Election 2026 · Los Angeles County

County Measure A: Binding arbitration for County public safety unions

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

County Measure A would change the Los Angeles County Charter so that contract disputes between the County and the unions for its firefighters, deputy sheriffs, lifeguards and some other public safety workers go to binding arbitration when bargaining stalls. A three-member arbitration panel would pick one side's final offer on each open issue, and its decision would be final without a vote of the Board of Supervisors. The measure also bans strikes by the covered workers.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Interactive Sample Ballot: County Measure A (impartial analysis, fiscal impact statement and full text; enter a County address).

What would County Measure A cost?

The County Auditor-Controller says the measure doesn't directly affect County revenue. Running arbitrations could cost from tens of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on how complex and long they are. The larger effect is that arbitrators, not the Board, would have the final say on pay and benefits for employees who now cost the County about $4.1 billion a year. The Auditor-Controller says there's no basis to predict whether that would raise or lower future labor costs.

What it means for the City of LA

Measure A covers County employees only: 14 County bargaining units with about 16,535 workers, according to Supervisor Lindsey Horvath. Los Angeles Fire Department and Los Angeles Police Department employees work for the City, which pays for them through its own budget, so they are not covered. City residents still rely on the County workers who are covered. Sheriff's deputies run the County jail system and handle security at every County courthouse. City residents are also County taxpayers. The Auditor-Controller says the covered workers cost the County about $4.1 billion a year and that arbitration could raise or lower that amount, which would change what the County has left for other services it provides in the City.

The details

The question on your ballot

Shall the measure amending the Los Angeles County Charter to prohibit strikes by district attorney investigators, medical examiners, and lifeguards; their supervisors; and nonadministrative civilian employees working in the Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, and the Department of Medical Examiner, reiterate existing legal obligations for good faith negotiations, and establish an impartial binding arbitration process for resolving labor disputes with certified public safety employee organizations representing County employees including firefighters, sheriffs, and the abovementioned employees, as specified in the charter amendment ordinance, be adopted?

The County Measure A on the November 5, 2024 ballot was a different measure: the half-cent sales tax for homelessness services and affordable housing that replaced the Measure H tax. It passed with 57.78% of the vote (County Registrar, November 2024 results).

What would change

Arbitration covers disputes over renewing a union’s memorandum of understanding on wages, hours and working conditions. It does not cover matters that belong only to the separate fringe benefits agreement (Sec. 47.8 D.2). The measure lists 14 bargaining units by number: 601, 602, 603, 604, 611, 612, 614, 621, 631, 632, 641, 642, 411 and 412 (Sec. 47.8 B). County Counsel says they include firefighters, deputy sheriffs, sworn law enforcement supervisors and managers, lifeguards, and civilian employees of the Fire Department, the Sheriff’s Department and the Department of the Medical Examiner (impartial analysis). Supervisor Lindsey Horvath told the Board the units cover 16,535 employees (Board transcript, Feb. 10, 2026). Acting Chief Executive Officer Joseph M. Nicchitta told the Board his staff said the measure covers every County bargaining unit whose members can’t strike (same transcript).

The County has imposed contract terms after an impasse twice since 2001: on the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in 2001 and on Supervising Deputy Probation Officers in 2024, the LA Times reported, citing the County (LA Times, Feb. 11, 2026).

For the City of LA:

• City workers are not covered. The measure applies only to County bargaining units certified by the County’s Employee Relations Commission (Sec. 47.8 B). The Los Angeles Fire Department is a City department paid for almost entirely from the City’s General Fund (City pamphlet). Measure A does not change how the City bargains with LAFD or LAPD employees.
• City residents use services from covered workers. The Sheriff’s Department runs the County jail system, which holds sentenced and pretrial inmates (LASD Custody Operations), and is “in charge of security at all County courthouses” (LASD Court Services).
• City residents pay County taxes. The covered workers’ pay and benefits cost about $4.1 billion a year, and arbitration could raise or lower that amount (Auditor-Controller). The County budgeted $20.8 billion for all salaries and benefits in 2025-26 (Nicchitta memo), so the covered workers account for about 20% of that (our calculation). Nicchitta warned the Board that large awards could lead to “workforce reductions and program curtailments” in other County services (memo).
• Other County workers. If other County labor contracts have parity clauses tied to these workers’ pay, arbitration results could carry over to those employees too, the Auditor-Controller says (fiscal impact statement).

