(NewsNation) — California’s primary election is approaching, offering voters in Los Angeles the chance to elect a new district attroney and in San Francisco, weigh in on proposed safety and policing measures.

Referred to as Super Tuesday, Republicans in 15 states and one territory and Democrats in all but one of those states, plus the territory of American Samoa, will cast ballots.

Among the propositions voters in San Francisco can expect to see on their March 5 ballot are changes to benefits eligibility, police surveillance and funding for officer staffing and recruitment.

In a crowded race for Los Angeles district attorney, incumbent George Gascón faces 11 challengers. Gascón has been a controversial figure, with supporters calling him a reform-minded prosecutor and critics accusing him of being soft on crime.

Los Angeles Distrcit Attorney

Gascón defeated former District Attorney Jackie Lacey in the November 2020 election. In 2022, his critics were unable to successfully get a bid to recall him on the ballot.

In his first term, Gascón cut back the number of misdemeanor cases the office handled and placed limits on cash bail and sentencing enhancements, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Critics have accused Gascón being too lenient, while supporters say he’s focused on reform.

Gascón himself has highlighted his efforts to “address mass incarceration and inequities within the criminal legal system.”

Polling from early February showed Gascón leading the race at 15%, with five other candidates polling in the single digits.

Proposition F: Drug screening and treatment for public benefits

If approved, Proposition F would require substance abuse disorder screening for certain people who receive public benefits through the city’s County Adult Assistance Programs if the city “reasonably suspects the person to be dependent on illegal drugs.”

If a screening points toward addiction, the city would provide a professional evaluation and potentially refer the person to a treatment program.

If a free program is available, the recipient would have to take part in it to continue receiving benefits, although the measure wouldn’t require someone to stay sober to maintain their eligibility.

Anyone who stops receiving benefits because they refuse screening or treatment could lose their housing benefits after 30 days.

The proposition would additionally create a city fund to help pay for screenings and treatment. According to a summary by the city’s volunteer Ballot Simplification Committee, “any cost savings from discontinuing public assistance would go into that fund.”

Those who support the proposition, including San Francisco Mayor London Breed, say the measure would help the city tackle an “overdose crisis” by requiring substance abuse treatment.

Opponents of the measure say the city is already struggling to meet treatment and recovery demands, and that denying people basic services will only exacerbate the problem.  

Proposition E: Surveillance and use-of-force reporting

Proposition E would scale back record-keeping and reporting requirements, so patrol officers spend no more than 20% of their work time on administrative tasks.

Written use-of-force reports would only be required if an officer physically injures someone, uses a firearm or points a firearm at another person. The current policy requires officers to write a report when they use a firearm, point a firearm at someone, force a resisting suspect into handcuffs or use force likely to cause physical pain or injury, according to the city’s website.

The proposal would also allow the San Francisco Police Department to use drones for vehicle pursuits and active criminal investigations. Those drones and public surveillance cameras could include facial recognition technology and wouldn’t need board approval.

The police department could additionally use new surveillance technology unless the board disapproves.

Currently, the city is allowed to install public surveillance cameras on streets, sidewalks and common areas of public housing with approval from the commission if there is “substantial crime” in the area.

Proponents of the measure say it would help the department secure tools and practices to enforce laws without interference from the police commission.

Those opposed argue that it would weaken independent police oversight, introduce “invasive” surveillance practices and eliminate rules designed to hold police accountable.

Proposition B: Police staffing and taxing

Proposition B would establish a minimum number of fully funded, full-time San Francisco police officers, from 1,700 to 2,074 in the first five years.

During that time, the city would need to budget to pay for at least the number of police officers employed during the previous year.

If voters approve full funding, the proposal would create a police recruitment fund that would last five to 10 years, with $16.8 million in the first year. The amount of money in the fund would change each year based on recruiting needs and couldn’t exceed $30 million annually, according to the city’s website.

Those changes could only take effect if voters in a future election amend an existing tax or approve a new one to pay for the police department’s staffing and recruitment.

Proponents of the measure say the city’s police officers are working overtime to compensate for staffing shortages and argue the proposed change would ease those burdens in a financially responsible way.

Those opposed to the measure say it would prevent the city from mandating a fully staffed police department until a “cop tax” is approved to fund payroll and recruitment — expenses they say should already be covered in the taxes residents already pay.