LA County Voting Measure Update

Good morning! It’s a new day here at Records LA, and we’re diving into some important updates regarding LA County’s voting measures.

County officials are tasked with ensuring that popular voting measures aren’t carelessly lost again.

There’s an upcoming discussion by the Board of Directors regarding a 2020 voting measure that promised substantial funding to support services aimed at preventing incarceration. This comes on the heels of the unfortunate incident where Measure J was accidentally eliminated. You can take a look at the policy here.

While the specifics of the error are quite intricate, the core issue remains straightforward: the county failed to officially integrate this measure into its governing charter.

A top county attorney, Awin Harrison, has expressed frustration about this oversight, pointing to limitations in the Executive Office that assists politicians with governance, including updates to county regulations.

Interestingly, Robert Bonner, who recently took the position leading the sheriff’s oversight board, noted that some parts of the county code had been outdated for some time. “It’s odd that it took so long for the county to get necessary updates,” he remarked. For instance, it took four years to incorporate a voting measure from March 2020, known as Measure R, which gives authority to investigate fraudulent activities through subpoenas.

The county’s legal team first noticed this problem in October 2023 and projected a fix by August 2024. It’s still unclear why addressing the issue has taken nearly ten months.

“This highlights the need for better reform, with clear accountability measures,” a county lawyer stated. “This incident has shown that our offices should be systematically included in management processes,” they added.

Bonner mentioned that, luckily, the outdated code didn’t result in catastrophic consequences.

Looking ahead, the county’s lawyers received a mandate in the summer of 2024 to implement a new voting measure, Major G, which aims to revamp county governance. This measure seeks to expand the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members, introducing new executives that would essentially function like a county mayor.

There are plans for a future measure in 2028 that would eliminate much of the existing charter, impacting the Board’s power significantly. Most importantly, it would incorporate the funding requirements that were part of Measure J.

This rewriting process has already seen the exclusion of certain critical anti-earning funds, leading to a situation where Measure G, once approved by voters, inadvertently repealed Measure J.

The challenge now is getting a revival of the voting measure back on the ballot after it was accidentally removed. The supervisor hoped to convince a judge that J should, in fact, remain, especially since voters never intended to repeal it. However, legal advisors have indicated that persuading a judge may not be straightforward. A month after the mistake came to light, they had yet to approach the judge.

There’s also a consideration that the state legislature could amend the county’s charter in some way, but county officials are finding that this route is complicated. According to Harrison and county CEO Fesia Davenport, for such support to come from the state, a bill that mirrors Measure J’s budget requirements would need to be passed.

A memo from July 25 suggested that altering the county charter without voter consent could face constitutional challenges.

As a last resort, bringing Measure J back for a vote could be an option, but that’s risky. The environment has shifted since Measure J was passed, which enjoyed strong support in late 2020 during heightened calls for racial justice following incidents of police violence. Recently, voters have shown a preference for stricter crime initiatives.

Data from a poll commissioned by the Sheriff Deputy Coalition indicates that there could be significant resistance to a revived Measure J. The findings suggest that only 43% of respondents would be likely to support it if it were placed on the ballot again, down from the 57% approval it enjoyed in 2020.

Moreover, it seems the public isn’t too keen on the officials in charge either. Almost half of those surveyed viewed the Board negatively.

The union expended substantial resources, over $3.5 million, to oppose Measure J and isn’t eager to see it revived.

As union president Richard Pippin stated, “People are clearly tired of the drama surrounding Measures G and J. The focus should be on fostering a safe community rather than half-baked ideas.”

The polling, conducted by David Binder Research, a firm often used by Democratic candidates, shows a sampling error of around 3.5 percent. The full details of the poll haven’t been made public yet.

Some advocates argue that if there’s a revote, it should be something that’s well thought out. “Why not think things through?” asked Gabriella Vasquez, a member of LA Defensa, a nonprofit focused on anti-incarceration initiatives. “If you go back to the vote, imagine all the complexities that need sorting out for J.”

John Fasana, a former Duarte city council member, weighed in, stating, “This feels like it would be going against the election’s original outcomes.”

The approaching reality of a revote for county governance changes also doesn’t seem promising. Polls suggest diminished enthusiasm, with only 45% indicating support, down from a slim 51% approval last year.

When asked about the situation, the five supervisors had mixed responses. Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger didn’t reply, while the other three appeared uncertain about their stance. Holly Mitchell, a supporter of Measure J, has expressed a desire to explore every option. Hilda Solis confirmed her intention to rectify the error but didn’t detail her plan. Lindsey Horvath has acknowledged the complexity of the situation but insists that she remains committed to resolving the issue and will consider every possible approach before resorting to a vote.