California Measure G – The Quiet Revolution in LA County Government

Who’d a Thunk it?

A Revolution is being proposed on our California Ballot. Under the unassuming, even boring, label “Measure G,” over 100 years of LA County government structure may be overthrown.

A “yes” vote will add a new Chief Executive, to be elected by the People of LA County. This official will have a lot of power to make the operations more effective and efficient. For example, the “County Executive” will have a line item veto over the budget. It’ll have hiring and firing power over some top jobs with the County. (But the Sheriff, District Attorney, and Tax Assessor will remain elected County-wide.)

A “yes” vote will also add 4 New Members to the current 5 person Board of Supervisors. BTW, they are all women now.

The Board was first created in 1852, two years after California became a state. Then, in 1912, the voters in the County elected to enact a new Charter for the County. This was the government organization that we in LA County still have. Hence, a “Revolution” if the voters pass Measure G.

Like the 1988 campaign promise of George Bush senior, “read my lips, no new taxes,” the Measure promises no new taxes to pay for the reforms. The Sups will just economize and pay for it through savings.

However, they are paid about $232,000 per year. With a new Executive and 4 new Sups, I wonder how long before they enact new taxes.

I give the reformers a lot of credit. The new measures will Dilute their Individual Power! That’s unusual for any politician.

Former West Hollywood Mayor Lindsay Horvath, Janice Hahn, born while her father Kenneth was on the Board, and the sole Latina, Hilda Solis, are strong supporters of Measure G.

The Measure is strongly opposed by beach area Supervisor Holly Mitchell and Supervisor Kathryn Barger, the only Republican (I’m stuck in her District).

What do you think? Should Measure be passed by the LA county voters?

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

The Political Science Interpretivist

https://interpretat.blogspot.com/

@InterpretivePo1

Comments

How the “But For” Test for Causation in Law can be Adapted to Political Science

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...

Executive Immunity – Beyond the Hype

The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the...

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more: 1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no. 2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...

The Political Science Interpretivist

Search This Blog