The administrative error that wiped out one Los Angeles ballot measure and may force another
Fasana and fellow task force member Derek Steele argued during the meeting that their newly established 13-member task force should figure out how to proceed with the Measure J omission before getting into the nitty-gritty of implementing Measure G.
'I don't think it puts the committee members in a good position to go out talking to the public and doing public outreach when there's this cloud hanging over the thing that they might not even know about,' Fasana said. 'So that's why I came forward when I did … there should be a more public discussion of how this is going to get fixed.'
They argue it's possible to add Measure J back into the charter without needing voter approval. Then they want to see a new charter amendment on the ballot next November to rehash parts of Measure G, particularly those related to the elected executive which wiped out Measure J. Those sections incidentally were the leading reason Fasana and Steele both opposed Measure G.
'If we are going to be rehashing any conversation, I think it is to take in a reexamination of Measure G, which was rushed in the first place, which never was really community-vetted,' said Steele. 'The portion about the county CEO … maybe that part needs to go back before the public and be reexamined.'
The Los Angeles County Counsel confirmed in a statement that Measure G did in fact repeal Measure J, but also clarified that the repeal 'would have no impact' on the funding called for in Measure J because the board has adopted a budget policy 'identical to the objectives set out in Measure J.'
But that effectively leaves a voter-approved policy change up to the whims of lawmakers, as a new Board of Supervisors could simply reverse the funding decision.
Backers of Measure J were incensed by the mix-up. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, who had been involved in the Measure J campaign in 2020, said he was 'absolutely livid' when he found out.
'I don't know who to blame here, but I do know that in some respects, what the voters voted on in November [with Measure G] did not accurately reflect what the proponents of the measure intended or what the outcome potentially is if there's no administrative fix,' Bryan said. 'That is not something that should force Measure J back to the ballot.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
San Francisco close to taking new step to fight homelessness
San Francisco is set to crack down on homeless people living in RVs with its Board of Supervisors preparing to vote on strict new parking limits. A proposal that would enact a two-hour parking limit citywide for all RVs and oversized vehicles longer than 22 feet or higher than 7 feet -- regardless of whether they are being used as housing -- is up for final approval Tuesday. Mayor Daniel Lurie and supporters of the policy say motor homes are not suitable for long-term living and the city has a duty to both provide shelter to those in need and clean up the streets. Under an accompanying permit program, RV residents registered with the city as of May are exempt from the parking limits. In exchange, they must accept San Francisco's offer of temporary or longer-term housing and get rid of their RV when it's time to move. The city has budgeted more than half a million dollars to buy RVs from residents at $175 per foot. "We absolutely want to serve those families, those who are in crisis across San Francisco," Chief of Health & Human Services Kunal Modi told The Associated Press. "We feel the responsibility to help them get to a stable solution. And at the same time, we want to make sure that that stability is somewhere indoors and not exposed in the public roadway." The permits would last for six months. People in RVs who arrive after May will not be eligible for the permit program and must abide by the two-hour rule. The proposal, which targets at least 400 RVs, first cleared the Board of Supervisors last week with two of 11 supervisors voting "no." RV dwellers say San Francisco should open a safe parking lot where residents could empty trash and access electricity. However, city officials shuttered an RV lot in April, saying it cost about $4 million a year to service three dozen large vehicles and it failed to transition people to more stable housing, the AP reported. The mayor's new proposal comes with more money for beefed-up RV parking enforcement — but also an additional $11 million, largely for a small number of households to move to subsidized housing for a few years. Officials acknowledge that may not be sufficient to house all RV dwellers, but note that the city also has hotel vouchers and other housing subsidies.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tulare County Supervisors respond to grand jury election integrity report
