Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record \u2014 our City Hall newsletter. It\u2019s Rebecca Ellis, with an assist from Julia Wick, giving you the latest on city and county government. <\/p>\n
L.A. County officials have been given a task: make sure the embarrassing blunder that led voters to accidentally wipe out a popular ballot measure never happens again.<\/p>\n
The board is expected to soon review a policy<\/a> to ensure \u201ccounty charter is promptly updated\u201d following the accidental repeal of Measure J \u2014 a 2020 ballot measure that promised hundreds of millions of dollars for services that keep people out of jail.<\/p>\n The mistake is complicated, but the root cause is simple: The county never added the measure to its charter, akin to the county constitution. <\/p>\n The county\u2019s top lawyer, D<\/b>awyn Harrison<\/b>, blames the failure squarely on the executive office<\/a>, which supports the five politicians with the administrative parts of the job \u2014 including, apparently, keeping the county code fresh. <\/p>\n But Robert Bonner<\/b>, the recently forced-out head<\/a> of the sheriff\u2019s oversight commission, said the county\u2019s top lawyers learned long ago that parts of the code were outdated.<\/p>\n \u201cI always thought it was weird that it would take so long for the county apparatus to get something in the code that the voters said was the law,\u201d Bonner said.<\/p>\n Bonner said it took the county four years to incorporate a March 2020 ballot measure<\/a>, known as Measure R, which gave his commission the power to investigate misconduct with subpoenas. For years, he said, the commission resorted to citing ballotpedia,<\/a> an online encyclopedia with information about local measures, in its legal filings. The Times reviewed one such filing from November 2022 as the commission tried to force former Sheriff Alex Villanueva<\/b> to obey deputy gang subpoenas<\/a>.<\/p>\n County attorneys said they first discovered the issue in October 2023 and it was fixed by August 2024. It is not clear why it took ten months.<\/p>\n \u201cThis underscores the need to reform the system with clear safeguards and accountability,\u201d county counsel said in a statement. \u201cThis breakdown made clear that our office must also be systematically included in the administrative process.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFortunately, in our case, it didn\u2019t lead to disaster,\u201d Bonner said of the outdated code.<\/p>\n A few months later, it would.<\/p>\n In summer of 2024, county counsel got its marching orders<\/a>: To create a ballot measure, known as Measure G, that would overhaul the county government, expand the five-person board of elected supervisors to nine and bring on a new elected executive who would act almost as a mayor of the county<\/a>. <\/p>\n The office came up with a ballot measure that would repeal most of a section of the charter \u2014 called Article III \u2014 in 2028. That section details the powers of the board \u2014 and, most consequentially, includes the requirement from Measure J that the board funnel hundreds of millions toward anti-incarceration services.<\/p>\n County lawyers rewrote that chunk of the charter with the changes the board wanted in the county\u2019s form of government \u2014 but left out the anti-incarceration funding. So when voters approved Measure G, they unwittingly repealed Measure J.<\/p>\n And it turns out, it\u2019s not easy to get back a ballot measure after voters accidentally wipe it out.<\/p>\n The supervisors hoped they could just get a judge to tell them that, actually, Measure J was just fine. After all, voters had no idea they were repealing it \u2014 nobody did<\/a>.<\/p>\n But the supervisors were recently told by their lawyers that getting relief from a judge \u2014 considered the easiest, cheapest option \u2014 would be legally tricky terrain. One month after the mistake came to light<\/a>, they\u2019ve yet to go to a judge.<\/p>\n Maybe the state could help by passing legislation that would make a correction to the county\u2019s charter, officials hoped. Not so, according to a memo from Harrison and Chief Executive Fesia Davenport. <\/b>For the state to help, it would need to pass legislation that mimicked the budget requirements of Measure J \u2014 potentially a bigger ask than a charter tweak. <\/p>\n \u201cA court would likely strike down as unconstitutional any changes to the County Charter that were not approved by voters,\u201d read the July 25 memo.<\/p>\n And then there\u2019s the option of last resort: putting Measure J back on the ballot.<\/p>\n It\u2019s high-stakes. It is, after all, no longer November 2020, when Measure J passed handily<\/a>, buoyed by a wave of support for racial justice and disgust over police brutality after the killing of George Floyd. Voters have leaned in recently to tough-on-crime measures such as Proposition 36<\/a>, which stiffened the penalties for some nonviolent crimes.<\/p>\n If the county needed proof the atmosphere has changed, the sheriff deputy union, which fought hard against Measure J, has plenty.<\/p>\n The union paid for a poll of 1,000 voters that suggests the measure wouldn\u2019t pass if it were put up for a vote again. Only 43% of respondents said they would vote for the measure if it went back on the ballot, while 44% said they\u2019d vote no. The measure passed in 2020 with 57% of the vote.<\/p>\n Voters weren\u2019t big fans of the politicians in charge either. Almost half viewed the board unfavorably.<\/p>\n The union fought hard against Measure J, spending more than $3.5 million on advertising to fight it and following up with a court<\/a> battle. It\u2019s not not hankering for another go at it.<\/p>\n \u201cResidents are clearly fed up with the shenanigans around Measure G and J,\u201d said union President Richard Pippin.<\/b> \u201cThe fix is to focus on investing in safe communities instead of half-baked ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n The poll was conducted by David Binder Research, a San Francisco-based pollster frequently used by Democratic candidates, from Aug. 5 to Aug. 12, with a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The Times was only sent a summary of the poll and did not view the original.<\/p>\n Some advocates argue that if anything goes on the ballot, it should be the measure that contained the poison pill.<\/p>\n \u201cWhy aren\u2019t they considering [Measure] G?