Why You Should Vote YES on Los Angeles County Ballot Measure G - The Team Normal Democratic Voting Guide Guide Part III

The Need for Expanding the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors From Five to Nine Seats and Establish a Directly Elected County Executive

The most bi-partisan and non-ideological endorsement on the Team Normal Democratic Voting Guide is the endorsement of a YES vote on Los Angeles County Measure G.¹

The largest county in the United States, Los Angeles County has a population of over 10 million people (larger than 40 states) and covers 4,083 square miles of extremely geographically diverse areas including at least four microclimates.² Divided by several mountain ranges, Los Angeles County contains some of the densest urban areas in the country, sprawling suburbs and exurbs, and even remote rural outposts.³

Home to every race, ethnicity, language, gender, and sexual orientation, in the world, Los Angeles County is economically diverse too. Most know that LA County is the capital of the entertainment industry. Fewer might be aware that it has the busiest seaport in the United States, is a technology center rivaling Silicon Valley, is a major financial center, and is one of the nation’s leading industrial manufacturing centers.

County government plays a major role in providing critical services to county residents and governing the county as a whole.⁴ State law authorizes counties to have significant governmental powers.⁵ Counties even have the power to tax their residents.⁶

And with all of its duties, responsibilities, and powers, Los Angeles County has a massive government bureaucracy with a recent annual budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year of $49.2 billion.⁷

One might think that a county government as massive as Los Angeles County would be run by numerous elected officials with traditional checks and balances between the political branches.

Guess again.

Instead, county governance currently defaults to the state rule that counties are to be governed by five member boards of supervisors.⁸ Per state law, the County Assessor, Sherriff, and District Attorney, who mostly carry out state law, are independently elected countywide.⁹ There is no directly elected executive leader for the county.

Instead, the Board of Supervisors acts in both a legislative and an executive capacity. The Supervisors rotate the Chair position of the Board but that Chair is not an executive responsible for carrying out the laws.¹⁰

Thus, the governance of Los Angeles County is conducted solely by a board of supervisors consisting of just five members, each elected to a single member district. With a population of over ten million people, each Supervisor represents over 2 million constituents.

This creates three fundamental problems with Los Angeles County governance.

1. The supervisorial districts have far too many constituents, limiting democratic accountability and effective representation and cementing big money in politics.

2. Too much power concentrated in too few hands.

3. There is no separation of powers.

Let’s look at each problem in turn.

I. Lack of Democratic Representation

In a representative democracy, democratically elected representatives are supposed to represent the people, advocating for their constituents and staying attuned to the needs of the people and individual communities. They do so in a way that an executive simply cannot.

It bears repeating. In Los Angeles County, each county supervisor represents over two million people. There is no practical way for any elected representative to stay in touch with local constituents, stay attuned to their needs, or successfully advocate for them when representing that many people.

The large size of each district also cements the role of big money in politics. Simply put, winning an election requires persuading voters. It costs money to reach those voters. The more voters who need to be reached, the more money needs to be spent to win.¹¹

Now, money doesn’t always determine a campaign outcome. Grassroots politics, retail politics, and citizen’s movements are often the tools of citizens without much money to create political change. But those tools are not feasible when the districts are this large and there are this many voters to reach.

It also diminishes electoral accountability, protecting incumbents from challenge. No incumbent Los Angeles County Supervisor has lost re-election since 1980.

While this may have been because residents of Los Angeles County were extremely happy with the job performances of their individual Supervisors during the past forty four years, the extremely large districts likely played a role in locking in the power of the incumbent.

II. Too Much Power in Too Few Hands

In other western democracies, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, legislative bodies are frequently expanded. One reason why this is a good thing is that it ensures that the public is fully represented. The goal is that decisions about laws are not simply made by a small select handful but by bodies that truly represent the public.

Currently, .00005% of the population makes decisions regarding Los Angeles’s County’s governance.

What are the consequences of that?

A lack of diversity.

We often speak of diversity by looking at immutable characteristics like race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. In a place as diverse as Los Angeles County, it is impossible to truly reflect this kind of diversity with only five Supervisors.¹²

Yet there are other types of important diversity that are lost too.

• Diversity of thought.

• Diversity of background.

• Diversity of experience.

• Diversity of geographic residence.

Different perspectives and different voices make for better government. Government becomes more responsive and more in tune with the needs of the public. When you have representatives with different political views, educational backgrounds, life experiences, and professional experiences, their different perspectives can help educate others and inform their decision making.

With just five people representing ten million, those kinds of diversity are simply unattainable.

