Los Angeles County is the nation’s most overgrown local jurisdiction, with the largest population (more than 10 million people) and the largest budget ($43 billion). Its government’s responsibilities are immense.
Yet 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 chair, and no independently elected executive. The three countywide elected officers — sheriff, district attorney and assessor — operate within their own spheres.
L.A. 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, shrinking the size of the massive districts and giving county residents a greater voice. It would create an independently elected executive — in effect, a county mayor — who can respond to challenges and crises more quickly than the board. It would for the first time create a county ethics commission.
The measure prohibits the county from spending more on its expanded government than it does on the current one.
These changes are long overdue. The Times recommends a Yes vote on county Measure G.
The measure was proposed by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn in July, just a few months before the election. Critics argue that 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 come out of a charter reform commission of the type 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 otherwise reforming itself. After the city adopted its new charter a quarter of a century ago, many of the reformers who were involved in or watched the city process appeared before the Board of Supervisors to call on the county to do the same thing. The board scoffed and did nothing.
And it has done little in the years since. One of the only two meaningful changes came in 2007 when the supervisors tried giving their appointed chief executive more direct power over county operations. They quickly took much of it back.
The other came in 2022 when they asked voters to give them even more power: to remove an elected sheriff. The sheriff at the time was unpopular, and voters agreed to the change.
There have been earlier stabs at reform, forced on the supervisors by state lawmakers 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 to 2 to put Measure G on the ballot. That’s an important development. Given the board’s poor record of sharing power, putting off the decision for another election does not seem like a very good option.
The new format would allocate executive power to one individual, just as the U.S. Constitution, every state constitution, and most larger cities do. The supervisors’ job would be to legislate, scrutinize the executive to hold that person accountable, and deliver service to the unincorporated portions of the county — areas not represented by city governments.
In other words, Measure G would finally bring to the county the same sorts of checks and balances that have been the cornerstone of good government throughout the nation’s history.
Is nine the “right” number of supervisors? It’s a fair question but does not require a lot of hand-wringing. It’s better than five. It would improve the chances for citizens to choose leaders who reflect their values and their policy goals. It’s important to remember that as the county’s population became increasingly Latino, the board had no Latino member until it lost a lawsuit over district lines that discriminated against Latino voters. Even now, in a county almost 50% Latino, the five-member board has only one. A larger board would be more representative, not just of the county’s ethnic diversity but also of its varying infrastructure needs, geography and politics.
If nine is still too few, a county government with more accountability and an ethics commission is more likely than the present one to pave the way for further improvements, including more seats.
How about a larger board, but without a county mayor? Bad idea. That would only enlarge governmental dysfunction without fixing it. Checks and balances are key, and the Board of Supervisors has shown that it will not voluntarily cede executive authority.
The maddening irony about the current county government is that, contrary to popular belief, most of the elected officials work hard and do a good job. But they are hampered by a structure that invites stasis and is ill-suited to addressing problems such as homelessness, poverty, inequity, injustice — exactly those challenges assigned to county government. Measure G is the way forward.
