2026 VOTER GUIDE | PART 8 of 8
LA County
& Municipal
Measures
COUNTY & MUNICIPAL MEASURES
QUICK GUIDE
Scroll down for detailed analysis on each ballot measure.
COUNTY MEASURES
- VOTE YES ON MEASURE E – Ethics Commission Measure
- VOTE NO ON MEASURE A – Binding Arbitration for County Public Safety Labor Disputes
MUNICIPAL (CITY) MEASURES
- VOTE NO ON MEASURE TE – Property Transfer Tax Exemption for Victims of January 2025 Fire Disaster
- VOTE YES ON MEASURE LA – City Infrastructure, Budget, Finance, And Contracting. Charter Amendment
- VOTE NO ON MEASURE PL – City Planning Department. Charter Amendment
- VOTE YES ON MEASURE EE – City Ethics, Elections, And Governance. Charter Amendment
- VOTE YES ON MEASURE PRK – City Department Of Recreation And Parks Budget. Charter Amendment
- NO RECOMMENDATION ON MEASURE PRT: City Airports, Harbor, and Water and Power Departments Charter Amendment
- VOTE YES ON MEASURE FD – Funding For The Los Angeles Fire Department Through A One-Half Percent Sales Tax. Initiative Ordinance
- VOTE YES ON MEASURE SC – Campaign Finance Rules Related To Board Of Education Elections. Charter Amendment
Stay connected for election updates!
Subscribe to our mailing list for post election analysis and updates on La Defensa projects!
COUNTY
MEASURES
MEASURE E
ETHICS COMMISSION MEASURE
✔️ Vote Yes
✅ Endorsed
- Summary
Measure E amends the Los Angeles County Charter to give greater independence and structure to the County Ethics Commission, the Office of Ethics Compliance, and the Ethics Compliance Officer. That includes their appointment processes, qualifications, terms, duties, and responsibilities. It also keeps the County’s commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration, established by Measure J, in place without interruption.
The Ethics Commission created by Measure E would independently administer and enforce County ethics, campaign finance, lobbying, and conflict-of-interest laws. It would have the power to investigate complaints, conduct audits, issue subpoenas, and impose penalties on violators. It would also provide ethics education and guidance to help County officials and employees comply with the law. An independent Office of Ethics Compliance would support the Commission, with built-in safeguards to protect its independence, ensure due process, and promote fair, impartial enforcement. The measure also provides stable, independent funding so the Commission’s work can’t be defunded or understaffed by the officials it oversees, at no new cost to taxpayers. Measure E holds everyone who does business with the County to the same ethical standards, including elected officials, candidates, lobbyists, and contractors.
Measure E also corrects an administrative error that threatens to eliminate Measure J. That’s the historic 2020 measure La Defensa and our partners helped pass, which requires the County to dedicate at least 10% of its locally generated unrestricted General Fund revenue to community investment and alternatives to incarceration, rather than to law enforcement and carceral departments.
A YES vote means the County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance would gain greater independence and structure. It also means the Measure J commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration would be permanently written into the County Charter and protected from repeal.
A NO vote means these changes to the Ethics Commission would not take effect, and Measure J’s community investment commitment would remain at risk of being repealed in December 2028.
- Research on our position
La Defensa is proud to endorse Measure E and urges a YES vote. Measure E does two important things: it strengthens accountability in the largest county government in the nation, and it saves Measure J.
Here is what happened to Measure J:
- Voters approved Measure J with 57% of the vote in 2020. It requires the County to invest at least 10% of its locally generated unrestricted General Fund revenue in community-based alternatives to incarceration, such as housing, mental health care, and youth development.
- Because of an administrative error by a prior County administration, Measure J was never actually placed into the County Charter after it passed.
- Voters approved Measure G in 2024, which rewrites how the County is governed. Its new structure, which takes effect in December 2028, left the Measure J language out entirely. The Board motion placing Measure E on the ballot states that voters were unaware that approving Measure G would potentially repeal Measure J. It also notes that Measure G is silent on whether the new elected County Executive must uphold the Measure J commitment.