III. No Separation of Powers

The separation of powers is one of the fundamental concepts of American government.¹³ The California Constitution even makes it explicit for our state government.¹⁴

One of the inherent powers of a legislative branch of government is to investigate and keep the executive branch in check.¹⁵ The legislative branch of government does not carry out the enforcement of that laws that it creates.¹⁶

Instead, the executive branch carries out the law.¹⁷ To protect against government abuses and protect a free society, the executive branch does not act as its own lawmaker, enforcing the laws that it creates.¹⁸

In Los Angeles County, our County Supervisors do double duty. They act as both the legislative branch and the executive branch.

That is fundamentally flawed because it requires the legislative branch to conduct oversight of itself. Moreover, it creates an executive who inherently acts as a lawmaker rather than just one that simply executes the law.

Conversely, it creates a practical problem in the execution of laws. In modern times, we have a large administrative state of unelected bureaucrats who help the executive branch carry out laws. Los Angeles County is no exception.

Putting aside debates on how large or powerful the administrative state should be, ultimately, in a tripartite system of government, there is an electoral check on unelected bureaucrats. They can be overruled by the elected executive who is accountable to the voters for the decisions of their administrators.

• Don’t like a federal government policy? Ask President Joe Biden to change it.

• Don’t think a state agency is being run well? Ask Governor Gavin Newsom to replace the agency head with someone competent.

• Don’t think the Department of Public Works is cleaning up fallen tree branches or replacing burnt out traffic lights quickly enough? Let Mayor Karen Bass know changes have to be made.

To quote President Harry Truman, “The buck stops here!”

While good elected officials don’t micromanage administrative departments, they do keep them in check. Elected officials like their jobs. And elected executives know that if they don’t reign in their administrators or ensure that they act competently, they run the risk of being tossed out of office by the voters.

However, in Los Angeles County, without a single executive in charge, unelected administration officials make decisions for the entire county and no single elected official can over-rule them. Instead, only the Supervisors acting collectively can do so, where each Supervisor is only accountable to their individual constituents.

That may sound abstract. But it’s more than just a theoretical debate.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the unelected Los Angeles County Health Director, Dr. Barbara Ferrer, who is not a medical doctor, issued numerous countywide health orders. These county health orders were often drastic and controversial.

But no single elected official, accountable to all of Los Angeles County’s ten million constituents, had the power to over-rule Dr. Ferrer. Conversely, no single elected official, accountable to all of Los Angeles County’s ten million constituents, could explain to the public why they were risking their own job to allow Dr. Ferrer’s order to remain in effect.

Instead, Los Angeles County residents had to rely on five different Supervisors, each with different constituents, different political needs, and a different opinion, to collectively decide whether to support or oppose Dr. Ferrer’s mandates.

The outcome was often a muddled one that left the public feeling a lack of confidence in county government and their elected representatives.

Some may point out that the constitutional separation of powers doctrine does not apply to local government in California.¹⁹

But in a county as massive and diverse as Los Angeles County, with its massive budget and many governmental powers, shouldn’t we have proper separation of powers in how our government is run?²⁰

The Solution: Measure G

Fortunately, Los Angeles County is not limited to just having five members on its Board of Supervisors because it is what is known as a charter county.²¹ Under the California Constitution, Los Angeles County is allowed to have a Board of Supervisors with more than five members.²² And Los Angeles County also has the constitutional authority to create a separate elected county executive.²³

This November, there is a ballot measure that will vastly improve Los Angeles County governance: Measure G

Measure G will:

• Expand the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors From Five (5) Seats to Nine (9) Seats

• Create a Countywide Elected Chief Executive Officer of Los Angeles County Directly Elected by the Voters of Los Angeles County

It will also make some additional governmental changes to improve government transparency and accountability. In addition to those changes, Measure G will:

• Create an Independent Ethics Commission to Investigate and Prosecute Violations of Los Angeles County Campaign Finance and Government Ethics Laws

• Establish a Non-Partisan Legislative Analyst to Analyze Proposed County Policies

• Require all County Departments to Present Annual Budgets in Public Meetings

• Enact a Two-Year Lobbying Ban on Elected Officials After Leaving County Elected Office

• Impose a Five (5) Day Notice Requirement for the Passage of County Ordinances

• Allow Suspensions of County Supervisors who are Charged With Felony Crimes

Measure G also requires that any expenditures for these changes must be made within the current budget and without a tax increase.

Altogether, these changes would be a tremendous step forward in our county governance.

Addressing Arguments Against Measure G

Some very smart people who I greatly respect have opposed Measure G or expressed skepticism. I want to directly address these arguments in opposition and concerns because while these points have merit, Measure G should still pass.

