Election Central

Page last updated on 11/4/24.

One of the most critical ways we have to access our government and hold the system accountable is through our right to vote. By educating ourselves on the issues, engaging with the process as it stands, and empowering one another to advocate for the change our communities need, we can establish the greatest quality of life for ourselves today and for our future generations. Check here for information on upcoming elections (What issues are on the ballot? Who is running for what? What do all these propositions mean for me?) and make a commitment to exercise your right to vote at every opportunity.

Current Elections

The Empowerment Congress Leadership Council has prepared recommendations for the State measures that appear on the 2024 November general election ballot. These measures, along with state and local races, constitute “down ballot” contests that must not be overlooked by voters. The Empowerment Congress urges citizens to use their agency to learn about the issues and to cast informed votes. The summaries and accompanying rationale for each of the state measures (or propositions) are drawn from a variety of resource materials from the Office of the California Secretary of State, League of Women Voters and the campaigns, themselves.

There are ten State Ballot measures.

  • Five were placed on the ballot by the State Legislature.
  • Two measures seek approval from voters to authorize issuance of general obligation bonds (a form of public financed loans backed by repayment with interest from the State general fund over a fixed term, usually 30 to 40 years).
  • One measure lowers the voter threshold to approve local infrastructure and housing bonds for low and middle-income Californians from two-thirds to fifty-five percent.
  • Two others address constitutional/civil rights related issues.
  • Five state measures qualified for placement on the ballot via citizen initiative. An initiative statute is “a newly proposed law placed on the ballot by people who collected enough signatures” under the California Constitution.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Authorizes public school and community college facility bonds

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits.

  • Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.
  • Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California.
  • Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “yes” vote on this proposition because the majority of our communities’ families educate their students through the public K-12, community college and career technical education system. The facility infrastructure that houses and supports public K-12, community college and career technical education in California requires on-going investment in order to expand, maintain, improve and upgrade classrooms to meet learning needs.  This bond measure will help local school districts address new construction and deferred maintenance obligations for California’s increasingly diverse students.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Constitutional Right to Marriage

Learn more in the CA Secretary of State’s Official Voter Information Guide

Put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

  • Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments.
  • Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California.
  • Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “yes” vote on this proposition because it enshrines the right of two consenting adults to marry, thus, affording couples access to and state constitutional protections associated with the marital contract regardless to race or gender. It removes the language in the state constitution stating that marriage is only between and man and a woman. Consequently, this measure represents an extension of the civil and human rights to same sex couples and protects inter-racial marriage in the event the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 court decision that expanded the interpretation of the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

EC Recommendation: Support

Authorizes bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and natural lands from climate risks

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits.

  • Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond.
  • Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy.
  • Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “yes” vote on this proposition because climate change continues to impact the California environment in ways that require investment in watershed and woodlands management, community protection from wildfires and extreme weather events. Investment in community resilience and restoration in the face of emergencies and disasters will reduce economic disruption from drought and speed recovery following wildfires and floods.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Lowers voter approval threshold for local affordable housing and public infrastructure bonds

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Legislative Constitutional Amendment; put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements.

  • Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing for local bonds would be repaid with higher property taxes.
  • Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California.
  • Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “yes” vote on this measure because it provides a more feasible pathway for the State to financially support the critical needs of its citizens. Prior to passage of Proposition 13 by voters in 1978, the threshold for passing tax increases by cities, counties and special districts was 50% plus 1. California was able to meet the demand for its rapidly growing population for schools, infrastructure and public services without the need for a supermajority at the voting polls to make these public investments. Since 1978, the capacity of local governments and special districts to maintain and replace aging infrastructure and finance housing for low- and moderate-income Californians has been hamstrung by a minority of ideologically motivated, anti-tax crusaders who fundamentally believe government should play no role in addressing quality of life issues such as the availability of affordable cost housing confronting our communities. In 2002, California voters lowered the threshold to pass bond measures for school and community college districts to 55%. This ballot measure would enact the same threshold for bond-financed infrastructure (for roads, water and sewer infrastructure, etc.) and affordable housing.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Eliminates Constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude for incarcerated persons

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Legislative Constitutional amendment; put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work).

  • Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually.
  • Supporters: Assemblymember Lori Wilson
  • Opponents: None submitted

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “yes” vote on this measure because the forced labor of individuals under conditions of incarceration is an affront to human dignity and inherently exploitative. It should be ended. Existing corrections policy permits prison administrators to require incarcerated individuals to engage in largely uncompensated labor. This measure abolishes the practice of forced labor for incarcerated workers, what advocates perceive as removing the last vestiges of slavery from the state constitution. It gives California voters an opportunity to express their views via their votes about the state’s continued use of slavery/involuntary servitude as a means to exploit human beings in 2024.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Raises minimum wage and indexes future adjustments to inflation

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Initiative statute; put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.

  • Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually.
  • Supporters: None submitted
  • Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “yes” vote on this proposition because the predictable, periodic increase in the minimum wage resulting from indexing will allow hourly compensation in California to automatically adjust to growing prosperity. Passage of this measure will raise California’s statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour by January 1, 2026, and then each year thereafter from zero to 3.5 percent based on the rate of inflation. Indexing minimum wage workers’ wage to inflation will permit their compensation to keep track with rising prices. Some California workers already have minimum wages higher than $16 an hour and higher than the proposed rate ($18 per hour) in Prop. 32. These include fast-food workers, healthcare workers, and workers in California cities with their own minimum wage laws. Employees making a bit more than $18 an hour would also likely see a pay increase. Although a higher minimum wage could potentially increase costs to business, state and local governments, decrease profits, reduce jobs, Prop. 32 will improve the standard of living for millions of low-wage employees in California. While small businesses may be particularly vulnerable to the impact of higher operating costs, many full-time workers can’t afford the cost of living in California. A higher minimum wage tends to push up wages for other workers. Their increased purchasing power will help them survive the cost of living in California. Since the 1970s, real wage growth has been stagnant relative to profits and productivity in the U.S.

EC RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation

Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Initiative statute; put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties.

  • Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.
  • Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic. Survival; Tenants Together.
  • Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce.

The Empowerment Congress has declined to provide a recommendation on this proposition.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Oppose

Restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Initiative statute; put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices.

  • Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs.
  • Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles; California Republican Party; California Chamber of Commerce.
  • Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta; Empowerment Congress.
  • No recommendation: California Democratic Party; California Federation of Labor; California League of Women Voters.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “no” vote on this proposition because this ballot measure is an attempt by the California Apartment Association to harm a specific healthcare provider, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). The language of the measure is limited to one prescription drug program health care provider, AHF. AHF has been the principal proponent and sponsor of statewide rent control ballot measures. As such, Prop. 34 weaponizes the initiative process in retaliation for AHF’s advocacy of rent control. No organization in the future, including unions, will be safe from retribution by wealthy opponents. While the measure extends statutory protection to the state’s Medi-Cal discount drug program, its success as an administrative program and policy in reducing drug pricing and saving taxpayer dollars is unlikely to be terminated. Oppose Prop. 34’s retaliatory effort by well-funded political adversaries.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Initiative statute; put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.

  • Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects.
  • Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA; Empowerment Congress; California Democratic Party; California Republican Party.
  • Opponents: None officially submitted to the CA Secretary of State; California League of Women Voters.
  • No recommendation: California Federation of Labor; California Chamber of Commerce.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “yes” vote on this proposition because the protections and expansion of healthcare serves to children, low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities ensured by passage of Prop. 35 outweigh the potential risks to other vulnerable populations. This measure wades into the arcane and complex way in which the federal and state governments finance health insurance (Medicaid) for low-income Californians. Medi-Cal is California’s Medicaid program. It provides health coverage to eligible low-income residents. California currently imposes a tax on health care plans based on the number of people they cover, including those in Medi-Cal. When matched with federal funds, this tax helps pay for health care services for low-income families, seniors, disabled persons, and other Medi-Cal recipients. The tax is not permanent and needs to be approved every few years by the California Legislature and the federal government.

Prop. 35 would make the existing tax on managed health care plans permanent, subject to federal approval. The revenue generated would fund requires expenditure of these revenues for specified Medi-Cal services, including primary and specialty care, emergency care, family planning, mental health, and prescription drugs. Supporters (including a broad coalition of health care providers to low-income residents in Los Angeles) argue that Prop. 36 provides dedicated, ongoing funding for critical health care services without raising taxes on individuals; improves access to primary care, specialty care, emergency services, and mental health treatment; and includes strong accountability measures to ensure funds are spent as intended.

Opponents maintain Prop. 35 is another example of ballot box budgeting that limits the discretion of the legislature to consider all the variables for funding critical services in ways that balance competing demands for resources. Nevertheless, the protections and expansion of healthcare serves to children, low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities ensured by passage of Prop. 35 outweigh the potential risks to other vulnerable populations.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Oppose

Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes

Learn more in the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Education Guide

Initiative statute; put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.

  • Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
  • Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California; California Republican Party; California Chamber of Commerce.
  • Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice; Empowerment Congress; California Democratic Party; California League of Women Voters.
  • No recommendation: California Federation of Labor.

