The special election was called after incumbent Assemblymember David Chiu resigned the seat to become City Attorney of San Francisco.

"[2] On November 1, 2021, then-Assemblymember David Chiu resigned his Assemblymember position and was sworn in as San Francisco City Attorney.

Haney countered: “I don’t think it prevents gentrification to keep a Nordstrom’s valet parking lot,” and noted that most low-income people living in the neighborhood have strong protections against displacement.

The mailer stated: “Matt Haney voted to build 495 units of housing for working families here – his opponent, David Campos, wants to keep it a valet parking lot."

The Campos campaign accused Haney of flip-flopping on housing policy and disputed the number of homes that would be reserved and priced affordably for low-income households.

[19] The Wall Street Journal wrote, "In a city where loud voices like to kill new housing, Haney forged a reputation as someone willing to buck the anti-housing superstition and find workable compromises to a pressing issue.

And saying that it is a travesty is not an attack on that community.”[22][23][24] A political science scholar suggested “negative campaign ads tend to work in national and state level politics, but at the level of neighborhoods, in a city where neighborhoods matter, an ad blaming a single politician for its condition might backfire and alienate voters throughout the city.”[23] In December 2021, lawyers representing Matt Haney wrote to the California Secretary of State to challenge David Campos's ballot designation as "civil rights attorney".

[26] In February 2022, Haney's campaign filed a lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber seeking a court order to strike the ballot designation.

Professor David McCuan of Sonoma State University said the difference between the old and new ballot designations was marginal, but it could sway more voters towards Haney over Campos.

In contrast, David Campos's framing of housing as a stark choice between affordable homes against luxury condos was not an effective message.

[48][50] Joe Eskenazi for Mission Local wrote that Campos and the city's progressive wing must provide better solutions for housing affordability.

[50] Dustin Gardiner for the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that the blowout victory was a decisive win for the YIMBY movement, boosting their ability to attract progressive candidates in California to their banner.

[49] Paul Krugman for The New York Times wrote that the election was fought largely over housing policy, and more YIMBY electoral victories could foreshadow positive benefits for the national economy and environment.

The independent expenditure committees inundated David Campos with negative ads around his housing policy and his close ties to District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who faces a recall election in June.

In contrast, David Campos ran an "anachronistic" campaign that did not expand his voter base, using ineffective messaging around corporate financing.

[20][48] Matt Haney's election to the Assembly left an impending vacancy on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors beginning May 3.