How it got on the ballot

The Board of Supervisors placed Measure A on the ballot while public safety unions were collecting signatures for their own version.

• Early 2026: Union representatives told Nicchitta they had begun gathering signatures to put a binding arbitration measure on the November ballot, he wrote (Nicchitta memo, Feb. 9, 2026). The unions’ committee, Safer Los Angeles County, paid PCI Campaigns at least $588,899 for petition circulating from January through March (Form 460, Jan.-March 2026).
• Feb. 9, 2026: Nicchitta wrote that the Board’s proposal was narrower than the union petition. He asked for more limits, including a scope limited to pay, court review of awards, a fiscal emergency override, a sunset date and a 2028 start (memo).
• Feb. 10, 2026: Supervisors Horvath and Hilda Solis moved to have County Counsel draft a Charter amendment. After amendments that added required mediation and the finance factors, the Board voted 4-0. Supervisor Holly Mitchell abstained (Statement of Proceedings, Feb. 10, 2026; Board transcript).
• March 3, 2026: The Board introduced the ordinance 4-1. Mitchell voted no (Statement of Proceedings, March 3, 2026).
• March 17, 2026: The Board adopted Ordinance 2026-0005 calling the election, 4-1, with Mitchell voting no (Statement of Proceedings, March 17, 2026).
• July 14, 2026: Horvath moved to rewrite the ballot title and question “to ensure the public has the most accurate understanding” of the measure (Horvath motion, July 14, 2026). The motion passed 4-0, with Mitchell abstaining (Statement of Proceedings, July 14, 2026).
• July 28, 2026: With Mitchell absent, the Board voted 4-0 to introduce an ordinance repealing the March ordinance and a new ordinance calling the election (Statement of Proceedings, July 28, 2026).
• Aug. 4, 2026: The Board adopted the repeal (Ordinance 2026-0027), the new election ordinance (Ordinance 2026-0028) and a new election resolution, each by 4-1. Horvath, Janice Hahn, Kathryn Barger and Solis voted yes, and Mitchell voted no (Statement of Proceedings, Aug. 4, 2026).

Hahn said the unions “have every intention and probably all of the resources needed to collect signatures to put something on the ballot that gets them this,” and that it made sense “to work on something that we can have some input in” (LA Times, Feb. 11, 2026). Nicchitta told the Board that having “some influence over this ballot measure” was “very positive,” given a signature drive “that the County doesn’t have any influence over” (Board transcript, Feb. 10, 2026).

Related measures elsewhere. Horvath’s motion lists Sacramento County, San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Luis Obispo and Stockton as places that use binding arbitration for public safety workers (Horvath motion). She told the Board that 21 California jurisdictions have it and that six of them have gone to arbitration (Board transcript). Nicchitta attached two articles to his memo. One described a 2006 arbitration award for San Luis Obispo police. The other described Vallejo, where voters removed binding arbitration from the city charter in 2010 after the city’s bankruptcy (Nicchitta memo attachments).

What each side says

The County’s sample ballot lists supporters and opponents but includes no written arguments for or against Measure A (Registrar list of measures; County sample ballot data).

For.

• Horvath: binding arbitration “levels the field at the bargaining table” for unions that can’t strike, and “the goal is never to have to get to that step” (Board transcript, Feb. 10, 2026). Her motion says the current process lets elected officials make every key decision, which “can cause delays,” “increases the chance of litigation,” and “can increase acrimony” (Horvath motion).
• Barger: the current process “can sometimes feel lopsided,” and knowing a panel will decide “will motivate both sides to negotiate seriously and in good faith.” She pointed to staffing shortages before the World Cup and the Olympics (Board transcript).
• Solis said she supported binding arbitration in the Legislature and supports it now. She said the arbitrators “will also have access to financial data to ensure that the County can afford the decisions” (Board transcript).
• The union coalition’s campaign says binding arbitration would “remove politics from pay decisions” and leave “pay decisions in the hands of neutral experts,” the LA Times reported (LA Times).

