In a historic shift, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors will nearly double in size
Proponents of expanding the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors tried in 1962, in 1976, in 1992 and again in 2000.
Each time, voters said no, even as the county’s population swelled. The last thing people wanted, it seemed, was more politicians.
Now, in a historic shift, a proposal to add four more members to the five-member board as part of a massive overhaul of the county government’s structure has passed.
The backers of Measure G claimed victory Monday afternoon following days of returns showing voters closely divided.
The measure, which also includes a proposal to elect a chief executive and create an independent ethics commission, had a narrow but stable lead, securing just over 51% of votes, with some ballots still left to be counted.
“The way we’re doing county governance right now just doesn’t work,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who co-authored the measure with Supervisor Janice Hahn. “I’m heartened by what this change reflects.”
Voters have repeatedly rejected ballot measures aimed at expanding the Board of Supervisors, currently an all-female board nicknamed the “five little queens” for the immense power they hold over the nation’s largest county.
But this time, the expansion of the board to nine members, combined with the other restructuring measures, won over a slim majority of voters in the Nov. 5 election.
“Each attempt has failed by significant margins,” said Horvath. “I don’t read the point spread as anything other than wild success.”
Your guide to Measure G: Expanding the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, electing a county executive
This November, voters will decide whether they want to reshape Los Angeles County government, nearly doubling the size of the Board of Supervisors and making the county’s top executive an elected position.
Measure G’s passage marks a dramatic reshaping of a government that has not fundamentally changed for over a century, as the county’s population exploded from 500,000 to roughly 10 million.
“It’s really quite remarkable,” said Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Haynes Foundation, which funds research on governance in greater Los Angeles. “The history of this is that these things don’t happen.”
Voters’ change of heart, Sonenshein said, can be traced back to their disgust with Los Angeles City Hall after a recording leaked of a racist backroom conversation among three city council members and a labor leader. Constituents made their demands for fresh politicians and a cleaner form of politicking clear. That call for change, Sonenshein believes, rippled over to the county.
“That is always how reform waves happen,” said Sonenshein. “It’s not like people get up and say, ‘This would be a nice time to do reform.’ It happens because of some felt urgency.”
Hahn said she watched her father, longtime Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, try and fail to expand the board in the 1970s. Repeatedly since then, she said, voters have proven mercurial. They would say in focus groups that they wanted stronger representation. They did not, however, want more politicians.
“At the end of the day, voters are like, ‘Do we really want more of them?’” she said. “This time, it wasn’t just about expanding the board.”
Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who opposed the measure, said in a statement Tuesday, “The voters have spoken. 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.”
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who was also against the measure, said she remained concerned about its “long-term impact and its boots-on-the-ground implementation” but said it was “time to look forward.”
“Although Measure G’s passage wasn’t a landslide victory by any account, I respect our democratic process and the will of our County’s voters,” she said in a statement.
The measure’s passage will set the clock ticking for a host of changes, many of which will take years to come to fruition.
By 2026, the county will create an independent ethics commission, responsible for disciplining county officials found guilty of misconduct and cracking down on a “revolving door” from government posts to lobbying.
By 2028, there will be a county executive, who will function similar to a mayor, overseeing department heads, drafting the budget and wielding veto power over the board’s policies. The county currently has a chief executive appointed by the supervisors. With Measure G, voters will elect the executive, a race certain to set off a heated political fight.
“I’m not sure everyone has completely focused on the enormity of the influence that this particular position will wield,” said Hahn. “Once people realize what it will be, I think there will be a lot of interest.”
And by 2032, following a redistricting process, all nine supervisors will be elected. Supporters of Measure G argue that the larger board will be more representative of a county that is nearly half Latino and about 15% Asian. There has never been an Asian American supervisor.
“With Measure G, we’re moving toward a County government that truly reflects and serves all of us,” Manjusha Kulkarni, executive director of the AAPI Equity Alliance, which advocates for Asian American and Pacific Islanders, said in a statement.
The measure’s opponents argued that the government overhaul had been put together too fast, with too many details left to figure out after the vote — including how much it will all cost. The measure states that the county cannot raise taxes to pay for the changes, which will include salaries for the new politicians and their staffs, forcing the county to find places to belt-tighten.
“What that also implies is that you’re going to have to pay Peter and steal from Paul,” said Arcadia Mayor Michael Cao, who opposed the measure. “What social service programs are you going to have to decrease funding for?”
According to an Oct. 24 county analysis reviewed by The Times, the ethics reforms in Measure G could cost as much as $21.9 million a year.
The county auditor’s office has put one-time costs for the measure at about $8 million, but the ultimate price tag is expected to be significantly larger.
County attorneys estimated last month that the ethics reforms detailed in the measure could cost $21 million yearly, mostly because of staff salaries. The campaign for Measure G countered that the estimate was overblown.
Zev Yaroslavsky, who was a supervisor for two decades, said he expects an “army” of candidates to be interested in the new seats.
The chief executive position could even prove alluring to sitting supervisors, he said, granting one lucky politician “the biggest bully pulpit in Southern California.”
“This will be the most powerful elected local government official in the state of California,” said Yaroslavsky, director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “I think they would be engaging in political malpractice if they didn’t look at it, but they won’t be the only ones.”
Tempting for others, he said — but he’s not interested.
“I’m going to be 76 next month,” he said. “There might have been a time, but not now.”
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
