In an apparent victory for San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, the incumbent candidates for supervisor in Districts 2 and 4 — both of whom he endorsed and who were supported by prolific spending from independent political committees — held commanding leads in their races Tuesday night.
With 97% of in-person precincts reporting as of 10:45 p.m., District 2 Supervisor Stephen Sherrill was ahead with 7,488 votes versus challenger Lori Brooke’s 3,254 votes.
The district includes the relatively wealthy areas of the Marina, Pacific Heights, Cow Hollow, and Presidio Heights and also stretches southward in swaths, including along Van Ness Avenue almost to City Hall.
“I’m so proud of the progress we’ve made over the last year to keep San Francisco moving in the right direction. We’ve made our neighborhoods safer, brought new energy to our commercial corridors, advanced much-needed housing, and pushed City Hall to be more responsive and accountable.,” Sherrill said in a prepared statement.
“Tonight, District 2 voters made clear they want that work to continue,” he said. “They want a supervisor who will work collaboratively with our mayor, provide steady leadership, and stay focused on delivering real results for San Francisco.”
District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong also led with 5,979 votes. His west-side district includes the Sunset and Parkside neighborhoods.
In second place was Natalie Gee, the chief of staff for District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton, who had received 2,359 votes. Gee received significant financial support from labor unions.
Trailing behind Gee were Albert Chow, the owner of the Great Wall Hardware store; school coordinator Jeremy Greco; and college educator David Lee, in that order.
Both Sherrill and Wong were appointed to fill vacant seats, and Tuesday’s special election was to determine who would fill their posts until November, when another election will determine who gets a full four-year term.
In supporting them, Lurie cast the their races as an opportunity for voters to keep The City moving in a positive direction, one that he and others say has been bolstered by a cooperative relationship between him and the 11-member Board of Supervisors.
“These are two candidates and two elected officials that have been great partners to me, and we’re going to do everything we can to get them over the finish line,” Lurie said Saturday, when he visited both of their campaign offices.
Outside groups have spent more than $1 million combined supporting the mayor’s preferred candidates.
“There are people in this city that like the direction that we’re heading in, and they’ve decided to support the people that I’m supporting, so I appreciate that,” Lurie said when asked about the copious spending.
Sherrill’s campaign itself raised $499,000, including public financing. Brooke raised $436,000, including public financing. No third-party committees reported raising or spending money to support her.
Gee and Wong’s own campaign committees had raised significantly more than their competitors, taking in $402,000 and $394,000, respectively, including public financing.
GrowSF, a group that set up independent committees, warned that losing “a one-vote majority” on the Board of Supervisors could undermine the progress The City has made since Lurie took office.
GrowSF is a nonprofit that has focused on the Board of Supervisors as it has promoted building more housing, streamlining government and maintaining clean and safe streets, among other things.
“This is a reminder that local elections matter, especially the down-ballot races that determine whether City Hall can actually deliver,” said Sachin Agarwal, co-founder of GrowSF, in response to the night’s results.
GrowSF produced campaign materials equating Brooke with former District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin, a progressive stalwart who left office in January of 2025. The group cited a $500 donation that Peskin’s wife, Nancy Shanahan, made to Brooke last October.
Shanahan said in an interview that Brooke is a longtime friend and she thought she would be an excellent supervisor. Peskin said he was not involved in Brooke’s campaign.
For Sherrill, GrowSF had raised at least $267,000. It had raised at least $319,000 to support Wong, including $250,000 from billionaire venture capitalist Michael Moritz.
One of the group’s purchases was for a large billboard at the corner of Irving Street and 22nd Avenue featuring photographs of Wong and Lurie and touting Lurie’s endorsement.
Another independent committee that had spent at least $233,000 to support Sherrill was SF Believes, the backers of which included people who financially supported Lurie’s 2024 bid for mayor via another committee called Believe in SF.
SF Believes also spent nearly $400,000 to support Wong. It funded mailers alleging that Gee would take The City “backwards on crime.”
Gee and Wong’s three other opponents jointly denounced SF Believes in late April and highlighted the fact that its biggest contribution of $250,000 came from the Manzanita Action Fund, a nonprofit linked to WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, a heavy donor to Republicans.
Other top donors to SF Believes included Jonathan Gans, CEO and president of Ironwood Capital; P. Holden Spaht, managing partner of software-focused investment firm Thoma Bravo; Adam Clammer, managing partner at True Wind Capital Management; real estate investor Matthew Paige; and Jean-Pierre Conte, chairman and managing partner at Genstar Capital. Each gave at least $100,000, city records show.
Gee had support from an independent union-backed committee called Affordable SF Now, which raised $386,000. The committee had received more than $300,000 from entities affiliated with Gee’s union, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers.
A group called Asian Americans for Representation also spent $193,000 supporting Lee.
Sherrill was appointed by former Mayor London Breed in December 2024 to succeed Catherine Stefani, who was elected to the state Assembly. Prior to his appointment, Sherrill was director of the Mayor’s Office of Innovation.
Brooke is a longtime neighborhood activist who co-founded a group called Neighborhoods United SF that is a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of The City’s analysis of the mayor’s Family Zoning plan under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The plan encourages denser development, particularly in northern and western parts of The City, to meet a state mandate that The City plan for building 82,069 new housing units by 2031.
A first-time candidate for elected city office, Brooke said the Family Zoning plan was a final straw leading to her campaign after she and others had felt in recent years a disregard for “the voice of the residents” as a result of “top-down” policies. She has also been the president of the Cow Hollow Association for 19 years and co-founded an organization called RescueSF focused on responses to homelessness.
Sherrill has been a strong advocate for the Family Zoning plan, and both he and Wong voted to approve it. By promoting more housing construction, Sherrill has said the plan can stimulate the local economy and make The City more affordable and inviting, particularly to families.
Wong was appointed by Lurie in December to represent the west side district that includes the Sunset after voters there recalled former Supervisor Joel Engardio.
Engardio and four other supervisors had sponsored Proposition K, a 2024 ballot measure that closed two miles of Great Highway for a park. Chow was an organizer of the Engardio recall campaign.
At the time, Wong was a policy director at a children’s services organization and an elected trustee of City College of San Francisco. He is also a captain in the Army National Guard. His campaign emphasized neighborhood-level governance, such as where to locate stop signs.
On his second day in office, Wong voted in favor of Lurie’s Family Zoning plan, which was already fully developed.
Gee opposed the Family Zoning plan and in campaign literature said Wong voted “with no input from D4 residents.” She has said her top priority would be serving “working people and working families.”
Wong said he tells the few people who ask about the plan of its outlines and the threats of state sanctions if it were not adopted quickly, and they then see that his vote “made sense.”
City officials said it was important to approve the plan by Jan. 31, after which San Francisco potentially faced the “builder’s remedy,” under which it could have been forced to approve proposed projects meeting basic standards, as well as the loss of more than $100 million per year in state funding.
Wong hasn’t agreed with Lurie on all subjects. He was part of a supermajority of supervisors who supported Proposition D, the union-led June ballot measure aiming to raise The City’s Overpaid Executive Tax to generate an estimated $250 million to $300 million for city services.
Gee also supported a Prop. D, for which her union was a major supporter. Union officials called Prop. D necessary to protect city services amid drastic federal spending cuts. They have criticized Lurie at rallies for siding with “billionaires” over working people in opposing the measure.
The measure was losing with 63,850 of votes against versus 51,463 in favor.
Opponents, including numerous wealthy individuals and businesses, raised $6.6 million to fight it, while the union campaign in support raised $3.3 million.