LA County Government Overhaul Uncovers Major Mistake

In November, voters propelled a significant redesign of the LA County government. Surprisingly, it turns out they inadvertently dismantled key criminal justice reforms in the process.

Fast forward eight months, and county officials are coming to grips with a long-standing oversight. The county supervisors, Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn, co-wrote Measure G, which expanded the size of the board and introduced new county roles.

However, the updated charter appears to have neglected Measure J—approved by voters in 2020—that allocated substantial funds for alternatives to incarceration.

The county’s attorney stated, “We can confirm that Measure J wasn’t added to the county charter after its approval in 2020 because of careless administrative oversights.” Consequently, when Measure G passed, it effectively nullified Measure J.

This oversight seems to stem from a failure by the county executive to update the charter with Measure J’s provisions after it cleared in 2020. Lawyers encountered difficulties including its language in the drafting of the upcoming voting measure.

Essentially, the approval of Measure G unintentionally wiped out Measure J, as revealed by former Duarte City Councillor John Fasana, who is part of the county governance reforms task force. He initially flagged the issue back in June.

“Someone messed up,” Fasana commented. He was appointed to the task force by director Katherine Berger and expressed disbelief upon discovering the error.

Megan Castillo, a coordinator for the Reimagine LA Coalition, mentioned that their efforts to get Measure J on the ballot in 2020 made this blunder particularly disheartening. “It’s disheartening to think that years of advocacy could be erased just like that,” Castillo said.

Measure J stipulates that 10% of locally generated funds must be directed towards social services, including housing and mental health support, while prohibiting spending on prison systems or law enforcement.

Castillo worries that this unintended annulment could trigger economic repercussions for vital programs. Resources may be shifted to cover the costs associated with Measure G—like salaries for newly elected officials—meaning that funding would have to come from other areas within the county budget.

He pointed out that he’d raised this concern with Hahn and Horvath’s offices last week. “They were taken aback as well,” Castillo noted.

Supervisor Horvath, who backed Measure G, promised a proposal would be put forth to address the “error relating to Measure J.” She emphasized that the measure represents a community-led effort that she remains committed to supporting.

Conversely, Supervisor Katherine Berger, who opposed the charter changes, expressed that this incident underscores her initial apprehensions about Measure G. Rapid alterations to the county charter without adequate analysis can lead to mistakes, she noted.

Supervisor Hilda Solis described her surprise and concern upon learning of the mistake but expressed her belief that the funds tied to Measure J would remain unaffected.

Attempts to reach two other supervisors for comment were unsuccessful.

The county attorney confirmed they are collaborating with the executive office to “address this situation” and ensure timely updates to the charter moving forward. They assured residents that despite the challenges posed by the Measure J annulment, the county plans to continue its budgetary adjustments.

Derek Hesey, head of the Los Angeles deputy sheriff union, characterized the situation as a “complete mess.” He highlighted that both voters and county workers need clarity on how the Board of Supervisors plans to rectify this issue.

Some within the task force voiced their concerns at the recent meeting where the error was discussed. While certain members wanted to explore it further, others felt that addressing it could hinder progress on other initiatives. Derek Steele remarked, “This is crucial; we may need to bring Measure G back to the voters.”

Sara Sadhwani, another task force member, expressed her deep concern regarding the accidental repeal of Measure J, questioning the integrity of the process. “If this effort was genuine, discussions about it should have occurred earlier rather than revealing it as a surprise,” she reflected.

The task force has requested a report from the county attorney for their next meeting.