Election 2026 · Los Angeles County

County Measure E: County Ethics Commission independence and community investment set-aside

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

County Measure E would rewrite the County Charter's rules for the Los Angeles County Ethics Commission and its staff office, the Office of Ethics Compliance. It sets how the seven commissioners are chosen, gives the Commission power to investigate and fine people who break County ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws, and sets a minimum budget of $14.3 million a year starting in 2027-28. It also keeps the County's existing rule that at least 10% of locally generated unrestricted general fund revenue goes to community investment and alternatives to incarceration, and extends that duty to the elected County Executive.

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 E (impartial analysis, fiscal impact statement and full text; enter a County address).

What would County Measure E cost?

The County Auditor-Controller says Measure E requires the Board of Supervisors to budget at least $14.3 million a year for the Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance starting in fiscal year 2027-28, rising each year with inflation or income growth unless the Board finds exigent circumstances. The measure names no funding source, so the County would need new revenue, cuts to other programs, or both. Fines and grants could bring in money, but there's no way to predict how much. Keeping the 10% set-aside continues current practice and doesn't change current County revenue or spending.

What it means for the City of LA

Measure E changes County government only. The County Ethics Commission would enforce County ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws against County officials and employees, and against candidates, lobbyists and contractors covered by those County laws. City of Los Angeles officials answer to the City's own Ethics Commission. A separate City measure on this ballot, Charter Amendment EE, would raise that commission's maximum campaign finance fine to the same $15,000 or three-times formula Measure E uses. City residents vote on Measure E because they are County voters. The new Ethics Commission budget and the 10% set-aside, which reached $288.3 million a year in 2023-24, both come out of the County general fund, and set-aside programs such as rent assistance and mental health services serve residents countywide, including in the City.

The details

The question on your ballot

Shall the measure amending the Los Angeles County Charter to provide greater independence and structure for the County of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, Office of Ethics Compliance, and Ethics Compliance Officer, including appointment processes, qualifications, term, duties and responsibilities, and to continue uninterrupted the County's commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration, as specified in the charter amendment ordinance, be adopted?

What would change

Measure E does two separate things: it rewrites the Charter sections on the Ethics Commission, and it moves the Measure J set-aside to a new section that also binds the County Executive (impartial analysis).

The set-aside must go to community investment, such as youth programs, job training, loans for small minority-owned businesses, rent assistance and housing, and to alternatives to incarceration, such as health and mental health services and diversion and reentry programs. It can’t go to the Sheriff, District Attorney, courts or Probation (Sec. 51-1/4). The County reached the full 10% in 2023-24 at $288.3 million in ongoing funding (CEO Board letter, Aug. 4, 2026).

By Jan. 1, 2028, the Office of Ethics Compliance would take over as the filing officer for County Form 700 financial disclosure statements. The Commission must send the Board a draft Ethics Code ordinance by Dec. 31, 2027 (Sec. 11.68.00 D-E, L).

The City of LA in detail

• City officials are not covered. The Commission would investigate “County officials, County employees, candidates, campaign committees, lobbyists, contractors, and other persons subject to the laws the Commission enforces,” which are County laws (Sec. 11.68.00 B-C). City officials answer to the City Ethics Commission.
• A parallel City measure. City Charter Amendment EE would raise the City Ethics Commission’s maximum campaign finance fine to the greater of $15,000, adjusted for inflation, or three times the amount involved, the same formula as Measure E. EE would bar City ethics commissioners from running for City or LAUSD office for five years after leaving; Measure E’s bar on running for County office lasts two years (City pamphlet, Charter Amendment EE; Sec. 11.67.00 F). The County’s task force looked at the City’s Ethics Commission as a model, the Daily News reported (Daily News, May 19, 2026).
• County money. The $14.3 million minimum and the 10% set-aside both come from the County general fund, which City residents pay into as County taxpayers (Auditor-Controller). Set-aside programs, such as rent assistance and mental health services, are countywide (Sec. 51-1/4). We did not find a breakdown of how much set-aside money is spent in the City.

How it got on the ballot

• Nov. 3, 2020: Voters approved Measure J, the 10% set-aside, with 57.12% (County election results). A court struck it down in 2021, and it was reinstated in 2024 after an appeal (CEO Board letter).
• Nov. 5, 2024: Voters approved Measure G, with 51.62%. It creates an elected County Executive, expands the Board to nine members and calls for an independent Ethics Commission (County election results).
• July 2025: Governance Reform Task Force member John Fasana found that Measure G had left out Measure J. County Counsel said a past administration never added Measure J to the Charter, so Measure G’s text repealed it effective December 2028 (LA Times via AOL; Daily News, July 28, 2026).
• Nov. 6, 2025: A County ordinance adding the 10% set-aside to the County Code took effect (CEO Board letter).
• May 19, 2026: Acting on the task force’s recommendation, the Board voted 5-0 to have County Counsel draft an ethics Charter amendment. It first adopted Supervisor Holly Mitchell’s amendment 4-1, with Supervisor Janice Hahn voting no (Statement of Proceedings, May 19, 2026). The Daily News reported that the amendment dropped Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s proposal to let the Sheriff and District Attorney each nominate a commissioner (Daily News, May 19, 2026).
• July 7, 2026: Mitchell and Horvath moved to add the Measure J fix to the ethics amendment. The motion passed 4-0, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstaining (Mitchell-Horvath motion; Statement of Proceedings, July 7, 2026).
• July 21, 2026: The Board introduced the ordinance 4-0, with Barger abstaining (Statement of Proceedings, July 21, 2026).
• July 28, 2026: The Board adopted Ordinance 2026-0025 and the election resolution, 3-0. Barger abstained and Mitchell was absent (Statement of Proceedings, July 28, 2026). The Daily News reported that the item passed without discussion (Daily News, July 28, 2026).

