Voters are deciding on two Los Angeles County ballot measures Tuesday night: Measure A, which sets up binding arbitration for public safety employees, and Measure E that writes in fixes to errors and omissions in the county charter.
Measure A was leading with 66.4% voting yes, and 33.7% no. Measure E also was leading with 73.4% voting yes, with 26.7% voting no, according to early returns that include all vote by mail ballots received before Election Day.
With both measures, voters are asked to vote on amending the L.A. County charter, which is somewhat like a constitution for L.A. County. Both measures require a majority of votes for passage.
Measure A would amend the county charter by establishing a binding arbitration process for resolving labor disputes with county public safety employees and county management. These include: firefighters, deputy sheriffs, sworn law enforcement managers and supervisors, district attorney investigators, lifeguards and civilians working for the Fire Department, Sheriff’s Department and Medical Examiner’s Department.
These employees cannot strike.
If the measure fails to get a majority of votes, the process of labor negotiations that now takes place between the county’s chief executive officer (CEO) and safety employee unions would remain unchanged. There would be no binding arbitration process established.
By the end of the ballot counting period, if Measure A passes, then the county CEO would be removed from the negotiating process, replaced by a board of arbitrators.
Manuel Calderon, firefighter with L.A. County Firefighters Local No. 1014; Wendy Ichikawa, sheet metal worker with the LA/OC Building Trades Council, and David Gaisford, a deputy sheriff with the Association of L.A. Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), together wrote and signed an argument in favor of passage.
They wrote that if the county’s CEO refuses to negotiate, that leaves them with no options. Measure A gives a new option called binding arbitration “to negotiate for fair pay and benefits and (it) ensures that the public remains protected in the process.” The measure ensures unions and the county can work with an arbitration board of “independent experts to impartially determine fair pay and benefits,” the three wrote.
Specifically, should the two sides reach an impasse, the dispute is decided by a three-member Board of Arbitrators. Each side appoints one arbitrator; a third is selected by the two sides. If they can’t agree, either side can ask the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to provide a list of seven arbitrators, from which the two sides must choose one.
A final decision by the arbitrators is binding.
David Levitus, executive director of LA Forward, a group that monitors county measures and other races as well as tenant protections and affordable housing, disagrees with that conclusion, saying a county CEO would know more about the county’s budget and what it can or cannot afford, than an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators.
“I think this is a solution in search of a problem. And it is likely to result in deals for public safety unions that can cause fiscal problems for the county.”
The “Yes on A” group had raised $8.5 million in total contributions as of Oct. 17, County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk records show. The biggest contributor is the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), which had given $5.1 million as of Oct. 17, records show. ALADS is the main union for LAC deputy sheriffs.
Measure E would do two things:
Strengthen the already established ethics bodies formed to oversee the Board of Supervisors and lobbyists, and also re-establish Measure J passed by voters in 2020.
Measure J was mistakenly overridden by Measure G in 2024. The 2020 measure requires 10% of the county’s locally generated unrestricted revenues within the general fund each year to be used for alternatives to incarceration, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment, as well as other jail diversion programs.
Fatima Malik, vice president and action and advocacy chair for the League of Women Voters of L.A. County; Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath; Trent Lange, executive director of California Clean Money; Darius Kemp, executive director of California Common Cause and Alton Wang, legal counsel for the AAPI Equity Alliance, together wrote and signed an argument in favor of passage.
Upon passage, it would “give the Ethics Commission real power to investigate and punish violators,” they wrote. The commission will enforce violations of campaign finance, lobbying and conflict-of-interest laws. It will have the power to conduct audits, issue subpoenas and impart penalties, supporters say.
In regards to ethics reforms, the measure guarantees annual funding to the Ethics Commission and its staff, so that no supervisor can cut off funding or remove commissioners if they don’t like the actions they are taking.
“Corruption in local government is a real thing. One of the solutions is having a strong agency that politicians can’t overrule. This brings oversight over county government, said David Levitus, executive director of LA Forward. “It makes for a truly independent Ethics Commission, instead of one the politicians can meddle in.”
The Communities for Good Government Supporting Yes on Measure E received $70,649 in total contributions as of Oct. 17.