- The problem was discovered in 2025. A coalition of community groups has sued, arguing that because Measure J was never placed in the Charter, Measure G could not have repealed it. That case is still pending.
Measure E is the only sure fix. It moves the Measure J language into a new section of the County Charter and makes both the Board of Supervisors and the future elected County Executive responsible for upholding it. It also prohibits the County Executive from vetoing the Measure J set-aside. Care First Community Investment funding under Measure J has already reached hundreds of millions of dollars in community-based services. Without Measure E, that commitment could disappear in 2028.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Community and advocacy organizations: La Defensa, LA Forward, JusticeLA, Reimagine LA, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County, California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, Courage California, and AAPI Equity Alliance.
- Elected officials: Los Angeles County Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Holly Mitchell, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, and LA City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez.
Opponents: No organized opposition has been identified. The Board of Supervisors voted 4–0 to place the Measure J fix on the ballot, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstaining.
MEASURE A
Binding Arbitration for County Public Safety Labor Disputes
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Measure A would amend the Los Angeles County Charter to establish a binding arbitration process for certain labor disputes between the County and the unions representing County public safety employees. Covered employees include:
- firefighters and sheriff’s deputies;
- district attorney investigators, medical examiners, and lifeguards;
- their supervisors; and
- nonadministrative civilian employees in the Fire Department, Sheriff’s Department, and Department of Medical Examiner.
Here’s how it would work. When the County and a union can’t settle a dispute over wages, hours, or working conditions, a three-member arbitration panel would make the final decision. The County and the union would each appoint one arbitrator and jointly select the third. The two sides would share the costs, and the panel’s decision would be binding on both. The measure would also prohibit strikes by covered employees and restate existing legal obligations to negotiate in good faith. According to the Board hearing record, it would cover about 16,500 County employees across 14 bargaining units.
A YES vote means the County Charter would be amended to prohibit strikes, restate existing legal obligations for negotiations, and establish a binding arbitration process for labor disputes involving the covered public safety employees.
A NO vote means the County would keep its current process. When labor disputes with these unions can’t be resolved, the County can implement its last, best, and final offer.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a No Vote on Measure A. We support labor, and we recognize that binding arbitration can be a fair tool for workers who are barred from striking. If a ballot measure proposed binding arbitration for County firefighters and lifeguards, we would support it. But Measure A extends that process to sheriff’s deputies and their supervisors, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) and other law enforcement representatives. We believe law enforcement special interest groups should not be treated as labor or given more leverage in negotiations. More money and more power for the Sheriff’s Department is the crux of our opposition. By bundling deputies with firefighters and lifeguards, Measure A weaponizes a process we would otherwise support.
Supporters argue that binding arbitration levels the playing field. California law bars essential public safety workers, including sheriff’s deputies and firefighters, from striking, which removes a primary source of leverage during contract negotiations. Currently, when talks break down, the County can simply impose its final offer, even if the union disagrees. Supporters say a neutral panel of expert arbitrators would decide disputes based on data rather than political pressure, prevent endless negotiation delays, and ensure emergency services continue without disruption. They note that binding arbitration is used for public safety employees in other California jurisdictions, including San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. Supervisor Horvath has said more than 20 California jurisdictions use it. According to the Board hearing record, however, only six of those jurisdictions have actually taken a dispute to arbitration.
Opponents warn that binding arbitration takes final decision-making power over salaries away from elected County supervisors and gives it to unelected outside arbitrators. The County’s own Chief Executive Officer raised serious concerns. The CEO noted that the County budgets $20.8 billion a year for salaries and benefits, and warned that arbitration awards would be binding on the Board “regardless of whether the decision requires your Board to redirect funding from your policy priorities or safety net services.” The CEO also warned that awards could significantly increase County operating costs, lead to workforce reductions and program cuts, increase unfunded pension liabilities, and damage the County’s credit rating. The CEO’s memo pointed to one example: in San Luis Obispo, an arbitration award gave police a 27% raise that consumed about half of a new sales tax. Opponents also argue that when a third party can step in to decide a contract, both sides have less incentive to compromise on their own.
