The Votes Are In!
2024 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → 
Politics Nov 12, 2024
| Photo courtesy of the LA County Board of Supervisors/YouTube
by
share with
Supporters of a voter initiative measure to expand the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and make the CEO an elected office claimed victory Monday.
Measure G has a 51.36%-48.64% with 1,590,726 votes, according to election results released Monday afternoon by the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. No votes totaled 1,407,385.
Measure G increased the board’s membership from five to nine supervisors in districts that will be drawn based on the 2030 census. The CEO will shift to an elected office by 2028, and Measure G also created the positions of county legislative analyst and director of budget and management.
“The people of Los Angeles County have made history in passing Measure G, ushering in the change necessary for a more effective Los Angeles County,” Lindsey Horvath, Board of Supervisors chair and the measure’s co-author, said in a statement.
“We will now have the ability to fix what is broken and deliver the results our communities are counting on, especially in the face of threats to our most vulnerable residents from the next federal administration. Through this historic change, we will address the most pressing issues facing Angelenos with greater urgency and accountability, and create a more ethical and representative government fit for the 21st century,” Horvath said.
Measure G also establishes a county Ethics Commission and a compliance officer by 2026. The Board of Supervisors has already begun the process of creating an Ethics Commission, but now the commission and compliance officer position are codified in the county charter. The protection prevents future boards from disbanding the panel without another voter initiative.
The measure also requires: the establishment of a commission to review the county charter every 10 years; all county departments to present their annual budgets during public meetings; all Board of Supervisors agenda items be posted at least 120 hours before to a regular meeting; suspension of an elected official charged with a felony that pertains to a violation of officials duties; the creation of a task force to oversee the implementations of Measure G changes; and that the governance changes take effect with no added costs to taxpayers.
Horvath co-authored the measure with Supervisor Janice Hahn. They argued that the charter was adopted in 1912, when the population was about 500,000, compared with today’s 10 million residents and 88 cities within LA County.
Supervisor Hilda Solis, who has backed the measure since proposal, said on social media, “Measure G’s approval by the voters is a significant victory for Los Angeles County. I look forward to implementing the reforms in Measure G and transforming Los Angeles County government for the better.”
In a previous statement Solis said the measure “will help bring more direct representation to many communities that have been historically underrepresented in Los Angeles.”
Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger opposed the measure. They said the changes were being rushed forward and questioned if nine was an appropriate number of members.
Mitchell and Barger also opposed turning the CEO into an elected position. In a ballot argument against the measure they claimed the CEO would lack accountability, serving with no term limits while controlling the county’s immense budget. An elected CEO weakens the board’s authority over the budget and the ability to hold department heads accountable, according to the dissenting supervisors.
“The people of L.A. County deserve results from their elected leaders, not more elected positions without accountability and increased spending that takes from an already strained county budget working to address the homeless and mental health crisis,” according to the ballot argument by Mitchell and Barger that was also signed by officials from the LA County firefighters union and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.
Opponents also questioned whether the changes could be made without new costs borne by taxpayers, because of the new elected positions and county offices.