\u201d asked Gabriela Vazquez<\/b>, who campaigned for the anti-incarceration measure as a member of the nonprofit La Defensa. \u201cImagine all the fundraising folks would have to do to defend J if it was put back on the ballot.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe defect was in G not in J,\u201d said former Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana<\/b>, who voted against both measures and first noticed the county\u2019s flub<\/a>. \u201cYou\u2019re overturning an election.\u201d<\/p>\n But the overhaul of county government Take Two would also face an uphill battle, the poll suggests. The measure narrowly passed last November with 51% of the vote.<\/p>\n This time, only 45% of voters like the idea, while 40% said they\u2019d vote no, according to the poll.<\/p>\n The Times asked all five supervisors what they wanted to do. <\/p>\n Supervisors Janice Hahn<\/b> and Kathryn Barger<\/b> did not respond. The other three appeared undecided. <\/p>\n Supervisor Holly Mitchell<\/b>, a vocal supporter of Measure J and opponent of Measure G, said she wants to \u201cexplore all solutions\u201d to keep the anti-incarceration measure in good standing. Supervisor Hilda Solis<\/b> said she wanted to correct the error, but did not say how. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath<\/b>, the force behind the government overhaul, said she\u2019s not ruling out getting help from a judge and is moving forward with an ordinance that would mirror Measure J. Unlike a ballot measure, an ordinance could be undone by a future board. <\/p>\n She says going to the ballot is the last resort.<\/p>\n \u201cMy commitment to fixing this mess hasn\u2019t changed. I\u2019m open to every viable path, and we might need to pursue more than one,\u201d Horvath said in a statement. \u201cBefore considering the ballot, we must exhaust every option before us.\u201d<\/p>\n Newsletter <\/p>\n You\u2019re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter<\/p>\n Sign up to make sense of the often unexplained world of L.A. politics.<\/p>\n Enter email address <\/p>\n Sign Me Up <\/p>\n You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times. <\/p>\n State of play<\/p>\n \u2014 A POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE: <\/b>Come November, California voters will partake in a special election<\/a> to potentially waive the state\u2019s independent redistricting process and approve new partisan congressional maps that favor Democrats. Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s high-stakes fight to counter President Trump\u2019s scramble for GOP control is already sending shockwaves around the state<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2014HILDA\u2019S PLANS: <\/b>The proposed maps would create a new congressional district in southeast L.A. County. Supervisor Hilda Solis<\/b> has yet to publicly announce her candidacy, but she\u2019s made her intention to run<\/a> for the redrawn 38th District clear within the close-knit world of California politics.<\/p>\n \u2014THE RICK OF IT ALL: <\/b>Former L.A. mayoral candidate Rick Caruso<\/b> was initially quiet about Newsom\u2019s redistricting proposal. But after the Legislature sent the measure to the ballot Thursday, Caruso made his support clear, telling us that \u201cCalifornia has to push back\u201d against the Texas redistricting scheme. He plans to financially support the ballot measure, he said. One topic he remained vague on was whether he\u2019ll run for mayor or governor in 2026, saying he was still seriously considering both options.<\/p>\n \u2014AUTHOR, AUTHOR: <\/b>Brentwood resident and former Vice President Kamala Harris <\/b>announced a 15-city book tour for her upcoming election memoir \u201c107 Days.\u201d The lineup includes a September event at the Wiltern theater in partnership with Book Soup.<\/p>\n \u2014FIRE JUSTICE: <\/b>Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson <\/b>was at the Stentorians office Friday morning to show his support for a package of state bills<\/a> focused on incarcerated firefighters. He appeared alongside Assemblymembers Sade Elhawary, Celeste Rodriguez <\/b>and Josh Lowenthal<\/b> and Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas.<\/b><\/p>\n \u2014 END IN SIGHT?: <\/b>Councilmember Tim McOsker\u2019s<\/b> motion to \u201cstrategically and competently\u201d work to wind down the mayor\u2019s declaration of emergency on homelessness narrowly failed Wednesday. The motion called for the legislative body to come back in 60 days, with reports from city offices, to advise on an implementation plan to end the declaration of emergency. McOsker\u2019s goal was to terminate the state of emergency, which has been in effect for more than two years, as soon as possible. His motion failed to pass in a 7-7 vote. The council instead continued to support the mayor\u2019s declaration of emergency and will take up the issue again in 90 days.<\/p>\n \u2014\u201dSLUSH FUND\u201d QUESTIONS: <\/b>An election technology firm allegedly overbilled<\/a> Los Angeles County for voting machines used during the 2020 election and funneled the extra cash into a \u201cslush fund\u201d for bribing government officials, federal prosecutors say in a criminal case against three company executives. Prosecutors do not indicate who benefited from the alleged pot of Los Angeles County taxpayer money.<\/p>\n QUICK HITS<\/p>\n Stay in touch<\/p>\n That\u2019s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com<\/a>. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here<\/a> to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record \u2014 our City Hall newsletter. It\u2019s Rebecca Ellis, with…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":169650,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5123],"tags":[6281,1582,276,2451,6283,6277,6279,5025,5208,6282,6276,2961,224,2444,5337,6278,6280,277,2452,1628],"class_list":{"0":"post-169649","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-los-angeles","8":"tag-barger","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-city","12":"tag-council","13":"tag-county-government","14":"tag-district","15":"tag-fire","16":"tag-friday","17":"tag-horvath","18":"tag-l-a","19":"tag-la","20":"tag-los-angeles","21":"tag-los-angeles-times","22":"tag-losangeles","23":"tag-pacific-palisades","24":"tag-region","25":"tag-trump","26":"tag-week","27":"tag-year"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169649\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/169650"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n