Argument #1: “Just Expanding to Nine Supervisors Won’t Change Anything so Why Bother?”

I am clear-eyed that there is only so much change that will result from expanding the Board from five Supervisors to nine Supervisors.

County Supervisorial Districts will still be incredibly large (larger than Congressional Districts and even California State Senate Districts). A great deal of money will still be needed to get elected. And the opportunity to add more diversity to the Board of Supervisors would only increase so much.

Here though, we have to recognize the inherent limits of government and our budget.

If you asked people, in the abstract, if county supervisorial seats should be limited to 100,000 constituents each, they would likely agree. It sounds reasonable. After all, James Madison’s proposed but never enacted constitutional amendment would have required that all House seats have no more than 50,000 constituents each.²⁴

In Los Angeles County, that would result in over 100 seats on the Board of Supervisors. While it would be more representative, it would also likely create chaos, fundamentally shift county governance, and likely blow a hole in the budget.

Measure G’s expansion is being done in a way that is manageable and responsible. It will not inevitably lead to chaos on the Board, bust the county budget, or require a future tax increase.

While this expansion won’t make a 180 degree change, it will still (1) reduce the amount of money needed to be elected, (2) make the districts more manageable, (3) improve the representation of the public, and (4) increase the opportunity for more diversity on the Board of Supervisors.

Perfect? No. But we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Argument #2: “Aren’t there going to be problems with figuring out the new powers of a single county executive versus what the current Supervisors are allowed to do?”

Having a single county executive should not create fear. Most major metropolitan counties in the United States have elected chief executives. Major cities in California all have elected chief executives. For the reasons outlined above, it’s important to have an executive who can carry out the county’s functions and be accountable to the voters.

I am also clear-eyed that creating a new elected countywide executive will not be a 100% seamless transition. Future changes will likely be needed to clarify the scope of powers of the county executive and the Board of Supervisors. However, that’s a natural part of good government - recognizing inadequacies and making changes as needed.

Again, we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Argument #3: “Do we really need more politicians?”

The answer is actually yes.

Politicians are not elites who sit above the people, ruling us as subjects.²⁵ As a client and friend who serves in elected office once advised to another prospective candidate for elected office, “Just remember. You’re not special. You’re willing to lead. And you know the difference.”

Elected representatives are supposed to be representative of the people. When there are too few politicians per constituents represented, you create a small group of powerful elites who are not representative of the public. That’s not what is needed to effectively govern society, nor does it further democracy.

In fact, as writer and noted centrist thinker

Noah Smith

has argued in The Wealthy and Privileged Can Revolt, Too and The Elite Overproduction Hypothesis, when there are too few elite positions for the overall population, including elected officials, there tends to be political instability. He further argues that the lack of elite positions is one of the underlying causes of current political instability.

Granted, there are limits to how many additional elite positions can be created. However, the proposed expansion numbers under Measure G would not create an unprecedented number of new elected officials.

Los Angeles County already has fewer county elected officials than we could have under the default state law rules. Under state law, Los Angeles County could have up to ten countywide elected officers.²⁶ Neighboring Orange County and Ventura County both have six countywide elected officials. Nearby Riverside County has five countywide elected officials. We only have three countywide elected officials.

Moreover, expanding to nine County Supervisors is in line with the default rules for general law city councils which can have up to nine city councilmembers.²⁷

Argument #4: “Won’t this slow down the ability to pass legislation at the county level?”

Perhaps. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. A quick legislative process isn’t always a good thing. The legislative process is supposed to be slower and more deliberative.²⁸

Argument #5: “Since the Supervisors voted to place Measure G on the ballot, isn’t this just a Machiavellian plot by the Supervisors to add to their political power?”

No. It’s the opposite.

The three Supervisors who voted in favor of placing Measure G on the ballot are voting to reduce their own power. How?

It dilutes their vote. If you are 1 of 9, you have less power than when you were 1 of 5. Moreover, with a separately elected executive, they will lose some of their existing power.

There’s a natural inclination of some who are distrustful of government to dislike the idea of more politicians. Who is most grateful for that inclination?

Politicians who love their own power. Any expansion of their legislative body results in them having less power, not more.

Here, I give great credit to Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who not only voted to place Measure G on the ballot but authored it.

Supervisor Horvath is the newest member of the Board of Supervisors, elected in 2022. In contrast with the other two supervisors who voted in favor, Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis, she stands the most to lose. Here’s why:

First, she will lose political power while the other two Supervisors will not. That’s because, if successful, Measure G will not take effect until 2028.

