LA County's charter reform accidentally repealed anti-incarceration ballot measure
They didn't realize they were also repealing the county's landmark criminal justice reform.
Eight months later, county officials are just now realizing they unwittingly committed an administrative screw-up for the ages.
Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn co-authored Measure G, which changed the county charter to expand the five-person board and elect a new county executive, among other momentous shifts.
But nobody seemed to realize the new charter language would repeal Measure J, which voters approved in 2020 to dedicate hundreds of millions towards services that offer alternatives to incarceration.
'We can confirm that due to an inadvertent administrative error by a prior Executive Officer administration, Measure J was not placed in the County's Charter after its passage in 2020,' said County Counsel in a statement. 'As a result, when the voters passed Measure G, they repealed Measure J effective December 2028.'
The mistake appears to stem from a failure by the county's executive office to update the county charter with Measure J after it passed in 2020. County lawyers then failed to include the Measure J language when they drafted the 2024 ballot measure.
So when voters approved Measure G, they accidentally repealed Measure J, according to the county.
The screw-up was first discovered by John Fasana, a former Duarte Councilmember who sits on the county's governance reform task force, which is tasked with implementing the government overhaul. He said he first raised the issue with the county in early June.
'Someone goofed,' said Fasana, who was appointed to the taskforce by Supervisor Kathryn Barger. 'I couldn't believe it when I saw it.'
Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA Coalition, which pushed Measure J to the ballot in 2020, said she was disturbed to learn last week that the fruit of years of advocacy would soon be wiped away accidentally.
'It shouldn't be undermined just because folks rushed policy making,' said Castillo. 'We know more voters were for Measure J than Measure G. It's disrespectful to the will of the people to find this could unintentionally happen.'
Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money — estimated between $360 million and $900 million — be spent on social services, such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.
Castillo said she was worried the repeal would result in a 'deep economic fallout' for these programs with county money potentially diverted to costs required by Measure G, like the salaries of new politicians and their staff. Measure G bars the county from raising taxes meaning this money will have to come from elsewhere in the county budget.
Castillo said she first brought the issue to the attention to deputies for Hahn and Horvath last week.
'They are shocked as well,' said Castillo.
Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who led the charge on Measure G, said in a statement a proposal was coming to correct the 'County bureaucracy's error related to Measure J.'
'This measure was the result of a hard-fought, community-led effort that I wholeheartedly supported—and remain deeply committed to upholding,' said Horvath. 'This situation makes clear why Measure G is so urgently needed. … When five people are in charge, no one is in charge, and this is a quintessential example of what that means.'
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who opposed the overhaul of the county charter, saw it a little differently.
'It also reinforces one of the key concerns I had about Measure G from the start. When major changes to the County Charter are pushed forward without sufficient time for analysis, public input, and transparency, mistakes become more likely. Oversights like this are exactly what can happen,' Barger said in a statement. 'This error could–and should–have been caught before voters were asked to make a decision.'
Supervisor Hilda Solis said she was 'surprised and concerned' to learn about the error but was confident the funding envisioned by Measure J would 'continue unaffected.'
The Times reached out to the other two supervisors and has yet to receive their responses.
County attorneys said in a statement they were working with the executive office to 'address this situation' and ensure the executive office 'timely codified' charter amendments going forward. They emphasized that, despite the looming repeal of Measure J, the county will continue to align its budget with the goals of the measure.
Derek Hsieh, head of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and a member of the governance reform taskforce member, called the mistake a 'cluster—.'
'I think the voters and county employees would like to know when the Board of Supervisors knew about this mistake and what they plan on doing to fix it,' said Hsieh, who was an outspoken opponent of both Measure G and Measure J.
The union, which represents sheriff's deputies, had spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media to fight Measure J. The union had also joined other county labor unions to challenge the measure in court.
'There's absolutely no question both by the will of the voters and a decision by the California Supreme Court that Measure J is the law of the land,' said Hsieh.
The screw-up became public Wednesday night at the task force's second-ever meeting. Fasana told his fellow members who had gatherered at Bob Hope Patriotic Hall downtown he had found 'a major issue.'
The news created something of an uproar in meeting that was supposed to focus on more mundane bureaucratic matters. Some members said they wanted to wait to discuss it until everyone had been briefed on what exactly he was talking about.
Others said they didn't understand how they could talk about anything else.
'To me all the work we're trying to move forward with stops because there's a problem —a significant, fundamental one,' said Derek Steele, who was appointed by Supervisor Holly Mitchell.
'We may actually need to take Measure G back to the people,' said Steele. ' We need to make sure we have a solve for this.'
Both Mitchell and Barger opposed Measure G, arguing it had been put together too hastily and gave too much power to an ill-defined county executive.
Sara Sadhwani, who was appointed to the task force by Horvath, said she found the accidental repeal of Measure J 'incredibly concerning,' but found the way the news had been delivered to the task force 'obstructive.'