Tulare County Board of Supervisors formally responded to the findings and recommendations in the 'Election Integrity' section of the "Tulare County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, 2024-2025" at a July 15 meeting. In its Election Integrity section, the Tulare County Civil Grand Jury found that, 'there is tremendous oversight and regulation from the offices of the secretary of state and the (Tulare County Registrar of Voters) related to the entire election process.' Supervisors previously responded to the findings and recommendations in the 'Homeless Shelters,' 'Special Districts,' and 'Library Book Machines' sections of the report at their June 3 meeting. Proposed responses to the grand jury report were presented at both meetings by Israel Sotelo, Jr., the board's chief of staff. Responses to grand jury reports are required by the California Penal Code. More: Tulare County supervisors respond to grand jury findings; here's what they said Tulare County Grand jury findings The grand jury found that, 'The checks and balances employed were found to minimize the chance of widespread fraud that would impact the results of an election, and provide clear evidence to debunk many of the claims of election fraud.' 'We agree with this finding,' responded supervisors, who also agreed with the grand jury that, 'There is a need to further inform the electorate of the process in place to ensure the election and to encourage them to volunteer to be involved with (Tulare County Registrar of Voters) during election season.' There was a mixed response to the grand jury's final finding, however. 'It is believed with personal identification requirements, residency addresses, and requirements to have email and phone numbers are a strong safeguard against registration of fraudulent individuals to vote,' stated the grand jury's report. 'We partially disagree with this finding,' supervisors responded. 'The board recognizes that voter identification requirements are a strong safeguard against registration of fraudulent individuals to vote. Title 52 of United States Code Section 21038, and California Elections Code Section 2150 require individuals registering to vote for the first time to provide their current and valid driver's license number, or state identification number on the affidavit of registration.' The supervisors' response stated that also requiring mail and phone numbers, 'add no value in safeguarding against the registration of fraudulent voters.' Grand jury recommendations The grand jury recommendations included actions based on its findings. The grand jury recommended that the registrar of voters and other county agencies fund and organize public awareness of the multiple procedures in place to eliminate the "misconceptions of deceased people voting, unregistered voters casting votes, individuals voting numerous times, and breaches of data from the voting machines.' More: Why Tulare County supervisors named themselves to the Tulare Cemetery District Board The recommendation hasn't been implemented but will by January 2026, ahead of the primary and general elections, supervisors said. 'The Tulare County Registrar of Voters will create a fact sheet encompassing all relevant topics to distribute to registered voters in order to dispel misconceptions of widespread voter fraud in Tulare County," supervisors stated. The registrar of voters is also being asked to create a "robust campaign "outlining the opportunities to become involved as a volunteer during the election season. 'This recommendation has been implemented,' supervisors stated. 'The Tulare County Registrar of Voters regularly attends community events such as job fairs and senior day in the park to encourage individuals to register to vote and volunteer as poll workers. The ROV also posts flyers at community centers, DMVs, post offices, libraries, and church bulletin boards encouraging individuals to volunteer their time at the polls, and will be reaching out to business that encourage employee participation in community service activities such as Target, Kohl's, Saputo Cheese, and Dutch Bros.' The final recommendation was that volunteer information 'could be distributed via fact sheet in monthly utility bills or presentations to churches or civic groups.' However, that recommendation will not be implemented, according to the board. 'The cost and relative benefit of including a flyer in monthly utility bills is unjustifiable as most individuals receive their bills electronically," supervisors stated. "Similarly, the cost in overtime wages associated with presenting to local churches during their weekly meeting is unjustifiable, and increased awareness about volunteer opportunities can be accomplished through existing practices.' Read the full report: Tulare County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, 2024-2025 by eroberts on Scribd Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at the Visalia Times Delta, please consider subscribing yourself or giving the gift of a subscription to someone you know. This article originally appeared on Visalia Times-Delta: Tulare County Supervisors respond to grand jury about election integrity Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. County accidentally repealed its anti-incarceration ballot measure. Now what?
