Your guide to L.A. County Charter Amendment E: Jail alternatives

Los Angeles County voters may feel like they’re going back to the future. With a single ballot measure, they are being asked to do two things: fill in gaps necessary to institute previously approved ethics reforms, and fix a major misstep that invalidated a previously approved jail alternatives funding proposal.

California

Voter guide to the 2026 California general election

California’s general election takes place on Novemer 3. Learn about L.A.’s city and county races as well races for state office.

Oct. 1, 2026

Some history is in order, and we’ll start with the second half of the ballot measure, as it will have a greater impact on county finances. In November 2020, 57% of county voters approved Measure J. This mandated that at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue be allocated to incarceration alternatives, advancing what was called the county’s Care First, Jails Last vision. In fiscal year 2025, this directed $288 million to mental health treatment, housing support and other services.

The problem? When voters approved the county reform effort Measure G (more on that below) in November 2024, some ballot language had the unintended effect of repealing Measure J. The administrative error was discovered only in July 2025, eight months after the measure passed, by a member of the county’s governance reform task force.

So this part of Measure E would ensure that Measure J remains in effect. A July motion from county supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Holly Mitchell carries the heading, “Restoring the Will of Los Angeles County Voters at the Ballot Box.”

Los Angeles County Supervisors Holly Mitchell, right, and Lindsey Horvath at a news conference in 2023.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Measure G, propelled by Horvath, will result in expanding the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members in 2032 and create a new county chief executive position, with an election in 2028. It passed narrowly, with 51.6%.

It also called for creating a county ethics commission and an ethics compliance office. Other branches of government already have this, including the city of Los Angeles, where the commission’s duties include overseeing campaign finance, such as the matching funds program for political candidates. The commission also regulates lobbying and can issue penalties for fundraising and other infractions.

The Measure G governance reform task force is setting everything up, but officials realized that for true independence, the seven-member commission and the compliance office must be permanently enshrined in the county charter. That requires the approval of voters.

Establishing the commission and the compliance office, Horvath said in a statement in May, “delivers on the will of the voters and marks a monumental step toward greater transparency and accountability in County government.”

Horvath and some other supervisors are backing this. So are the League of Women Voters of L.A. County, good governance group California Common Cause and the AAPI Equity Alliance.

The League of Women Voters of L.A. County described its long-standing support of the county starting an ethics commission and compliance office and ensuring that it comes with true independence, transparency, sufficient funding and the authority to conduct investigations.

“An ethics watchdog cannot be dependent on the officials it may someday have to investigate,” the league said in a statement.

The league initially was neutral on Measure J, but “we do not believe a decision voters made at the ballot box should be undone because of an administrative or drafting error,” its statement said.

No opposition for the measure was submitted to the registrar-recorder/county clerk. The Los Angeles Daily News has editorialized against Measure E, asserting that “fine” ethics reforms are bundled with ballot-box budgeting that amounts to “really bad policy.”