The Empowerment Congress recommends a “no” vote on this proposition because it constitutes an effort to repeal criminal justice reform efforts. For a decade, Californians have supported efforts to reform the system of criminal justice to address reliance on mass incarceration, prison overcrowding and racial inequity in the application of law enforcement and prosecution as the predominant approach to public safety. In 2014, voters passed Proposition 47. One of Prop. 47’s purposes was to reduce overcrowding in state prisons that had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 by changing some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Savings from lower incarceration rates were used to finance mental health and drug treatment programs, programs to keep kids in school, and for victim services through the Safe Neighborhood and School Fund established by Prop. 47. Prop. 47 represented an alternative to the spiraling costs associated with imprisonment, prison/jail construction and recidivism.

Opponents of criminal justice reform have relentlessly opposed Prop. 47 and other efforts to reduce reliance on crime suppression and incarceration in favor of prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. They have worked to sabotage its implementation by interpreting reform measures in ways that undermine goals. Supporters of Prop. 36 cynically exploit the short-term increase in crime attributable to the once-in-a-century COVID 19 pandemic and its aftermath, buttressed by sensational news coverage of smash-and-grab robberies and minor property crimes, in order to blame the Prop. 47 reforms. They ignore the recent data demonstrating declines in the overall crime rate or existing laws to address the most egregious property and drug trafficking laws.

Californians deserve a balanced approach to public safety that redirects tax payer dollars away from the failed policies of punitive incarceration that have starved underserved communities of the resources and public investment necessary to thrive. Prop. 36 represents a step backward by depriving drug treatment and prevention programs of the resources needed to combat crime and addiction in favor of incarceration and revolving door recidivism disguised as public safety.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Dubbed Affordable Housing, Homelessness Solutions and Prevention Now, Measure A would extend the quarter cent sales tax enacted in 2017 as Measure H and increase the amount to half a cent. The money would fund homelessness programs, including mental health care, substance abuse treatment, affordable housing, rental subsidies, job counseling and services for vulnerable populations including homeless families, veterans, abused women, seniors and disabled persons. Proponents estimate it would produce $1.2 billion annually. The measure would require programs to set and meet specific targets and mandate regular audits to ensure those showing the highest rates of effectiveness receive sufficient funds.

Additional information resources:

Listen to KBLA Talk 1580 Chief Visionary Officer Tavis Smiley discuss why he supports Measure A!

EC RECOMMENDATION: No Recommendation

COUNTY COUNSEL SUMMARY

If approved by a majority of the voters (50% + 1), the proposed Charter amendment would:

  • By 2026, require all items of business of the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) be on the posted agenda at least 120 hours before a regular meeting;
  • By 2026, establish an independent County Ethics Commission, an Office of Ethics Compliance, and the position of Ethics Compliance Officer;
  • By 2028, establish the office of an elected County Executive, and the positions of a Director of Budget and Management and County Legislative Analyst;
  • Expand the membership of the Board of Supervisors from five to nine elected members following the 2030 redistricting process;
  • Establish a Governance Reform Task Force and Charter Review Commission;
  • Authorize the suspension, with or without pay, of an elective County officer who has been criminally charged with a felony related to a violation of official duties;
  • Prohibit former County officials from lobbying the County for a minimum of two years after leaving County service;
  • Require the presentation of department budgets during a public hearing; and
  • Require implementation of the Charter amendment using existing County funding sources, with no additional taxes to implement.

Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell’s Comments

Measure G does not just expand the Board of Supervisors, which I have always supported. It presents several concerns that must be considered, including creating a new Countywide Elected position that will have no term limits, sole authority to approve the County’s $46 billion budget, and all County departments reporting to them (here is more info on this structure starting on page 12) – this position should not be politicized and come down to who can run a countywide campaign. 

One person should not be at the helm of all County departments instead of the representatives voters have selected from their community to deliver on the needs of their Supervisorial district. 

Expanding the Board of Supervisors while weakening its ability to hold County departments accountable and to ensure an equitable distribution of County funds undermines efforts for better representation for our 10 million residents. 

There is also the problem of figuring out how to pay for Measure G. The County’s budget is currently allocated for existing programs, services, and jobs that could be impacted to pay for this measure. There is no definitive answer on what will lose funding and who will be left holding the bag to help cover millions in unknown costs. 