Los Angeles County leaders are scrambling to restore a sweeping racial justice initiative that voters accidentally repealed, a mistake that could threaten hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to reducing the number of people in jail. County supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to ask their lawyers to find a way to bring back the ballot measure known as Measure J, which required the county to put a significant portion of its budget toward anti-incarceration services. Voters learned last week that they had unwittingly repealed the landmark criminal justice reform, passed in 2020 in the heat of the Black Lives Matter movement, when they voted for a completely unrelated measure to overhaul the county government last November. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who spearheaded the county overhaul — known as Measure G — along with Supervisor Janice Hahn, called it a 'colossal fiasco.' 'This situation that has unfolded is enraging and unacceptable at every level. What has transpired is sloppy,' Horvath said Tuesday. 'It's a bureaucratic disaster with real consequences.' The county says it's looking at multiple options to try to get Measure J permanently back in the charter — which dictates how the county is governed — including a change in state law, a court judgment or a ballot measure for 2026. 'We cannot and we won't let this mistake invalidate the will of the voters,' Hahn said. County lawyers say the mistake stems from a recently discovered 'administrative error.' Last November, voters approved Measure G, which expands the five-person Board of Supervisors to nine members and brings on an elected chief executive, among other overhauls. What no one seemed to realize — including the county lawyers who write the ballot measures — is that one measure would wipe out the other. Measure G rewrote a chunk of the charter with no mention of anti-incarceration funding, effectively wiping out the county's promise to put hundreds of millions toward services that keep people out of jail and support them when they leave. The repeal will take effect in 2028, giving the county three years to fix it. 'I do agree that there's all kinds of reasons to be outraged, but the sky is not falling. Even if you think the sky is falling, it won't fall until December 2028,' said Rob Quan, who leads a transparency-focused good-government advocacy group. 'We've got multiple opportunities to fix this.' The mistake was first spotted last month by former Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana, who sits on a task force in charge of implementing the county government overhaul. The county confirmed the mistake to The Times last week, a day after Fasana publicly raised the issue to his unsuspecting fellow task force members. The measure's critics say the mistake adds credence to their arguments that the county overhaul was put together too hastily. 'It seems to be that if one has to go back on the ballot, it ought to be [Measure] G,' said Fasana, noting it passed by a narrower margin. Otherwise, he says, the county has set an unnerving precedent. 'It's almost like setting a blueprint to steal an election,' said Fasana, who opposed both the anti-incarceration funding and the government overhaul measures. 'You've got this way to basically nullify something that was passed by voters.' Some worry that putting either measure back on the ballot runs the risk of voters rejecting it this time around. Measure G faced significant opposition — including from two sitting supervisors — who argued an elected chief executive would be too powerful and the measure left too much of this new government ill-defined. It narrowly passed with just over 51% of the vote. The anti-incarceration measure also faced heavy opposition in 2020, particularly from the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media. The measure passed with 57% of the vote. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled it unconstitutional after a group of labor unions — including the sheriff's deputies union — argued it hampered politicians' ability to manage taxpayer money as they see fit. An appellate court later reversed the decision. Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money be spent on social services such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. That's equivalent to roughly $288 million this fiscal year. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies. Derek Hsieh, the head of the sheriff's deputies union and a member of the governance reform task force, said the union had consulted with lawyers and believed the county would be successful if it tried to resolve the issue through a court judgment. 'A change in state law or running another ballot measure — it's kind of like swimming upstream,' he said. 'Those are the most expensive difficult things.' Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA coalition, which pushed for the anti-incarceration measure, said if the group has to go back to the ballot, it will try to slash the language that it feels gives the county too much wiggle room on how funding is allocated. The coalition has clashed repeatedly with county leadership over just how much money is actually meant to be set aside under Measure J. 'If we do have to go to the ballot box, we're going to be asking for more,' she said. City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who helped get the anti-incarceration measure on the ballot, said she felt suspicious of the error by county lawyers, some of whom she believed were never fully on board with the measure in the first place. 'I just feel like they're too good at their jobs for this error to occur,' said Hernandez, who said the news landed like a 'slap in the face.' County leaders have emphasized that the error was purely accidental and brushed aside concerns that the repeal would have any tangible difference on what gets funded. When Measure J was temporarily overturned by the court, the board promised to carry on with both the 'spirit and letter' of the measure, reserving a chunk of the budget for services that keep people out of jail and support those returning. That will still apply, they say, even if Measure J is not reinstated. The motion passed Tuesday directs the county to work on an ordinance to ensure 'the continued implementation of measure J' beyond 2028.