For communities fighting for a care-first County budget, these concerns are decisive. Measure A would move pay decisions for sheriff’s deputies outside the Board’s direct control, and those decisions would then compete for the same County dollars that fund Care First services, jail closure, and reentry programs. That is why we urge a NO vote.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Unions: the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), the Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA), County firefighter unions, and lifeguard associations.
- The Safer LA County campaign: run by a coalition of public safety unions.
- Building trades: the Los Angeles and Orange County Building & Construction Trades Council, which represents more than 160,000 union workers across 48 local unions.
- Elected officials: Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis co-authored the proposal. ALADS has publicized letters of support from Sheriff Robert Luna and Assessor Jeff Prang.
The County’s Chief Executive Officer raised significant fiscal concerns in a memo to the Board and recommended safeguards to limit the measure’s costs.
MUNICIPAL
MEASURES
🚫 Vote No
MEASURE TE - Property Transfer Tax Exemption for Victims of January 2025 Fire Disaster
- Summary
Measure TE provides a one-time exemption from the City’s special documentary transfer tax (Measure ULA) for residential properties that were damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire and are sold within five years of the date of the fire. The exemption applies to properties sold between January 7, 2025 and January 6, 2030 by the owner of record on the date the fire began. It covers multifamily properties as well as single-family homes. There is no owner-occupancy or primary-residence requirement.
A YES vote means residential properties damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire could be sold within five years of the fire without paying the ULA transfer tax, including properties that were not the owner’s primary residence.
A NO vote means these property sales would remain subject to the ULA transfer tax under current law.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Measure TE. This is a one-time tax exemption for the ultra-wealthy, with no owner-occupancy limits, which means it can be applied to a homeowner’s second and third homes. Recovery from the Palisades Fire matters. But any relief should be targeted to residents who lost their primary homes, not extended to investors and owners of multiple properties. During the City Council debate, Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez argued that any exemption should apply only to homeowners whose primary residence was destroyed. The United to House LA coalition, which led the campaign for Measure ULA, did not support this measure but also did not oppose it.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Elected officials: Councilmembers Traci Park, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, and Monica Rodriguez; Mayor Karen Bass; State Senator Ben Allen; Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin; and Nick Melvoin, member of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education for District 4.
- Labor: the LA/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council and the Carpenters.
- Community groups: the Pacific Palisades Community Council.
Opponents: No argument against the measure was filed. The City Council placed it on the ballot by a 13-1 vote.
✔️ Vote Yes
MEASURE LA - City Infrastructure, Budget, Finance, And Contracting. Charter Amendment
- Summary
Measure LA does five main things:
- establishes a capital infrastructure plan;
- creates a two-year budget cycle for the City;
- increases the authority of the Director of Public Works and allows for the elimination of, or changes to, the Board of Public Works;
- removes restrictions prohibiting the City from engaging in business enterprises and mortgaging City-owned property; and
- changes certain contracting rules and procedures.
Measure LA establishes a formal, charter-mandated capital infrastructure plan and shifts portions of financial and project criteria tracking to ordinances. This change streamlines building in the city. The Measure authorizes the framework for transitioning toward a two-year budget cycle. This allows for better financial planning for a municipality as large as Los Angeles, and it would allow the City Council to update the Capital Infrastructure Plan in the off years. The measure also changes the day the Mayor releases the budget from April 20 to April 1, allowing more time for the City Council and the community to review, revise, and advocate. It also expands the authority of the Director of Public Works, allows adjustments to or elimination of the Board of Public Works, and modifies rules for hiring and qualifying private contractors. Notably, it also removes older restrictions that prevented the City from engaging in certain business enterprises or mortgaging specific City-owned properties. The City Administrative Officer estimates one-time implementation costs of $4 million to $6 million.
