Welcome to our running tally of Election Night results. Or, as this is California, well beyond tonight, as results continue to trickle in.

The first batch of results should arrive at 8:45 p.m., with three more to follow tonight. The Department of Elections has the breakdown.

San Francisco is voting in three special elections, for District 2 and District 4 supervisors and for a Board of Education member. Both supervisor races are referendums on housing, especially District 2, while the main backdrop of the D4 race is all the hot feelings around the fate of the Sunset Dunes Park (nee Great Highway).

The winners of all three special races will have to compete again in November for their seats.

Keeping it local, SF is also voting on four ballot measures. Prop A is for a bond to pay for an emergency water-system. B is for term limits. C and D are dueling measures related to the “overpaid CEO” tax. (Links go to our reporting on each race or issue; or click here for our Election 2026 page.)

Vote local, think national: Which two candidates will advance to the November election to replace Nancy Pelosi?

Statewide races include the primaries for governor, education superintendent, lieutenant governor, and much more.

Polls close soon. If you haven’t voted yet, find your polling station here.

Tuesday, June 2, 5:40 p.m.

Two and a half hours until our polls close. Before we go down the local rabbit hole, a reminder that other states have primary action today: New Jersey, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Montana.

Why does it take so long to get results in California? CalMatters has you covered on that story. We shouldn’t expect a call tonight on the governor’s race.

The last big election was November 5, 2024. (Remember?) Ten days later, there were still races to call in San Francisco.

So if you’re waiting for the pundits (and maybe even us) to tell you What It All Means, you might have to wait a while.

More from The Frisc…

San Francisco voters weighed in Tuesday on two competing measures that seek to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, with one of the measures also including a change to the Gross Receipts Tax.

Should both measures pass, the one with the most votes will take effect, according to the propositions’ legal text.

Currently, the measures state that most businesses with San Francisco gross receipts up to $5 million are exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax. And businesses that use more than half of their city payroll for in-house administrative and management services pay an Administrative Office Tax instead of a Gross Receipts Tax.

The Top Executive Pay Tax is a tax some large businesses pay if their highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. Businesses that have city gross receipts up to $5 million and are not subject to the Administrative Office Tax are exempt.

Proposition C

Proposition C states it would increase the number of businesses that could be exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax and would stop any further increases to the “Top Executive Pay Tax” after a final rate bump.

The proposed measure says it would raise the Gross Receipts Tax exemption ceiling to $7.5 million. The $7.5 million ceiling would also apply to the Top Executive Pay Tax exemption.

As for changes to the Top Executive Pay Tax, Proposition C states it would implement the 2028 tax rate increase in 2027, but then stop any future increases.

Supporting Proposition C are Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and Chris Wright, senior vice president of Advance SF, an organization of companies, which includes Bank of America, OpenAI, Waymo, the SF Giants CEO and others.

Fong and Wright, in their argument for the measure, say giving businesses more tax breaks would help keep more employees on payroll and would give companies the ability to “contribute to city services in a predictable and balanced way.”

Critics of Proposition C, such as the San Francisco Tenants Union, slam the measure as “billionaire-backed” and argue it would kill the Top Executive Pay Tax and would hand out more tax breaks to businesses at a time when the city is in a budget deficit and faces cuts to essential services.

Proposition D

Proposition D also seeks to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, which is collected from some large businesses where the highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation paid to other employees.

If approved, the measure would change the calculation of the tax using the compensation of all employees, not just employees based in San Francisco. Top Executive Pay Tax rates would also be increased for San Francisco gross receipts and payroll.

Supporters have billed the measure as a way to counteract federal cuts to Medicaid. A report by the City Controller’s Office said the measure could result in $250 million to $300 million in additional revenue.

“Proposition D is the solution to our budget deficit. It asks large corporations — not small businesses, not working families — to contribute a little more,” supporters said in the city’s official voter guide.

The measure has the backing of most of the Board of Supervisors, along with labor unions and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Opponents, including Mayor Daniel Lurie and state Sen. Scott Wiener, have argued Proposition D would negatively impact the city’s recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“San Francisco is already one of the most expensive cities in the country to live and do business. Adding extreme and unpredictable tax increases risks driving employers away just as we are trying to bring jobs, workers, and foot traffic back downtown,” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey in the city’s voter guide.

A San Francisco public school reportedly hosted a workshop on “adult supremacy” — a new woke trend labeling teachers and adults “oppressors” that’s quietly gaining traction in California.

The confab, held at John O’Connell High School during an “Ethnic Studies Everywhere” weekend seminar in April, was titled “Youth as Knowledge Producers: Challenging Adult Supremacy Through Ethnic Studies,” according to an attendee who spoke with The Post.

“Due to systemic power dynamics inherently the relationship between students and educators is an oppressive one. Oppressor (educator) & oppressed (student),” a presentation slide explained.

The workshop was led by Jennifer Sanchez, a third-year ethnic studies educator in the Central Valley, and convened by Teachers 4 Social Justice, a nonprofit that aims to create “empowering learning environments, more equitable access to resources and power, and realizing a just and caring culture,” according to its website.

Teachers 4 Social Justice was founded by local teacher activist Jeremiah Jeffries, who led an unpopular push to rename public schools during the pandemic that was abandoned after sparking outrage from local parents.

So-called adult supremacy “constructs adults as developed, mature, intelligent, and experienced, based solely on their age and ensures that adults control the resources and make the decisions in society,” the presentation further explained.

Success “within the Western context” is “demanding, overwhelming, and dehumanizing,” the presentation claimed.

Friends of Lowell Foundation, which advocates for academic merit at San Francisco schools, compiled the “adult supremacy” slides.

Another slide obtained by The Post cited the work of academic Jackson Matos, who is mentioned as connecting “adultism” to cultural imperialism, marginalization, exploitation, powerlessness and violence.

“We have knowledge and life experience, and it is our job as parents and teachers to impart information on the next generation, on our kids,” one flabbergasted San Francisco parent, who asked not to be named, told The Post.

“Given that a large percentage of students in the district do not meet grade level standards in ELA and math, our focus as a school district is clearly way off track,” the parent said.

Friends of Lowell Foundation has taken legal action surrounding the school district’s controversial “ethnic studies” curriculum, which was made a one-year requirement for high school freshman this year.

The San Francisco teachers’ group isn’t the only organization blaming “adultism” for society’s failures.

Adam Fletcher is a consultant who counts California school boards and agencies among his clients. He’s made “adultism” a centerpiece of equity training aimed at teachers.

“Adultism, as an idea, is bias towards adults,” Fletcher said in an online seminar held by TEACH Los Angeles, an educators’ network funded through grants from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, per its YouTube page.

Likewise, the Oakland Youth Commission announced last year a training for city employees about adultism, which is blamed for taking power away from kids, according to slides published online.

The Santa Clara Behavioral Health Services Department sponsored an “anti-oppression training series” that explores how “ageism and adultism” fuel discrimination.

“Participants consider how the myth of independence, rooted in settler colonial capitalism, contributes to the marginalization of youth & elders by diminishing agency, excluding perspectives, & reinforcing stereotypes in behavioral health practice,” an invitation read.

San Francisco Unified School District didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The district may be in hot water over its ethnic studies program, with Superintendent Maria Su due to appear at a June 10 congressional hearing about parents’ rights and “inappropriate content” in schools.