Measure To Expand Board Of Supervisors From 5 To 9 Members Passes In L.A. County

Supporters of Measure G, an initiative in Los Angeles County that would nearly double the size of the Board of Supervisors from 5 members to 9, celebrated on Tuesday and Wednesday following enough votes coming in to be deemed a victory.

Los Angeles County has had virtually the same county charter since 1912, in which it had a Board of Supervisors consisting of 5 people to represent a population of 500,000 people. However, as the population has grown exponentially in over 100 years, efforts have been made multiple times to try and expand the Board of Supervisors. Voters turned down each new attempt for a variety of reasons, with a constant throughline being that they didn’t want even more lawmakers on the Board. Four major attempts were defeated in 1962, 1976, 1992 and, most recently, 2000. With the County now at 10 million people, efforts were once again started to try to expand the Board again, with them ultimately succeeding in placing it on the ballot.

Specifically, Measure G is aimed to amend the county charter to, according to the ballot wording, “create an elected County Executive as well as an Ethics Commission, establish a Legislative Analyst to review proposed policies, increase the Board of Supervisors from five to nine elected members, and require county departments to present annual budgets in public meetings.” The measure gained popularity throughout the year, with proponents saying it would lead to a diverse Board that would more accurately represent a growing L.A. County. Three Supervisors – Janice Hahn, Hilda Solis and Lindsey Horvath – all supported it.

But, like previous attempts, many also came out in opposition. Not only was the original argument against a bigger government there, but so was the increased cost for taxpayers, and that the County Executive position would have far too much power, as they would virtually be a “County Mayor”. Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger both came out against it, showing a heavily divided Board over the matter.

Unlike previous attempts, Measure G remained close in polling all year. A final push in support, promising better representation, seemed to have sent it over the edge as Measure G finally had enough votes come in to have it projected to pass on Tuesday. According to totals from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, yes votes now lead no votes on Measure G 1,614,342 votes to 1,526,353, or, 51.4% to 48.6%.

Measure G passes

Supporters celebrated on Tuesday and Wednesday, with Supervisor Horvath saying in a statement, “The people of Los Angeles County have made history in passing Measure G, ushering in the change necessary for a more effective Los Angeles County. We will now have the ability to fix what is broken and deliver the results our communities are counting on, especially in the face of threats to our most vulnerable residents from the next federal administration. Through this historic change, we will address the most pressing issues facing Angelenos with greater urgency and accountability, and create a more ethical and representative government fit for the 21st century.

“The way we’re doing county governance right now just doesn’t work. I’m heartened by what this change reflects. Each attempt has failed by significant margins. I don’t read the point spread as anything other than wild success.”

Opponents warned that the changes would have negative consequences throughout the County, specifically with a County Executive who would have veto power over the Commissioners and essentially be a County Mayor. The additional costs of Measure G, including salaries for so many more lawmakers, have also put many opponents at a loss for words.

“This is why each attempt to expand the Board was meant with such hostility,” Doug Locke, a pollster in L.A. County, told the Globe Wednesday. “There is a lot more power there and a lot more money wasted. But, with many groups not feeling represented at all, you can see why it passed. Latinos wanted more seats and Asians wanted a seat to even representation. And, critically, many men voted for it because there are no male Supervisors right now and they wanted that to change. It all generated enough votes this time.”

“The voters have spoken,” Supervisor Mitchell added. “As we transition to implementing Measure G, without a clear plan to cover its costs, I will remain vigilant in doing all we can to protect county services and jobs that so many of our residents rely on.”

A final tally of Measure G is likely to come out by early December.