Against or cautioning.

• Mitchell: “Arbitrators aren’t elected, they’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, healthcare, capital improvements” (LA Times; Board transcript). She also questioned whether arbitration hearings would really be public (Board transcript).
• Nicchitta, the acting CEO, wrote that because arbitrators “pick a winner,” the result “will no longer be a compromise,” and that large awards could “balloon our unfunded pension liabilities, and damage the County’s credit ratings” (memo). On Feb. 10 he said the amendments “met my need on the budget,” but that he and the unions still had “a fundamental disagreement” over court review, a fiscal emergency override and a sunset (Board transcript).
• Daily News columnist Susan Shelley recommended a no vote. She wrote that the measure “lets elected officials avoid hard votes and almost guarantees that unaffordably high contract demands will be imposed on taxpayers” (Daily News, Sept. 29, 2026).

Checking the main claims against the measure and official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• Listed on the ballot: LA County Firefighters Local 1014, the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), and the LA/OC Building Trades Council (Registrar list of measures).
• Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis wrote the motion. Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger voted to place it on the ballot (Statement of Proceedings, Aug. 4, 2026; Horvath motion).
• Donors to the Yes committee include the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the Los Angeles County Lifeguard Association and the Peace Officers Research Association of California’s political committee (see Money). A donation is not the same as a formal endorsement.
• Sheriff Robert Luna and Assessor Jeff Prang sent letters of support, according to an ALADS email reported by The Current Report (The Current Report).

Opponents

• None listed on the ballot (Registrar list of measures).
• Supervisor Holly Mitchell voted no on the ordinances that placed it on the ballot (Statement of Proceedings, Aug. 4, 2026).

Editorial boards and columnists. We found no LA Times or Daily News editorial board position on Measure A as of Sept. 30, 2026. Daily News columnist Susan Shelley recommended a no vote (Daily News).

Sheriff candidates. Former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who faces Luna on November 3, was quoted by The Current Report on the arbitration measure: “This is political theater designed to give the appearance of progress to influence the upcoming elections. The board has had the authority to negotiate in good faith all along, this gives them a chance to kick the can down the road” (The Current Report). See our Sheriff page.

Parties and other groups. We found no published position from the Los Angeles County Democratic or Republican parties, the Los Angeles County Business Federation or the League of Women Voters as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Money for and against

Source: Yes on A Form 460s for Jan.-March, April-June and July 1-Sept. 19, 2026; committee filings list. The committee started 2026 with $3,882,450 in cash (Jan.-March statement). We did not find its 2025 campaign statement among the County’s posted filings, so where that money came from is not shown here. The committee was named Safer Los Angeles County until its July-September statement (committee filings list).

Who is giving

Method: every contribution reported on the committee’s three 2026 statements. The posted copy of the January-March statement has 9 of its 18 pages. For the two donors whose January-March gifts fall on missing pages, we used the “cumulative to date” figures on the later statements. Shares are of the $6,195,421.96 total and are our calculations.

• Unions of covered workers gave almost all of it. ALADS, the peace officers’ association committee, Firefighters Local 1014’s two committees and the Lifeguard Association gave $5,869,886.96, or 94.7%.
• The deputies’ union is the largest donor. ALADS gave $2,750,000 in cash, including $1.5 million in August, plus $94,886.96 in goods and services, for 45.9% in all (July-Sept. statement).
• Individuals. One itemized individual gift appears, for $250. Unitemized gifts under $100 totaled $185.

Source: Yes on A Form 460s for Jan.-March, April-June and July 1-Sept. 19, analyzed by CityHallPass.

