Board Rejects Bill of Rights in Charter

A hotly debated proposal to include a so-called bill of rights in a new Los Angeles charter has died--at least temporarily--after a divisive and sometimes personal debate that melded the philosophical and tactical themes underlying the discussion over how best to rewrite the city’s constitution.

The proposal, enthusiastically supported by Commission Chairman Erwin Chemerinsky and opposed with equal passion by Commissioner Paula Boland, cleaved the 15-member commission Monday night and has inspired vitriolic public response in the weeks since it was unveiled. At first, Chemerinsky included such proposed rights for city residents as the right to “reproductive autonomy,” shorthand for abortion rights, along with the right to be safe from excessive police force and the right of workers to earn a living wage.

Those ideas infuriated some residents, and seemed to strike a particularly sensitive chord in the San Fernando Valley, where Boland is an elected representative and where rumblings of secession haunt the charter reform effort.

On Monday, Boland icily objected to even a milder statement of rights that omitted the most controversial ideas but retained the central principle that the city’s constitution should include a section defining the rights of its residents.

At one point, Boland, who took particular issue with language that would guarantee equal rights to city workers and others regardless of sexual orientation--she maintained that the provision would obligate the city and its contractors to supply expensive domestic partner insurance--went so far as to say that she would oppose the entire charter if any statement of rights was appended to it.

“If you start your charter with something that offends your citizens . . . you’re going to have a charter that is not for all the people,” Boland said. “I would be so afraid of this passing that I would have to oppose the entire charter.”

That drew the ire of Commissioner Janice Hahn, who accused Boland of subverting the reform effort by “drawing a line in the sand.”

“I would hope none of us will remove ourselves from the process based on one issue,” she said. Hahn joined Chemerinsky in speaking fervently on behalf of the rights provisions, which she said she hoped would include language protecting abortion rights, an area Chemerinsky already had yielded.

Hahn, whose father was the much-revered county Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, said the late supervisor wanted something like the bill of rights in the charter. “It actually was one of the last things that my dad wanted me to do,” she said, “put this bill of rights in the charter.”

But neither family evocations nor pleas for unity moved Boland.

“This is a different issue than a provision,” she said.

Meanwhile, the debate widened and spiraled, drawing commissioners into a heated disagreement over whether a bill of rights would hamper the charter’s chances of winning voters’ approval and whether it would invite lawsuits against the city if it were approved. Seeking to downplay opposition, the commissioners tinkered with what to call the rights--the milder “statement of responsibilities and limitations” was entertained, as was a proposal to call it the city’s “principles of governance.”

*

As tempers rose, one commissioner called the debate an attempt to defraud voters and another countered by accusing him of inflated rhetoric.

Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar, stood fast on his support for a bill of rights.

“I think it’s very important,” he said, speaking rapidly and with obvious emotion. “A charter creates government. And the document that creates government ought to limit its power.”

Chemerinsky added that he would not only push for a bill of rights, but also seek to include many provisions in it. He called domestic benefits for gays an issue of “basic human rights,” and similarly sounded the call for provisions that would state the city’s commitment to educating its children, granting its workers a living wage and protecting the rights of employees to be represented by organized labor in their contract negotiations.

When Chemerinsky finished speaking, several members of the audience, which had thinned out during the three-hour discussion, applauded loudly.

In the end, seven commissioners favored the statement of rights and five opposed it, but commission rules require eight votes for passage. That killed the issue for now, although it could resurface if the missing commissioners make it to a meeting and cast their votes in favor.

Mayor Richard Riordan, who has avoided the bill of rights debate, said Tuesday that although he admires Chemerinsky, he believes the commission was right to vote him down.

“It’s a little sad,” Riordan said, “but at the same time, practically speaking, I think the commission did the right thing.”

Other observers from a wide range of political views agreed. Some objected to what they saw as an attempt by Chemerinsky to shoehorn a range of liberal ideas into the charter, while others who supported those provisions nevertheless worried that they might provoke a backlash against the charter as a whole.

Still, some commissioners, including Chemerinsky, believe that an ennobling bill of rights or statement of principles, while alienating some voters, might inspire others and actually help a charter win approval. With that in mind, the issue is almost certain to reappear before the elected commission in coming months.

If it does, supporters intend to offer a compromise that might allow voters to consider the rest of the charter without connecting the bill of rights to it. Under that plan, city voters would be offered at least two separate votes, one on the basics of the charter and the other on the bill of rights.

That, in fact, is not unlike the procedure used to adopt the federal Constitution, which was drafted at the Constitutional Convention but did not initially include the Bill of Rights, which guarantees such liberties as the freedom of speech and assembly, the protection against unreasonable searches and the right of all criminal defendants to speedy, public trials.

Those and other rights now considered fundamental to American society were added as the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They were appended to the main document in 1791, when they were ratified by the states.