Los Angeles County is the fastest growing local jurisdiction in the country, with the largest population (more than 10 million people) and the largest budget ($43 billion). The responsibilities of your government are immense.
However, it has the same form of elected leadership it had 174 years ago when it was created, and the same as other California counties today that have a fraction of the population and budget: a five-member Board of Supervisors with a rotating president, and no independently elected executive. The three countywide elected officials (sheriff, district attorney and assessor) operate within their own spheres.
Los Angeles County government underrepresents and underserves its people.
Measure G on the Nov. 5 ballot would change that. It would expand the Board of Supervisors to nine, reducing the size of massive districts and giving county residents a greater voice. It would create an independently elected executive (effectively, a county mayor) who could respond to challenges and crises more quickly than the board. For the first time, a county ethics commission would be created.
The measure prohibits the county from spending more on its expanded government than its current one.
These changes should have happened a long time ago. The Times recommends voting Yes on the county's Measure G.
The measure was proposed by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn in July, just months before the election. Critics argue there was too little time for outside analysts to study the measure and consider alternatives.
The criticism is understandable. It would be nice if the measure had emerged from a charter reform commission of the kind the city of Los Angeles used (it actually had two of them, simultaneously) in the 1990s to update its governing framework. Even now, the city is organizing a new commission to recommend charter changes, including a larger City Council.
But the county has shown little interest in organizing such a body or in otherwise reforming itself. After the city adopted its new charter a quarter-century ago, many of the reformers who participated in or observed the city's process appeared before the Board of Supervisors to ask the county to do the same. The board scoffed and did nothing.
And he has done little in the years since. One of the only two significant changes came in 2007, when the supervisors attempted to give their designated executive director more direct power over county operations. They quickly recovered much of it.
The other came in 2022, when they asked voters to give them even more power: recall an elected sheriff. The sheriff at the time was unpopular and voters accepted the change.
There have been previous attempts at reform, imposed on supervisors by state legislators or voter initiatives. In 2000, they sent voters a ballot measure to expand the board, but only under pressure from the Legislature. The measure failed.
This year, the board voted 3-2 to place Measure G on the ballot. That is an important advance. Given the junta's poor record on power sharing, postponing the decision to another election does not seem like a very good option.
The new format would assign executive power to an individual, just as the U.S. Constitution, all state constitutions and most larger cities do. The supervisors' job would be to legislate, scrutinize the executive to hold that person accountable, and provide services to the unincorporated parts of the county, areas not represented by municipal governments.
In other words, Measure G would finally bring to the county the same kind of checks and balances that have been a cornerstone of good government throughout the nation's history.
Is nine the “correct” number of supervisors? It's a fair question, but it doesn't require much moaning. It's better than five. It would improve the chances that citizens will elect leaders who reflect their values and political goals. It is important to remember that as the county's population became increasingly Latino, the board had no Latino members until it lost a lawsuit over district lines that discriminated against Latino voters. Even now, in a county that is almost 50% Latino, the five-member board has only one. A larger board would be more representative, not only of the county's ethnic diversity but also of its diverse infrastructure, geographic and political needs.
If nine remains too few, a county government with greater accountability and an ethics commission than the current one is more likely to pave the way for future improvements, including more seats.
How about a bigger board, but without a county mayor? Bad idea. That would only increase government dysfunction without solving it. Checks and balances are key, and the Board of Supervisors has demonstrated that it will not voluntarily relinquish executive authority.
The maddening irony of current county government is that, contrary to popular belief, most elected officials work hard and do a good job. But they are hampered by a structure that invites stagnation and is ill-suited to addressing issues like homelessness, poverty, inequality and injustice – exactly those challenges assigned to county government. Measure G is the way to go.