The ethics commission included in Measure G is currently underway and does not require a ballot measure. The Board of Supervisors unanimously supported establishing one and that critical work will move forward regardless of whether this measure passes.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Summary Argument in Favor

CHARTER AMENDMENT LL provides for the establishment of an independent Redistricting Commission for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Currently, incumbent politicians determine the boundaries of Board Districts. This process is undermined by politics instead of focusing on the students, families, and communities that LAUSD serves. We need a system that gives the power of redistricting to the people – not politicians.   Charter Amendment LL will give the important decision-making power to community members across LAUSD and will completely take that power out of the hands of politicians. An independent redistricting commission is a proven, trusted, nonpartisan reform that has worked well in countless other California jurisdictions. It allows unbiased and impartial residents within LAUSD to draw Board District boundaries based on input from the public.   Charter Amendment LL will:

  • Give independent redistricting commissioners full authority to adopt new redistricting plans for LAUSD without influence of politicians, while requiring transparency and public input throughout the process
  • Ensure representation from all communities across LAUSD, including cities and unincorporated communities within the District
  • Protect communities of interest so they can be truly represented in Board Districts
  • Prohibit gerrymandering and ban the manipulation of Districts to benefit a candidate or party
  • Ensure parents and guardians of current LAUSD students have representation on the commission Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and are not checked for accuracy by any City agency.
  • Guarantee that LAUSD stakeholders – including youth and students, District staff and teachers, and others – can participate

The new commission will begin its important work in 2030 and will rid this process of political influence.

Measure Text (Partial)

Los Angeles Unified School District Independent Redistricting Commission: Sec. 810. Commission Establishment and Purpose. (a) There shall be a Los Angeles Unified School District Independent Redistricting Commission (the “Commission”) that shall have the powers, duties, and responsibilities set forth in the City Charter and by ordinance. (b) The purpose of the Commission is to strengthen the governance of the Los Angeles Unified School District by developing Board of Education district boundaries through a fair, transparent, inclusive, and independent redistricting process that empowers public participation and public access to its proceedings. Sec. 811. 55Commission Organization, Powers, and Duties. (a) The Commission shall consist of 14 members and four alternate members. (b) A new Commission shall be established every ten years after each federal decennial census. The members of the Commission shall be selected no later than April 1 of each year ending in the number zero. (c) The term of office of each member of the Commission shall begin on the date of that commissioner’s respective selection and shall expire upon the selection of the first member of the succeeding Commission. (d) The Commission shall have the power and duty to: (1) adopt the boundaries of the Board of Education districts of the Los Angeles Unified School District following each federal decennial census; (2) comply with the redistricting criteria and process set forth in the Charter and by ordinance; (3) act in an impartial manner that ensures the integrity and fairness of the redistricting process; (4) educate and inform the public about redistricting, solicit and encourage public participation in the redistricting process, and hold public meetings and hearings that are accessible and provide the public the opportunity to participate and provide comment throughout the process; New provisions or language added to the Charter or to existing Charter sections are shown in underline type; words deleted from the Charter or from existing Charter sections are shown in strikeout type. NOVEMBER 2024 DRAFT TXT2-2-E E299202 City of LA Proof #10 5 3/8” x 8 3/8” GB (5) make recommendations to the Mayor, City Council, and City Ethics Commission regarding redistricting matters; and (6) perform other redistricting functions as prescribed by ordinance. (e) The Commission may provide for youth participation on the Commission with participants selected through a process, and possessing the powers and duties, as provided by ordinance.

EC RECOMMENDATION: Support

Summary Argument in favor

CHARTER AMENDMENT DD establishes an independent Redistricting Commission for the City of Los Angeles.  Two years ago, the city was shaken by scandal when a few Councilmembers were recorded trying to game the redistricting process for themselves while diluting the power of entire communities. CHARTER AMENDMENT DD will stop that kind of backroom dealing. Every ten years, a new commission will be selected to redraw Council district lines. Applicants will be rigorously screened for potential conflicts of interest: No elected officials or their staff or family members and no candidates, lobbyists or political consultants. Half of the commissioners will be selected from a pool of screened applicants at random, like a lottery. They will then select the rest, from the same pool, to ensure the Commission reflects the diversity of our city, taking race, gender, age, income, and other factors into account. The entire process will be managed by the City Clerk with no involvement by Councilmembers at all. The independent commissioners will draw Council districts that are roughly equal in population, and will ensure that no racial or ethnic communities are arbitrarily divided into multiple districts to dilute their opportunity for representation. Fair elections in fairly-drawn districts are essential to democracy and to effective city government. Once and for all, CHARTER AMENDMENT DD will let the voters choose their Councilmembers, instead of the Councilmembers choosing their voters. Let’s take the politics out of the redistricting process.