A YES vote means the City Charter would be amended to create a capital infrastructure plan and a two-year budget cycle, expand the Public Works Director’s authority, allow the City to engage in business enterprises and mortgage City property, and change certain contracting rules.
A NO vote means the City would keep its current annual budget process, Board of Public Works structure, contracting rules, and restrictions on business enterprises and mortgaging City property.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Measure LA. Plainly, Measure LA would allow the City to do business. This is a significant gain for revenue generation and, in turn, investment in City services. For example, the City currently has two asphalt plants, but it only produces asphalt for the City’s own use. Allowing the City to do business would mean it could produce asphalt commercially, a huge benefit when rebuilding entire neighborhoods, both within City limits and outside of them, after natural disasters such as fires. Future policies that establish a participatory budgeting process and increase transparency will strengthen this measure. Measure LA addresses some fundamental changes needed to start building infrastructure in the City of Los Angeles, increase government efficiency, and increase City revenue.
🚫 Vote No
MEASURE PL - City Planning Department Charter Amendment
- Summary
Measure PL would:
- establish a Neighborhood Appeals Commission to replace the Area Planning Commissions;
- create a process for City Council review of Neighborhood Appeals Commission and City Planning Commission decisions;
- change the timing and process for City Council action on certain planning decisions;
- grant the Planning Department authority to investigate, hear, and determine applications for quasi-judicial review; and
- allow changes to floor area regulations by ordinance.
Currently, seven Area Planning Commissions (35 commissioners in total) hear appeals of planning decisions in different parts of the city. Measure PL would replace them with a single citywide Neighborhood Appeals Commission of at least seven members. It would also move appeal rights for variances, conditional use permits, and zone changes out of the Charter and into ordinance, where the Council could change them more easily. The City estimates commission costs would drop by about $360,000 a year, from $1.1 million to $740,000.
A YES vote means the Area Planning Commissions would be replaced with a single citywide Neighborhood Appeals Commission, certain General Plan Amendments would be automatically approved if the City Council does not act within 75 days, Planning staff would gain new authority, and floor area rules could be changed by ordinance.
A NO vote means the current Area Planning Commissions and planning procedures would remain in place, including the rule that General Plan Amendments are automatically denied if the Council does not act in time.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Measure PL. Supporters say consolidating seven Area Planning Commissions into one citywide commission would, in theory, streamline development processes. But the measure shifts power away from neighborhoods and toward faster approvals, and our communities could pay the price.
Our greatest concern is how the change in timing could negatively impact our communities. General Plan Amendments can be initiated by a variety of entities, including the Mayor and the City Planning Commission. Currently, if the Council does not act within 75 days, the proposal is denied. Under Measure PL, it would instead be automatically approved. For example, if a plan for a gondola in Chinatown went to the Council and the Council didn’t make a decision within 75 days, the project would automatically be approved. Council inaction, which today protects communities, would instead work in favor of whoever is pushing the project.
Measure PL would also consolidate neighborhood-level appeal venues into a single citywide commission, and move key appeal rights out of the Charter, where the Council could change them by ordinance. That could reduce opportunities for residents and tenants to contest projects that threaten displacement in their own communities. The floor area ratio formula, which determines how much floor space can be built on a lot, could likewise be changed by ordinance rather than requiring a vote of the people.
✔️ Vote Yes
MEASURE EE - City Ethics, Elections, And Governance. Charter Amendment
- Summary
Measure EE would:
- increase the authority of the Police Department Inspector General and the Fire Department Independent Assessor;
- prohibit Ethics Commissioners from running for certain elected offices for five years;
- increase penalties for campaign finance violations;
- require the City Council to meet at least weekly, rather than the currently required three days per week;
- increase referendum petition signature requirements; and
- make other changes regarding ethics, elections, and governance.
