John Arntz has managed elections in San Francisco for 20 years without a hitch. In the past year, as director of elections, he managed to guide the city’s elections department through four separate elections, all without so much as a whiff of controversy.

Despite his track record, however, San Francisco’s elections commission, which oversees Mr. Arntz’s department, voted 4-2 last week to begin searching for a replacement, even while the department is still counting ballots from the November 8 election. The reason? He’s a white man, and the city is trying to advance a “racial equity plan.”

“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position,” the president of the commission, Chris Jerdonek, wrote in an email to Mr. Arntz, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “We also wanted to allow enough time for a fair and equitable process and conduct as broad a search as possible.”

Members of the board told local press outlets that Mr. Arntz is welcome to apply for his job again, but the rationale for the decision has led to howls of protest from across the generally progressive Bay Area. San Francisco’s mayor, the city attorney, a number of city supervisors, and members of the department itself expressed disbelief at the commission’s decision.

A member of San Francisco’s board of supervisors, Aaron Peskin, called the decision “commission malfeasance.” He told the Mission Local newspaper: “It almost becomes a justification for Mayor Breed to have letters of resignation from people who go do things that are completely insane.”

Another prominent Democrat, State Senator Scott Weiner, said on Twitter that Mr. Arntz took over a dysfunctional office — “remember ballot box tops floating in the Bay?” he said — and turned it into one of the city’s best-run departments. “Why on earth is the Elections Commission moving to dump this strong elections leader?” he asked.

Before the council’s vote, all 12 division managers from within the elections department wrote a letter to the commission urging its members to reappoint Mr. Arntz to another five-year term. The letter was effusive in its praise of Mr. Arntz and the way he has managed the department since he was first appointed in April 2002. 

“The City faced a number of serious problems with administering elections before Director Arntz’s tenure,” the letter said. “This Department saw five different Directors in as many years, the Department’s budget was in the red by millions of dollars, San Francisco’s elections infrastructure was in disarray, the public lacked confidence in Department operations due to various election irregularities, and the Department’s mission and standards were not clear.”

Mr. Arntz, the letter’s author said, has brought much-needed order and stability to the department: “We, as division managers, take pride in the Department’s many accomplishments under the leadership of Director Arntz and are honored to have been recognized numerous times in recent years as a model for efficient, inclusive, and transparent elections.”

There are already signs that the outrage expressed across the political spectrum in San Francisco may force the commission to rethink its decision. The Chronicle report notes that the department will have to ask city officials for $30,000 to $50,000 to conduct a search for new candidates, but Mr. Peskin told the Mission Local, “I guarantee you that this Board and this mayor aren’t going to give them a damn penny.”