Is a fixed 10% charter guarantee still the right way to fund Los Angeles County’s alternatives to incarceration?

Los Angeles County, California Criminal Justice Social Welfare

Los Angeles County voters approved Measure J in 2020, requiring at least 10% of locally generated unrestricted county revenue to support community investment and alternatives to incarceration rather than carceral systems and law enforcement. An administrative error left the language out of the charter, and provisions of the later Measure G governance overhaul would cause the Measure J commitment to disappear in December 2028. In July 2026, supervisors placed a corrective charter amendment on the November ballot. The underlying dispute is now whether the county should permanently restore the fixed funding floor, restore it with more budget flexibility, or let future boards allocate the money annually. The county should honor what voters approved, but dedicating a fixed share of a future budget is a serious constraint. The choice is between durable protection for diversion programs and flexibility when other needs become urgent.

Overall results

55% support · excluded by 6%

The county should not allow an administrative mistake and an unrelated governance amendment to undo a voter-approved criminal-justice policy without an explicit public decision.

The fixed floor exists because prevention, housing and treatment are easy to squeeze when incarceration systems demand money. Removing the guarantee recreates the political problem voters explicitly addressed.

52% support · excluded by 2%

A durable funding floor can honor the policy voters chose while an extraordinary, transparent waiver protects the county if revenues collapse or another essential obligation becomes unavoidable.

The best safeguard is one that is difficult but not impossible to override: public findings, a supermajority and restoration requirements can prevent routine raids without making the budget brittle.

43% support · excluded by 6%

Fixed percentages can disconnect funding from measurable need or performance. The county can preserve diversion programs through ordinary appropriations while reallocating when conditions change.

Elected supervisors should justify each program and budget every year rather than treating a percentage of growing revenue as automatically owed to one policy category.

About the author

Anonymous

#HDZFnCvYfM