> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.losangelesrules.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Now playing on (Measures) A&E: The curious through lines in Los Angeles County ballot propositions past and present - URL: https://www.losangelesrules.com/now-playing-on-measures-a-e-the-curious-through-lines-in-los-angeles-county-ballot-propositions-past-and-present-2/ - Published: 2026-10-14T21:15:01.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-14T21:23:23.000Z - Description: "Throughout much of its history, Los Angeles has seemed driverless. We tell ourselves we want to hold elected officials accountable, but we’re reluctant to give them much power, so there’s little we can hold them to answer for." - Author: Robert Greene - Tags: County executive, Ethics, #homepage1, Measure G, Measure J, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors One of the rules of Los Angeles government is that no policy question is ever actually settled. Even after an election supposedly settles it. A case in point is [Measure G](https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/194215.pdf?ref=losangelesrules.com), the L.A. County charter amendment from two years ago that will sweep away the current five-headed-yet-headless county government in 2028 and replace it with one centered on a single elected executive, balanced by a nine-member oversight board. The idea is to finally have a person to hold accountable for the county’s performance, the same way voters in [700 other U.S. counties](https://countyexecutives.org/directory/?ref=losangelesrules.com) can, and the same way voters in the City of L.A. can. For example, Los Angeles voters will soon reelect or boot out Mayor Karen Bass based mostly on her first-term performance, including her controversial decision to grant expensive raises to Los Angeles police officers. Under Measure G, the county executive voters elect in 2028 will have similar bargaining power with the unions that represent sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and most of the other 115,000 county employees (see [Charter Section 11.16](https://library.municode.com/ca/los%5Fangeles%5Fcounty/codes/code%5Fof%5Fordinances?nodeId=CHCOLOAN%5FARTIII-BCOEX%5FS11.16&ref=losangelesrules.com)). The L.A. county executive will be empowered to negotiate those important pay and benefit agreements and voters will be able to hold that person accountable for the outcome. Or now, maybe not. Working with the county’s public safety unions, the Board of Supervisors is asking voters to roll back some of the executive’s dealmaking power before that person is even elected. Under [Measure A](https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/218945.pdf?ref=losangelesrules.com) on the Nov. 3 ballot, final decisions on some labor contracts would be made by a panel of arbitrators. The public would be unable to hold the county executive to account for those labor agreements because that person’s Measure G power to negotiate those contracts would be greatly diminished. It’s important to note that the public wouldn’t be able to hold the arbitrators to account either, because their decision would be unappealable. Nobody would be accountable. It would be like trying to complain to your taxi driver about a wrong turn, only to discover you’re sitting in the back of a Waymo. Throughout much of its history, Los Angeles has seemed driverless. We tell ourselves we want to hold elected officials accountable, but we’re reluctant to give them much power, so there’s little we can hold them to answer for. That squeamishness over power and accountability is a through line connecting a whole string of L.A. County ballot measures, not just Measures A (this year) and G (2024). It’s also at the heart of this year’s Measure E, a charter amendment to fill a disturbing hole in Measure G by making an independent Ethics Commission, meant to hold elected officials accountable, truly independent. And, by the way, to restore Measure J, a charter amendment to wrest some budget-making power from the Board of Supervisors by pre-setting a spending floor for alternatives to incarceration and related programs. In putting Measure J on the ballot in 2020, the Board of Supervisors told the voters, in effect, Don’t expect to hold us accountable. Instead, change the rules so that on certain types of spending, accountability isn’t even on the table. Measure E also fleshes out a [1996 measure](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-10-17-me-60236-story.html?ref=losangelesrules.com) known as [Proposition B](https://content.lavote.gov/docs/rrcc/documents/proposition-b-handbook-2026-1.pdf?ref=losangelesrules.com), which for the first time began to hold county candidates accountable for their political fundraising and spending. It will also, according to a [presentation prepared by attorney Gary Winuk](https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/0234f496-d2b7-00b6-17a4-b43e949b70a2/16a7567b-bb77-4c45-b4e7-4bc5fa480d8e/GRTF%20Measure%20E%20Presentation.pdf?ref=losangelesrules.com) for the county’s Governance Reform Task Force on Wednesday, update Measure J by making the county executive, as well as the Board of Supervisors, responsible (yet not accountable, because they don’t actually have a choice) for allocating money to anti-incarceration measures. The funding would not be subject to the executive’s veto. So do we want to hold officials accountable for their decisions, or do we just want to take away their decisionmaking power? In talking with people in and around Los Angeles government, I’m hearing doubts about power and accountability increasingly often, now that the Task Force has sent the Board of Supervisors an initial report on fleshing out the county executive job (the board is set to [consider the recommendations on Oct. 20](https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/221981.pdf?ref=losangelesrules.com)). In those same conversations, I’m hearing a sometimes-sorrowful, sometimes-contemptuous loss of confidence in the structural foundations of American democracy. These include separation of powers and checks and balances, the constitutional principles on which much of Measure G is based. Maybe it’s a serious case of semiquincentennial-itis, my word for a 250th national anniversary made joyless by the apparent failure of those principles, along with a particularly Los Angeles distaste for all three branches of the current federal government, most particularly our oddly unaccountable elected executive. At the same time, though, many L.A. County observers who lean left like what they see in New York City. They like strong executive power and don’t worry about absent checks or balances, undoubtedly because they share the politics of New York’s current mayor. If Donald Trump were leading his former hometown instead of Zohran Mamdani, progressive L.A. activists would presumably quickly lose their enthusiasm for powerful leaders. So here is where Los Angeles is in the autumn of 2026\. We distrust power – and that’s a very strong, very wise American instinct – and at the same time we want someone with enough power to make our city, county and other local governments function properly for us. We are working through the design details of an assortment of governments that will somehow fill both needs. We’re searching for the proper L.A. angle on a project that began a quarter of a millennium ago. About Measure A – there’s of course more behind it than executive accountability. There’s a [now-voided section of the county charter](https://library.municode.com/ca/los%5Fangeles%5Fcounty/codes/code%5Fof%5Fordinances?nodeId=CHCOLOAN%5FARTXLA%5FS47.5&ref=losangelesrules.com) that bans strikes, there’s the [court ruling that voided it](https://perb.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/decisionbank/M061.pdf?ref=losangelesrules.com), there’s the odd fact that roofers and bricklayers would be grouped among first responders. And there’s a second through line of Los Angeles County ballot measures: Like Measure G, Measure A had a drafting problem. The Board of Supervisors approved it for the ballot, then rescinded it, rewrote it and approved it again. [Read my take in Golden State](https://www.golden-state.org/la-county-measure-a-first-responder-salaries/?ref=losangelesrules.com). Also in Golden State, [read my take on Measure E](https://www.golden-state.org/you-voted-la-county-goofed-measure-e/?ref=losangelesrules.com), and how it’s perfect if you like both the part that makes the Ethics Commission independent and the part that restores Measure J – but absolutely maddening if you want only one of those parts. Voting “no” wouldn’t help. Defeat would leave us with an unaccountable Ethics Commission shielding an unaccountable county executive and Board of Supervisors. --- **Note to readers**: This report and commentary, together with notes on coming meetings and debates dealing with governance issues in Los Angeles (County **Ethics Commission**! City **Charter reform**! More!) was previously sent to subscribers to **LosAngelesRules.com**. Click and subscribe. Always free. No personal information needed, except for a name and your preferred email address, which I do not share with others.