Where committee donors get their money. The peace officers’ association committee raised $1,449,344.92 in 2026. Nearly all of it, $1,449,064.92, came from the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers’ Association acting “as an intermediary for its members,” with no member giving $100 or more (PPOA committee Form 460, July-Sept.). The two Firefighters Local 1014 committees are funded by the union. Each receives about $27,000 a month from Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014, and each took in about $394,000 in early 2025 from the “Yes on E, Coalition of Firefighters and Paramedics” committee left over from the November 2024 County Fire special tax campaign (Education Project Form 460, Jan.-June 2026; Education Project Form 460, Jan.-June 2025; Community Issues Form 460, July-Sept. 2026).

How the money was spent. From January through March the committee paid PCI Campaigns at least $588,899 for petition circulating (Jan.-March statement). From July 1 to Sept. 19 it paid $335,500. That included $193,500 to Gudelunas Strategies and $10,000 to VR Research, both for polling and survey research, and $75,000 to The Strategy Group for consulting (July-Sept. statement).

Outside spending

No independent expenditure for or against Measure A appeared in the County’s campaign filings through Sept. 30, 2026 (Registrar campaign finance filings for Measure A).

Independent analysis

The official analyses are County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison’s impartial analysis and Auditor-Controller Oscar Valdez’s fiscal impact statement (County sample ballot data). The Auditor-Controller:

• puts the direct cost of arbitration at “tens of thousands to millions of dollars” per case, depending on complexity and length;
• says the “more significant fiscal impact” is moving final authority over pay, benefits and working conditions to the panel;
• says the County “has no prior experience with binding arbitration for these covered employees” and so has “no basis on which to predict” whether costs would rise or fall;
• notes the covered employees cost about $4.1 billion a year, and that parity clauses could spread results to other employees.

Acting CEO Nicchitta’s Feb. 9 memo is the County staff review. It lists nine safeguards he recommended (memo). Comparing that list with the final text:

Source: Nicchitta memo, Feb. 9, 2026 compared with the measure text by CityHallPass.

Nicchitta told the Board he was “not aware of another jurisdiction” with a fiscal emergency override and called the terms “the L.A. County package” (Board transcript, Feb. 10, 2026). We found no analysis of Measure A by an outside budget or labor research group as of Sept. 30, 2026.

If it passes

• When it takes effect. The Charter amendment “will take effect as provided for in sections 23713 and 23714 of the Government Code” (measure text, Section 2). It sets no separate start date. It applies to disputes over renewing a union contract (Sec. 47.8 D.2).
• Who runs it. The County’s Employee Relations Commission administers the process. Where the measure conflicts with the County’s Employee Relations Ordinance, the measure controls (Sec. 47.8 E-F).
• Status quo during talks. Until there is an agreement or an arbitration decision, the County can’t eliminate or change existing wages, hours or working conditions for the covered workers (Sec. 47.8 C).
• Legal challenges. The County must defend the measure in court. If it doesn’t, the proponents may, and the County must pay their reasonable attorneys’ fees (Sec. 47.8 I). We found no reported lawsuit or legal threat as of Sept. 30, 2026.
• Conflicts. If another County measure passed at the same election conflicts with it, the one with more yes votes controls (Sec. 47.8 H). The only other County measure on the ballot, Measure E, deals with the Ethics Commission and a budget set-aside (Registrar list of measures).
• If it fails. Section 4 of the ordinance keeps the Charter as it was on Nov. 2, 2026 (measure text).

Key moments

No debate or forum on Measure A was found in news coverage or County records as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Board directs a draft (Feb. 10, 2026). The vote came a day after the acting CEO’s memo warning of costs. Nicchitta said he had met with union leaders “pretty late into the night” before the meeting and that the amendments reflected concessions (Board transcript; LA Times).
• Ballot wording rewritten (July-Aug. 2026). The Board revised the title and question, then repealed and replaced its March election ordinance (Horvath motion, July 14; Statement of Proceedings, Aug. 4).
• Deputies’ union gives $1.5 million (August 2026). ALADS gave $750,000 on Aug. 5 and $750,000 on Aug. 26 (July-Sept. statement).

Polls

No public poll on Measure A from an academic, media or nonpartisan pollster was found as of Sept. 30, 2026. The Yes committee paid Gudelunas Strategies and VR Research for polling and survey research and has not released results (July-Sept. statement).