Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board moves to restore Measure J after clerical error left voters’ initiative out of county charter
Summary
Following discovery that a later charter amendment had not incorporated language from Measure J, the Board of Supervisors directed County Counsel and the CEO to study legal and charter fixes and to report back quickly; the board also asked the governance reform task force to engage community stakeholders.
Los Angeles County supervisors adopted a multi‑part motion July 15 to repair an administrative error that left Measure J—voter‑approved language directing a portion of county funds to community investments—absent from the county charter.
Supervisor Lindsay Horvath introduced the motion after weeks of public concern and legal review. The motion asks County Counsel and the CEO to examine legal fixes and to report back on options that could include a charter amendment, an ordinance to codify Measure J, or a targeted ballot measure to be placed in 2026. The board also directed a 90‑day staff report on the cause of the omission, policies to prevent recurrences, and a draft policy to ensure the charter is updated promptly whenever voter‑approved amendments occur.
Measure J—approved by voters in 2020—directed 10 percent of unrestricted county revenues to community investments as an alternative to incarceration. Later, in 2024, voters passed Measure G, a separate governance reform. Board members and community advocates said a clerical error during implementation of Measure G allowed Measure J’s charter text to be left out, creating a legal and political risk that must be fixed without undermining voter intent.
Supervisors said they would not relitigate the substance of either initiative. Supervisor Janice Hahn said the motion’s purpose is to “fix the clerical screw up” and to ensure Measure J’s language and the board’s commitment to community investment remain in place. Supervisor Hilda Solis and others asked for transparency; County Counsel confirmed a confidential legal analysis would be needed only for litigation options, while other reports and proposed ordinances would be public.
The board also asked the governance reform task force to identify any conflicts in implementation between Measures J and G, to conduct stakeholder engagement, and to report back with recommendations. Community organizations and coalitions that led the Measure J campaign and groups backing Measure G both testified in public comment, urging prompt, transparent remedies and continued focus on both governance reform and care‑first investments.
Ending note: The board voted to move quickly, directing County Counsel and the CEO to pursue legal and charter remedies and to return with public recommendations; supervisors emphasized restoring voter trust and preventing similar errors in the future.