The measure would bar the Police Commission from preventing the Inspector General from starting or continuing an investigation or audit, and would provide the same protection for the Fire Department’s Independent Assessor. Campaign finance penalties would increase to a maximum of $15,000 (up from $2,000) or three times the amount involved. Referendum petitions would need signatures from 15% of the total number of votes cast in the last mayoral election, up from 10%.
A YES vote means the Police Inspector General and Fire Independent Assessor would gain greater independence, and campaign finance penalties would increase. It also means the Council would be required to meet at least weekly and referendum petitions would need more signatures.
A NO vote means the City’s current rules on police and fire oversight, campaign finance penalties, Council meeting frequency, and referendum signature requirements would remain in place.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Measure EE. This measure would increase penalties for ethics violations and prevent the Police and Fire Commissions from intervening in the investigations of the Police Inspector General and the Fire Independent Assessor, a meaningful step toward independent oversight of LAPD. Measure EE also cleans up the Charter by taking out outdated language. It changes the Council meeting requirement from three times a week to once a week. This requirement for weekly meetings allows for additional meetings as needed, providing greater flexibility to meet at times and places that accommodate the needs of residents across the City and allow Council to conduct the public’s business, while preserving transparency and public accountability.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include Councilmembers Tim McOsker (CD15), Katy Yaroslavsky (CD5), Eunisses Hernandez (CD1), and Marqueece Harris-Dawson (CD8), as well as Diego Andrades (Former Charter Reform Commissioner).
✔️ Vote Yes
MEASURE PRK - City Department Of Recreation And Parks Budget. Charter Amendment
- Summary
Measure PRK increases the minimum budget allocated to the Department of Recreation and Parks, phased in over ten years until it is double the current minimum allocation, with exceptions for fiscal emergencies. The current minimum is 0.0325% of the assessed value of property in the City, and it would increase in standard increments to 0.065% by 2036-37. In a fiscal emergency, the Council could reduce the increase by up to 30% with a two-thirds vote, but never below the current minimum.
A YES vote means the City’s minimum budget for parks would double over ten years, subject to exceptions for fiscal emergencies.
A NO vote means the current minimum budget allocation for parks would remain the same.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Measure PRK. This measure doubles the budget for parks over ten years, using standard increments. Measure PRK would fund new parks in areas with limited to no green space. The City has already funded a parks needs-assessment, which has been completed. Now the onus is on the City Council and Mayor to implement it based on where the needs are highest, in places that are park-poor.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Elected officials: Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez, Ysabel Jurado, and Imelda Padilla, and City Controller Kenneth Mejia.
- Community leaders and organizations: Father Gregory Boyle, the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust, LA Waterkeeper, Boys & Girls Club of the San Fernando Valley, and the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles.
＊No Recommendation
MEASURE PRT: City Airports, Harbor, and Water and Power Departments Charter Amendment
- Summary
Measure PRT would:
- require the Harbor Department to allocate funds for waterfront public access projects;
- require disclosure of workforce impacts for certain Harbor Department leases and agreements;
- increase maximum terms for certain leases; and
- change the composition requirement for the Airport Commission.
The measure extends the maximum authorized lease terms for the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Department of Water and Power (LADWP) from 50 to 66 years. That aligns their maximum lease lengths with the existing standards of the Harbor Department. Leases longer than 30 years would require a finding that the term is in the City’s best interest.
Applicants seeking certain Harbor District lease approvals, extensions, amendments, or Coastal Development Permits would have to submit a self-funded workforce impact disclosure evaluating regional economic and employment effects.
The Airport Commission would be required to include three members from communities near LAX and two from communities near Van Nuys Airport.
A YES vote means Airport and DWP leases could run up to 66 years, the Harbor Department would be required to fund waterfront public access projects and require workforce impact disclosures, and the Airport Commission’s composition would change.
A NO vote means current lease limits, Harbor Department requirements, and Airport Commission composition rules would remain in place.
- Research on our position
La Defensa is not taking a position on Measure PRT. Here are the main considerations on each side.