Barger explained her abstention in a statement: “the County should not tie the hands of future Boards through mandated funding requirements” (Daily News, July 28, 2026). She and Mitchell had opposed Measure G in 2024 (County election results).

What each side says

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

For.

• Mitchell and Horvath’s motion says that without a Charter fix, Measure G would “potentially result in the repeal of Measure J in 2028,” and that “the loss of these investments would be catastrophic” (motion).
• The League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County wrote to the Board supporting the Measure J language, saying “the County has a responsibility to correct that error and protect the intent expressed by voters” (public correspondence).
• Fasana, who found the Measure J error, said “the ethics language is good” and that it makes the Commission “stronger and makes it independent.” On Measure J he said, “I hope the measure passes” (Daily News, July 28, 2026).

Against or critical.

• The Daily News editorial board recommended a no vote. It wrote that Measure E “bundles plausibly fine ethics policy changes with the restoration of really bad policy,” and that “ballot box budgeting is simply irresponsible” (Daily News editorial, Aug. 31, 2026).
• Daily News columnist Susan Shelley recommended a no vote, calling Measure J “a reckless amount of money diverted to NGOs and community groups” (Daily News, Sept. 29, 2026).
• Janet Asante of the Justice LA Coalition, which backs Measure J, called another vote “a slap in the face” to the voters who approved it and said the Board “could have just passed a motion” (Daily News, July 28, 2026).
• The Fiduciary Alliance for Los Angeles, a nonprofit, asked the Board to split the ethics and Measure J parts into two measures, and called the $250-per-meeting pay “token compensation” (public correspondence).

Checking the main claims against the measure and official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• Listed on the ballot: League of Women Voters of LA County, California Clean Money, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, California Common Cause and AAPI Equity Alliance (Registrar list of measures).
• Supervisors Hilda Solis and Janice Hahn voted with Horvath to place it on the ballot (Statement of Proceedings, July 28, 2026).
• LA Forward sponsors the registered Yes committee (County campaign finance portal).

Opponents

• None listed on the ballot (Registrar list of measures).
• Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstained on every vote to place it on the ballot (Statements of Proceedings, July 21 and July 28).

Editorial boards and columnists. The Daily News editorial board recommends no (editorial). Columnist Susan Shelley also recommends no (Daily News). We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026.

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

Money for and against

Source: County campaign finance portal, Measure E, checked Sept. 30, 2026. The first pre-election statements covered activity through Sept. 19 and were due Sept. 24.

Who is giving

No contributions to or from a Measure E committee had been reported as of Sept. 30, 2026 (County campaign finance portal).

Outside spending

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

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:

• says the $14.3 million floor starts in 2027-28 and rises yearly unless the Board finds exigent circumstances;
• says “the measure does not identify a funding/revenue source,” so the County “will need to identify additional revenue sources, reallocate funding from existing programs or services… or some combination”;
• says there is “no means to predict” revenue from fines and grants;
• says the set-aside continues an existing allocation.

The Daily News reported in May that the $14.3 million would pay for 54 positions (Daily News, May 19, 2026).

The task force’s requested changes. The Governance Reform Task Force, created by Measure G, voted unanimously on July 17, with all 10 members present, to ask for seven changes to County Counsel’s draft (task force letter, in public correspondence). Comparing the letter with the final text:

Source: task force letter, July 17, 2026 compared with the measure text by CityHallPass.

We found no outside budget or government-ethics analysis of Measure E 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).
• Staggered start. The first terms end between June 30, 2027 and June 30, 2031, depending on the seat (Sec. 11.67.00 D).
• Deadlines. Draft Ethics Code to the Board by Dec. 31, 2027. Filing officer for Form 700s by Jan. 1, 2028. Budget floor from 2027-28. The County Executive replaces the task force as a nominator on Jan. 1, 2029 (Secs. 11.67.00, 11.68.00, 11.70.00).
• The set-aside. It continues without a gap into the new governance structure (Sec. 51-1/4).
• If only part is struck down. The measure says the rest stands (Section 12).
• Legal challenges. We found no reported lawsuit or legal threat about Measure E as of Sept. 30, 2026.
• Conflicts. The other County measure on the ballot, Measure A, adds a labor section and does not touch the same Charter sections (Registrar list of measures).

Key moments

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

• The Measure J error comes to light (July 2025). Fasana raised it at a task force meeting. Horvath called it the “County bureaucracy’s error,” and Barger said it “reinforces one of the key concerns I had about Measure G from the start” (LA Times via AOL). The Daily News also reported the error (Daily News, July 28, 2026).
• Sheriff and DA seats dropped (May 19, 2026). Public speakers opposed giving the Sheriff and District Attorney nominees (Daily News, May 19; Statement of Proceedings).
• Daily News says no (Aug. 31, 2026). Its editorial board opposed the measure because of the Measure J part (editorial).

Polls

No public poll on Measure E from an academic, media or nonpartisan pollster was found as of Sept. 30, 2026.