Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on charter reforms: non‑citizen voting sent to committee; LAPD oversight amendment also moved for further work
Summary
After extensive public comment and member debate, councilmembers referred proposed charter changes on non‑citizen voting and a motion strengthening City Council oversight of LAPD back to committees for further study; the LAPD oversight move passed a procedural vote 8–6.
The City Council spent substantial time June 30 debating several proposed charter amendments that would change how Los Angeles governs local elections and police oversight.
On non‑citizen voting (Items 94 and 98), councilmembers voiced sharply divided views. Supporters argued that long‑term resident non‑citizens who pay taxes and whose children attend city schools should have a local voice; opponents raised legal and operational concerns, pointing to San Francisco and other jurisdictions that implemented or attempted similar policies only after years of study and with explicit voter warnings about immigration/privacy risks. Councilmember John Lee urged returning the proposal to committee to develop definitions, implementation procedures and privacy safeguards before placing it before voters. The council voted to refer the non‑citizen voting proposals to the Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Review for further work.
Separately, a proposed charter amendment (Item 97) to increase City Council authority over LAPD drew sustained debate. Advocates described it as a necessary accountability step in response to lawsuit costs and repeated calls for police reform; opponents warned about labor relations, implementation complexity, and the risk of politicizing operational policing decisions. A procedural motion to send the LAPD oversight proposal to committee passed in a roll‑call vote recorded by the Clerk (8 AYES, 6 NOES), moving the matter into further committee consideration rather than adoption.
Councilmembers and public speakers repeatedly emphasized they wanted voters to weigh major structural changes but that legal, operational and privacy issues require additional committee work. The council’s actions mean the proposals will be subject to more hearings, legal analysis and community outreach before any final ballot placement.
