City Council advances ordinance to place term-limit change on ballot after heated debate

The Los Angeles City Council on the floor advanced an amended ordinance to put a measure on the ballot that would change elected-office term limits, after prolonged debate among council members over timing, scope and whether citywide officers should be included.

Council Member Nate Holden urged colleagues to proceed, saying, "You're making a mistake" if they delay and asking voters to be the final deciders. Other members urged delay, committee review and further study before placing the measure before voters.

The action before the council was an amendment (referred to in the meeting as "3A") and the related ordinance and resolutions needed to meet county ballot deadlines. The council first voted 12-1 to adopt the amendment to the ordinance. Members debated whether to send the matter back to committee for additional study; a motion to refer the entire matter to the Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee failed 7-6. The council then voted to place the amended ordinance on the ballot by a 10-3 tally. After additional procedural motions and a motion to re-amend the ordinance back toward its original form, the council voted to re-amend and then approved second reading of the ordinance 9-4, meeting the threshold for that step.

Why it matters: the ordinance would alter the length and eligibility rules for city officeholders; council members debated whether to include citywide elected officers in the change and whether to accelerate consideration to meet outside deadlines. Speakers on both sides argued about timing — some warned that moving quickly could distract from other March ballot priorities, while supporters said the measure would let voters decide whether additional terms are appropriate.

Details of debate and votes Most discussion centered on whether the council should hurry to put the measure on the ballot to meet county deadlines or refer the matter for further study. Council Member Janice Hahn and others said the timing was poor and recommended committee hearings and more public outreach; Hahn said putting the issue on the March ballot could detract from other measures. Council Member Holden and others argued voters should be given the chance now to decide.

Members repeatedly referenced the mayor's position. During debate a colleague said, "The mayor's already written you a letter saying that if you include citywide elected officials in this proposal, he's gonna veto it." Council members acknowledged that a mayoral veto was a possible outcome but proceeded with the council's legislative steps.

Outcome and next steps The council took multiple recorded roll-call votes during the floor session. Key recorded actions included: - Vote to adopt amendment 3A to the ordinance: 12 ayes, 1 no. - Motion to refer the matter to committee: failed, 7 ayes, 6 noes. - Vote to place the amended ordinance on the ballot (as amended): 10 ayes, 3 noes. - Motion to re-amend the ordinance back toward its original form: adopted, 10 ayes, 3 noes. - Second-reading vote on the ordinance (final legislative vote recorded at the meeting): approved, 9 ayes, 4 noes.

The council clerk recorded the votes on consecutive roll calls; the ordinance will proceed per council instruction and the city clerk will manage any further procedural steps necessary to meet county ballot deadlines. The council also noted the possibility of mayoral action after the council's legislative steps.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the item on the ordinance and related motions.

Ending Council members said they will continue to monitor related deadlines and communications from the executive branch. The council adjourned other pending items forthwith for the League of Cities conference recess and directed city staff and the clerk to complete steps tied to the ordinance’s placement on the ballot.