Last November, the voters of the nation’s largest county passed a major change to their charter. By creating an elected county executive and an expanded Board of Supervisors, along with an ethics commission and a legislative analyst, the landmark Measure G will finally address the long-standing gap in the traditional system that lacked a clear chain of accountability in governance. Who is responsible for the catastrophic failure to alert the residents of West Altadena during the recent wildfires? For failures in juvenile justice? If all goes to plan, Measure G’s dramatic reform should provide a clear and necessary path toward accountability.
What happened in L.A. County is notable. The sheer size of this county calls for our attention. If L.A. County were a state, its population of 10 million would make it the 11th largest in the Union, between Michigan and New Jersey. Measure G should encourage residents of counties not only in California but also in other states to re-examine their own local governance.
But for L.A. County’s residents, nothing of this scope is ever going to be trouble-free. A seemingly mundane drafting error in Measure G accidentally overwrote another popular charter measure from 2022, Measure J. (Measure J, created in reaction to the murder of George Floyd, permanently allocated at least 10 percent of local revenues to community services and alternatives to incarceration.) When it comes to untangling that particular knot of accountability, it’s a mess: A fix must be found and implemented before 2028, when the overwrite of Measure J would take effect.
I have studied and helped draft charters for major American cities for the past 45 years, including for the city of Los Angeles. I have scrutinized them line by line and have seen just how powerful charters are as tools for self-governance. I’m keenly aware of the Herculean efforts needed to reform local charters — and an error of this magnitude speaks to a disappointing apathy toward charters. It’s an attitude we can ill afford, leaving untapped potential for home rule that local governments simply cannot allow to lie fallow. Especially now.
A charter isn’t just another boring government document. Local ordinances are made by elected officials and can just as easily be altered by them. But charters, which set out the governance structures of local jurisdictions, can be adopted or amended only by a vote of the people. A charter is a touchstone through which the people choose and re-choose how they shall be governed. On this matter, largely absent in our national governmental system, the people alone decide.
Charters embody and augment the American doctrine of local home rule. That is particularly important at a moment when local self-governance is under assault from federal authorities. It is in our counties, our cities and our towns that we interact face-to-face within our communities, see with our own eyes when government works or doesn’t work, and can demand something better. Few if any nations have the degree of local home rule we enjoy in America. It fosters experimentation and diversity in governance as well as a feisty and irreplaceable resilience.
It was no easy thing for Los Angeles County to have a charter in the first place. And not every state provides such home rule to its cities or counties. That’s a reminder of why we should appreciate our charters when we have them.
While California was among the early leaders of local rule, counties were late to the dance. In 1879, California voters approved a new state constitution. Article XI granted home rule to cities but didn’t give county voters the authority to create charters. Only in 1911 was the state constitution amended to provide county home rule. L.A. County voters rushed to approve their first charter in 1912.
Even with county home rule, the California constitution places limitations on county autonomy. The sheriff, tax assessor and district attorney must be elected. Counties must elect at least five supervisors. But the state constitution also indicates that charter amendments that fall within the span of county authority can supersede state law. Exercising and testing the possibilities for self-governance are excellent ways to practice and bolster local democracy.
And the egregious charter error in L.A. County might still present a lemons-to-lemonade opportunity: With proactive, strategic efforts, it may bring the county charter into the forefront of public understanding, giving the voters a look at a power they simply may not know they possess.
Notably in that context, Measure G mandates the seating of a county charter reform commission in 2034 and every 10 years thereafter. It’s about time we looked carefully at the county charter on a regular basis, and conducted that review with a chance for the public to observe and weigh in.
Chastened by the problem caused by leaving the county charter off in a corner unloved and unread for so long, we can move closer to harvesting the potential of county home rule more than a century after it was granted by California for the nearly 10 million people who now call Los Angeles County home. If our local self-governance, especially when bolstered by a charter, survives and thrives, our democracy — and not just in L.A. County — will never be completely without strength or hope.
Raphael J. Sonenshein is the executive director of the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation, which supports research to improve governance and democracy in the Los Angeles region.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