Supporters point to several changes they describe as good government and pro-worker. Extending LAWA and LADWP leases to 66 years would align them with the Harbor Department’s existing standard, and could help the City attract long-term investment. The workforce impact disclosures would give the public and decision-makers more information about how port projects affect jobs in the region, including the impacts of automation. Requiring the Harbor Department to fund waterfront public access projects formalizes a historical practice. The Airport Commission changes would guarantee representation for communities that live closest to LAX and Van Nuys Airport. According to the Office of the City Clerk, the lease extensions, board changes, and workforce disclosures are considered cost-neutral.
Critics raise concerns about the length of the new leases. Lease terms of up to 66 years could lock in tenants for generations, including fossil fuel and automation-heavy operations, limiting the City’s ability to change course as community and climate priorities evolve. And while the measure requires waterfront public access funding, it leaves the amount to the Harbor Department’s sole discretion.
✔️ Vote Yes
MEASURE FD - Funding For The Los Angeles Fire Department Through A One-Half Percent Sales Tax. Initiative Ordinance
- Summary
Measure FD provides funding for the Los Angeles Fire Department, including for hiring firefighters, paramedics, and other staff, purchasing and maintaining vehicles and equipment, building and upgrading fire stations, and brush clearance. It does this by imposing a one-half percent (0.5%) sales tax in the City of Los Angeles, with annual audits and a citizens’ oversight committee, generating approximately $345 million annually until ended by voters. The City Administrative Officer estimates the measure would raise the City’s total sales tax rate from 10.25% to 10.75%. The measure was placed on the ballot through a citizen initiative led by United Firefighters of Los Angeles City.
A YES vote means a new one-half percent sales tax would be imposed in the City of Los Angeles to fund the Fire Department, generating approximately $345 million a year until ended by voters.
A NO vote means the new sales tax would not be imposed, and the Fire Department would continue to be funded through the City’s existing budget.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Measure FD. This half-cent sales tax would create more funding for the Fire Department beyond the City’s base budget. The City Council cannot decrease base funding to offset the sales tax: the measure requires the City to maintain Fire Department funding at no less than its prior ten-year average, or the tax cannot be collected that year. The tax would provide revenue for staffing stations and equipment. More than 80% of the Fire Department’s 911 calls are medical emergencies, and the Fire Department’s paramedics and emergency medical services are central to how the City responds to people in crisis.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include: Firefighter organizations: United Firefighters of Los Angeles City (the measure’s sponsor), the LAFD Chief Officers Association, California Professional Firefighters, and the International Association of Fire Fighters. City officials: Fire Chief Jaime Moore and Mayor Karen Bass, who backed the campaign launch. Opponents include: The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. President Jon Coupal called FD the third sales tax increase in two years, and argues sales taxes hit hardest on people who can least afford them. Jack Humphreville of CityWatch, who calls the measure a “highly regressive” tax.
✔️ Vote Yes
MEASURE SC - Campaign Finance Rules Related To Board Of Education Elections. Charter Amendment
- Summary
Measure SC clarifies the campaign finance rules for Board of Education elections and allows for changes by ordinance. It would align campaign finance rules for Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education candidates with the rules that apply to candidates for Mayor, including limits on the amount any person may contribute to Board of Education candidates. Certain provisions, including public matching funds and some limits on contractors and lobbyists, would not apply. The City does not anticipate any financial impact.
A YES vote means campaign finance rules for Board of Education candidates would be aligned with the rules for mayoral candidates, and future changes could be made by ordinance.
A NO vote means the current campaign finance rules for Board of Education elections would remain in place.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Measure SC. This measure would align campaign finance rules for Board of Education candidates with those for other elected officials, including Mayor, by placing limits on the amount any person may contribute to or otherwise make available to candidates for election to the Board of Education.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include the Council District 1 office and the Los Angeles Unified School District, Adrin Nazarian (Los Angeles City Councilmember, District 2), Nick Melvoin (LAUSD Board Member), California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles, and Diego Andrades (Former Charter Reform Commissioner)
Opponents include Reform California.