'It raises so many questions for me and raises concerns about who is operating in good faith on this task forcem,' said Sadhwani. 'If this was a good faith effort, wouldn't we have agendized this issue, instead of dropping a bomb that people have no knowledge of.'
The taskforce has asked for a report from the county's attorneys for their next meeting.
Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Redding effort to put sales tax hike on ballot gets enough signatures. What now?
A measure to raise the sales tax in the city of Redding by 1% appears headed for the ballot. City Clerk Sharlene Tipton told the Record Searchlight on Tuesday that Shasta County elections officials as of Monday had counted 9,073 signatures and found that 6,120 were valid. The citizens' group that collected the signatures and is backing the measure needed 5,816 verified signatures, which is 10% of the registered voters in Redding, to put the measure on the ballot. Tipton said elections officials still need to count about 600 more signatures. 'Once I receive a certification that the petition is sufficient, we will agendize the item for a regular (City) Council meeting to call a Special Election to occur between 88 and 103 days from the certification pursuant to Elections Code Section 1405,' Tipton said in an email. The group, Citizens for a Better Redding, wants the measure to go on the November ballot. 'I love it. I think we need it in the city. I love that it's a special tax and the money goes to where it's designated,' Dennis Morgan, a Redding realtor and spokesman for the citizens' group, said Tuesday. If the measure gets on the ballot and passes, the sale tax in Redding would go from 7.25% to 8.25%, generating an extra $30 million in annual revenue, City Manager Barry Tippin has said. Tipton said county elections officials on July 1 gave the city results from a 500-count statistical sample that showed about 70% of the signatures were valid. But Tipton and Tippin asked the county to count all 9,657 signatures submitted for the sake of transparency. Redding Vice Mayor Mike Littau expects the call for a special election to be on the council's Aug. 5 agenda. 'I am prepared to honor what the community wants,' Littau said. 'If the community wants (this on the ballot), I will honor the community.' On Monday, Morgan's group announced the Shasta Association of Realtors supports the tax hike. 'This measure is about protecting the future of our community — keeping critical services like public safety, infrastructure and emergency response strong. It ensures the dollars generated here stay here, helping our neighborhoods thrive and keeping our families safe,' Shasta Association of Realtors Board President Kasey Stewart wrote in the letter endorsing the measure. This is the third attempt to raise the sales tax in Redding to help fund quality of life issues such as public safety. This latest effort would need a simple majority to pass and it comes as the city is facing an estimated $5 million budget deficit. Revenue generated from sales tax, property taxes and other sources hasn't for years been enough to keep up with repairs and improvements to streets, buildings, parks and Redding's two airports, Tippin has told the City Council. Annual audits would be done to verify the funds are spent correctly. Too, the city council would appoint people to a citizens advisory committee to provide more oversight. What Redding's proposed sales tax will pay: Roads: 30% spent on maintenance, repairs and improvements. Redding Fire Department: 13% allocated to construction and staffing of ninth fire station, upgrades and improvements to the other fire stations, equipment, and at least 3.5% of the fire department's cut to fire mitigation efforts like fuel reduction. Redding Police Department: 12% allocated to additional staffing, equipment and facilities. Shasta County Sheriff's Office: 12% allocated to address repeat offenders and jail capacity. Browning said the money would specifically go to the new alternative custody campus proposed by Sheriff Michael Johnson. Whether the money goes to the sheriff's office would hinge on an agreement between the city and Shasta County. If no agreement is reached within two years of voter approval, this portion of the money would go to Redding police. Parks: 9% spent on construction, improvements and maintenance, including Redding Sports Park, California Soccer Park, South City Park, Caldwell Park and Panorama Park. Redding Civic Auditorium, Redding Rodeo Grounds: 6% allocated to the former, 3% to the latter. Redding Regional Airport: 5% allocated toward building an additional terminal, staffing and general operations of all airport facilities. Meanwhile, the Shasta County Elections Office is seeking volunteers, poll workers, temporary employees and election observers. 'Since we are moving toward a system that allows every citizen to personally verify the election, some of our processes will now be performed locally rather than farmed out or dependent on technology that cannot be observed. As such, we will have an increased need for workers. We will be returning to paper poll books and the poll pads have been discontinued. Computer knowledge is no longer necessary for most of the positions,' Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis said in a news release. David Benda covers business, development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly "Buzz on the Street" column. He's part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other stories about your community. Reach him on Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or by phone at 1-530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today. This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Redding sales tax effort has signatures to trigger special election Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
16-07-2025
- 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.
Politico
14-07-2025
- Politico
The administrative error that wiped out one Los Angeles ballot measure and may force another
'The whole thing is unbelievable, that this actually could have happened,' Fasana told Playbook. 'But it did.' 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.'