Los Angeles County Supervisors are currently limited to three terms each.²⁹ Supervisor Solis, who was first elected in 2014, is serving her final term. Supervisor Hahn, who was first elected in 2016, was re-elected to her final term in March of 2024. If Measure G passes, both will leave office before its changes take effect. They will serve on the Board of Supervisors without losing any of their current powers.

Supervisor Horvath though will see her vote on the Board be diluted. She will lose some of her discretionary powers to the new countywide executive. And she will be subject to new ethics rules that will limit her future economic opportunities.

Second, she’s doing something that is almost unheard of for a politician. She’s voting to jeopardize her own job.

As mentioned above, no Los Angeles County Supervisor has lost re-election since 1980. Supervisor Horvath, who was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2022 will be up for re-election in 2026 and if re-elected, up for a final re-election in 2030. Under the current set-up, it’s highly unlikely that she would lose re-election.

In American politics, incumbents very rarely lose re-election. That’s partly because incumbency conveys great electoral advantages over challengers.³⁰

When incumbent legislators do lose re-election though, it’s often because of redistricting. Their district gets redrawn and they find themselves facing a new electorate where they are largely unknown. Sometimes, they can be drawn into districts with other incumbents.

Right now, Supervisor Horvath’s current district will not change during her time on the Board. The next redistricting will take place in 2031. Thus, if nothing changes, in 2026 and 2030, she will face roughly the same electorate as she did in 2022. And her constituents will remain largely the same.

If Measure G passes, the Board of Supervisors will be completely redrawn. Moreover, it will be redrawn by an independent panel, not directly by the Board of Supervisors.³¹ Thus, Supervisor Horvath will have no ability to draw her own future seat and there is no way to predict with any certainty what the future districts will look like.

There is every possibility that her current district could be completely carved up and she might face a new and completely different electorate when she is next up for re-election. She could have her home of West Hollywood drawn into a new district that contains almost none of her current district. She could be drawn into a seat with another incumbent Supervisor eligible for re-election.

There’s simply no way to predict.

Could an expansion of seats actually result in an incumbent losing re-election?

This has actually happened before. In 1989, the United States Supreme Court struck down New York City’s Board of Estimate, a legislative body that gave equal voting power to each of the five boroughs, as unconstitutional.³² In response, New York City decided to expand its City Council from 35 to 51 representatives (their population is 8 million people).³³ The expansion of seats required a major redistricting.³⁴

One longtime City Councilwoman, liberal reformer and feminist Carol Greitzer, who had served on the New York City Council since the late 1960’s, representing a liberal Greenwich Village based district, had her district carved up into five different districts.³⁵ She ran for re-election in a newly configured Upper Eastside based district in 1991 and lost re-election to a Republican.³⁶

While that seems unlikely to happen here, the point stands. Expansion of the Board of Supervisors requires redistricting and that redistricting could lead to electoral loss.

If Supervisor Horvath was voting her own best political interests, she would have voted against Measure G. She’s nearly guaranteed re-election and Measure G’s passage would potentially throw that into jeopardy.

While this probably seems like political inside baseball or sausage making, it’s important because it should assuage skeptics who wonder if this is merely a move designed to help further the political ambitions of the Supervisors.

Supervisor Horvath authored Measure G at her own political peril. She deserves tremendous credit for choosing good governance over personal ambition. And if anything, this only further demonstrates the wisdom in Measure G.

A Final Word

This election season has been incredibly difficult. The electorate is extremely polarized and anxious. Americans seem hopelessly divided. Even the non-partisan ballot measures in California show deep divides among voters.

Measure G is a ballot measure whose support cuts across party lines and ideology. It’s a good government reform. It provides an opportunity for Los Angeles County residents, regardless of how we are voting on other candidates or ballot measures, to come together and perhaps be reminded of our commonality as Americans.

While there are legitimate concerns, it is my profound hope that Los Angeles County voters will put aside any reservations and pass Measure G.

Rural Unincorporated Agua Dulce (Los Angeles County)

Downtown Los Angeles Skyline

Port of Los Angeles

Century City Skyline (Los Angeles County)

Rodeo Drive in the Beverly Hills Golden Triangle (Los Angeles County)

Angelino Heights, Carroll Avenue overlooking Downtown Los Angeles (Los Angeles County)

Angeles National Forest (Forest dividing parts of Los Angeles County)

1. The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author’s scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County%2C_California

3. Full disclosure. I am a friend and longtime political supporter of both Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and Supervisor Hilda Solis, who both voted to place Measure G on the ballot. However, I am speaking here on my own behalf, not on theirs or the formal Yes on Measure G, and nothing I say should be construed as anything other than my own personal opinion.