 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "March 2004 San Francisco general election" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(March 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
TheMarch 2004 San Francisco general elections were held on March 2, 2004, inSan Francisco,California. The elections included seats to variouspolitical parties' county central committees and tenballot measures.
More than 70% of voters supported Proposition H to increase funding for the city's schools.[1]
| Propositions:A •B •C •D •E •F •G •H •I •J |
Proposition A would allow City employees who receive cash payments for unused vacation time and sick leave to defer the payment and any federal and state taxes associated with said payment.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes | 107,690 | 62.38 |
| No | 64,943 | 37.62 |
| Valid votes | 172,633 | 90.47 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 18,195 | 9.53 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition B would contract out retirement benefits of district attorneys, public defenders, and public defender investigators to theCalifornia Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) if there is no additional cost to the city.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 114,209 | 67.73 |
| No | 54,418 | 32.27 |
| Valid votes | 168,627 | 88.37 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 22,201 | 11.63 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition C would reduce the number of required uniform officers by the number ofPolice Department positions currently staffed by uniformed officers that would be replaced by civilian staff.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 105,005 | 61.85 |
| No | 64,773 | 38.15 |
| Valid votes | 169,778 | 88.97 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 21,050 | 11.03 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition D would allowdomestic partners to register in the city and have the City Employees' Retirement System to treat domestic partners as spouses.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 113,646 | 65.07 |
| No | 60,999 | 34.93 |
| Valid votes | 174,645 | 91.52 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 16,183 | 8.48 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition E would have theSan Francisco Board of Supervisors respond to any federal or state requests potentially involving private information on citizens instead of individual officials and departments.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 87,704 | 52.22 |
| No | 80,236 | 47.78 |
| Valid votes | 167,940 | 88.01 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 22,888 | 11.99 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition F would apply labor negotiation rules regarding police officers and fire departments on labor negotiations regarding deputy sheriffs.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 103,327 | 63.16 |
| No | 60,267 | 36.84 |
| Valid votes | 163,594 | 85.73 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 27,234 | 14.27 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition G would allow the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to decide to provide supplemental pay over 180 days to City employees called for military service.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 99,726 | 58.90 |
| No | 69,589 | 41.10 |
| Valid votes | 169,315 | 88.73 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 21,513 | 11.27 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition H would create a Public Education Fund to increase City spending on public education over the next eleven years.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 123,103 | 70.77 |
| No | 50,837 | 29.23 |
| Valid votes | 173,940 | 91.15 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 16,888 | 8.85 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition I would require Muni to replace all diesel buses purchased before 1991 and require new buses to meet anti-pollution standards that apply to other City vehicles.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 118,074 | 67.49 |
| No | 56,864 | 32.51 |
| Valid votes | 174,938 | 91.67 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 15,890 | 8.32 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
Proposition J would allow developers building in downtown or along the central waterfront to be subject to less restrictions regarding height and density provided they build and sell more below-market rate housing.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 No | 121,352 | 69.99 |
| Yes | 52,028 | 30.01 |
| Valid votes | 173,380 | 90.86 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 17,448 | 9.14 |
| Total votes | 190,828 | 100.00 |