Measure Text (Partial)

City of Los Angeles Independent Redistricting Commission:

Sec. 480. Commission Establishment and Purpose. (a) There shall be in the City of Los Angeles an Independent Redistricting Commission (the “Commission”) that shall have the powers, duties, and responsibilities set forth in the City Charter and by ordinance. (b) The purpose of the Commission is to strengthen the governance of the City of Los Angeles by developing Council district boundaries through a fair, transparent, inclusive, and independent redistricting process that empowers public participation and public access to its proceedings.

Sec. 481. Commission Organization, Powers, and Duties. (a) The Commission shall consist of 16 members and four alternate members. (b) A new Commission shall be established every ten years after each federal decennial census. The members of the Commission shall be selected no later than April 1 of each year ending in the number zero. (c) The term of office of each member of the Commission shall begin on the date of that commissioner’s respective selection and shall expire upon the selection of the first member of the succeeding Commission. (d) The Commission shall have the power and duty to: (1) adopt the boundaries of the Council districts of the City of Los Angeles following each federal decennial census; (2) comply with the redistricting criteria and process set forth in the Charter and by ordinance; (3) act in an impartial manner that ensures the integrity and fairness of the redistricting process; (4) educate and inform the public about redistricting, solicit and encourage public participation in the redistricting process, and hold public meetings and hearings that are accessible and provide the public the opportunity to participate and provide comment throughout the process; (5) make recommendations to the Mayor, City Council, and City Ethics Commission regarding redistricting matters; and (6) perform other redistricting functions as prescribed by ordinance.

EC RECOMMENDATION: No Recommendation

Summary Argument in favor

CHARTER AMENDMENT ER is the first significant ethics reform measure in the history of the Ethics Commission. It dramatically increases the penalties the Commission can impose for ethics violations, and it gives the Commission greater independence. Among other things, CHARTER AMENDMENT ER will:

  • Triple the existing penalties for those who violate the ethics laws.
  • Prohibit anyone who does business with the City or has any financial interest in the City’s actions from serving on the Ethics Commission.
  • Prohibit elected officials from appointing relatives, campaign consultants or major campaign donors to the Commission.
  • Compel the City Council to consider all Commission recommendations within 180 days.
  • Give greater independence to the Ethics Commission by setting a minimum annual budget that the Commission controls without Council approval for specific expenditures, and by allowing the Commission to retain its own legal counsel. Strengthen ethics enforcement and restore confidence in City government!

Introduction to Government Reform Proposals

Learn more about the government reform proposals on the ballot in November’s election.

Civic Engagement Translated: YES WE KAM!

EC Web Page Publisher’s Note: We remain true to our mantra: Educate, engage and empower. Here we seize this unprecedented historical moment to emphasize voter education, engagement and participation. According to the late John Lewis, the vote is the most powerful weapon in our non-violent arsenal. It is an indispensable tool of civic engagement. Read a summation and analysis of the Vice President Kamala Harris’s ascendancy as the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.

Local Elections

Interactive Sample Ballot

Generate your personal interactive sample ballot to find all of the races that are relevant to your election day!

Your interactive sample ballot will include (if relevant): Local Measures, City Council seats, Board of Supervisors, Community College District Board of Trustees, School Board candidates, Local Judges, District Attorney.

Learn more about your interactive sample ballot, which generates a poll pass, making it easy for you to cast your vote in-person during elections.

Ballot Tracking

Check the status of your ballot, from being mailed to your home, to processing with the Secretary of State
This convenient tool allows you to find out when your is mailed to you from the County, as well as when it is received and counted by the LA County Registrar-Recorder.

Sign up for Where’s my Ballot?

In-Person Voting

LA County has implemented Vote Centers across the County, making it easier than ever to cast your vote!

If you prefer to vote in person, you can vote at any vote center located in LA County! Learn more about in-person voting options, create your poll pass and find your most convenient center.

Find a vote center

Vote by Mail

Mail your ballot or visit a ballot drop-off location

The State of California sends vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots to all registered voters for all elections. Once you receive your VBM ballot (typically approximately 4 weeks before election day), find out how to return yours safely and effectively!

How to vote by mail

Voter Registration

No matter when the next election is, you can ALWAYS register to vote! Check your status or register to vote to make sure you’re on the roster for all upcoming elections. Remember – if you have any major life changes (change of name or address, etc.), you’ll need to register yourself again! Why wait? Take care of your voter registration today!

Know your registration status, so you don’t miss important voting opportunities.

The fundamental power of democracy lies in the right to vote, and if you protect that right, you create possibilities for everything else.

— STACEY ABRAMS