This year’s November ballot will be interminable.

Ballots are often interminable in election years — higher turnout and higher visibility means that initiative sponsors are eager to put measures in front of the voters. But the November ballot is in a detrimental class all of its own.

The California secretary of state has certified 17 state ballot measures, the most for any election since March 2000. In San Francisco, voters are facing the possibility of a whopping 39 city ballot measures, 28 of which may be from the mayor and the Board of Supervisors.

This is not direct democracy. This is a broken system.

There’s a distinction between the brokenness symbolized by the state ballot measures and the brokenness of the San Francisco ballot.

Many of the state measures are cash grabs from special interest groups, or the personal passions of the wealthy. They’re taking advantage of California’s low bar for initiative certification to appeal directly to the voters.

California’s direct-democracy process is working well for them. Whether it’s a good thing for state governance is an altogether different matter.

San Francisco’s potential ballot, on the other hand, reflects a shocking abdication of responsibility on behalf of its city leadership.

Instead of doing the hard work of negotiating the city’s priorities, they’re threatening to dump that task on the voters.

Here are a few of the issues that voters are being asked to weigh in on, from the state ballot.

Voters will be asked to decide whether proceeds from the sale of paper grocery bags should go toward an environmental fund (Proposition 65). They’ll be asked whether the state should put price caps on prescription drugs (Proposition 61). They’ll have to decide whether or not adult film actors should wear condoms (Proposition 60).

There is no reason for these matters to be solved at the ballot box.

State legislators should decide these kinds of regulations. For what else are they being paid?

Some of the state measures are being pushed by state officials with their own political agendas, but that tiresome phenomenon is in overdrive in San Francisco.

Six supervisorial seats and one state Senate seat are up for election — and the supervisors would rather raise their profiles than negotiate with their colleagues.

Supervisor Scott Wiener, who’s in a close race for the state Senate, has introduced a ballot measure setting a specific number of police staff for a neighborhood crime unit. That number is usually decided by the police chief.

Supervisors Mark Farrell and Aaron Peskin have introduced competing ballot measures about homeless encampments. They couldn’t compromise at the board.

We urge the board to think very carefully about which ballot measures it chooses for the final ballot. Dumping all of the city’s most important business on the voters is a statement that they aren’t willing to do their jobs. If that’s the case, why should the voters approve any of these measures — or their elections?