There are currently two competing models for the frictional strength of the San Andreas Fault in California: the strong-fault model and the weak-fault model. The strong-fault model predicts the maximum horizontal compressive stress axis to be at low angles to the fault, while the relatively weak fault model predicts it to be at high angles. Previous studies have disagreed as to which model is supported by observed stress orientations. We review and compare these studies and present results from several new focal mechanism stress inversions. We find that the observed stress orientations of different studies are generally consistent, implying that the disagreement is one of interpretation. The majority of studies find compressive stress orientations at intermediate angles to the fault, not strictly consistent with either current model. The strong-fault model is acceptable if the San Andreas is assumed to be a nonoptimally orientated fault that fails because optimally oriented, preexisting planes are not present. The relatively weak fault model is not consistent with the stress orientations. We propose two alternative models to better explain the observed intermediate stress orientations: an intermediate-strength San Andreas model and a model in which all major active faults are weak.