has formed a campaign committee to run again in 2026. 

These candidates aren’t doing anything wrong — their choices reflect the system’s incentives. But this isn’t a technicality. It fundamentally undermines the purpose of term limits and creates a suffocating effect for young, aspiring candidates.

In 1994, San Franciscans passed Proposition L (opens in new tab), establishing a nonpartisan elections task force to improve governance and accountability. This led to Proposition G (opens in new tab) in 1996, which established term limits that were implemented after the 2000 election, with support from 57% of voters.

Term limits were passed to promote renewal and accountability — not to reinforce a revolving door for the same people and ideas.

Term limits apply only to consecutive terms within a district, so an incumbent can sit out one term or run for a different office before returning. This means termed-out officials can maintain political influence — name recognition, donor networks, institutional power — while technically being out of office.

Powerful political networks tend to back candidates whose voting records reliably align with their priorities. Meanwhile, reform-motivated candidates are sidelined for fear they might disrupt power structures. 

Thanks to this policy, political participation in San Francisco is effectively rationed, and new leaders are told that their role is to support — not shape — the future of their communities. This makes it even harder for young lawmakers‚ especially women, who don’t have established networks.

Is it any wonder young people’s participation in the electoral process continues to decline (opens in new tab), and voters feel their voices are being ignored (opens in new tab)? In San Francisco, the average age of a mayor entering office is 51; for supervisors, it’s 50. In 175 years, we’ve had only two women mayors, and just 6.5% of our 600 supervisors have been women.

Some argue that if voters keep electing the same people, it’s democracy at work. But this ignores the real impact of power and money in politics. San Francisco’s term-limit loophole doesn’t test whether voters want new ideas; it tests whether newcomers can outspend the establishment. They usually can’t. Past office-holders who enjoy the advantages of name recognition, political alliances, and friendly donors will almost always beat the underdog, grassroots candidates. 

The result: less competition, more entrenchment, and a gerontocracy that undermines progress (opens in new tab) we’ve made to elect new leaders.

At a time when young voters are dissatisfied (opens in new tab) and demanding new leadership, recycling the same establishment politicians won’t cut it if we want to win.

The reality is, new leaders can’t help shape the future when the system is tilted against them. When City Hall doesn’t represent everyday lives, vital perspectives disappear, and entire communities lose their advocates.

We need fresh leadership for a new era.

Imagine a city where change feels possible. Where young officials can rise without needing permission from old power structures. Where accountability is the standard — not the exception.

That future begins by closing San Francisco’s term-limit loophole and restoring what voters intended when they passed Prop. G in 1996. 

Ruth Ferguson is a policy advocate and former candidate for the City College Board of Trustees. Adrianna Zhang is a fourth-year student at Stanford and the former chair of the San Francisco Youth Commission. Both are California Democratic Party delegates and board members of the San Francisco Young Democrats.