Municipal elections in Los Angeles, California (2017)
2019 →
← 2016
|
| 2017 Los Angeles elections |
|---|
 |
| Election dates |
| Filing deadline: December 7, 2016 |
| Primary election: March 7, 2017 General election: May 16, 2017 |
| Election stats |
| Offices up: Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, City Controller, Community College |
| Total seats up: 14 |
| Election type: Nonpartisan |
| Other municipal elections |
| U.S. municipal elections, 2017 |
The city of Los Angeles, California, held a general election for Districts 1 and 7 on its city council on May 16, 2017. The general election for these seats was necessary after no candidate in those races won a majority (50 percent plus one) of the primary votes cast on March 7, 2017.
The primary election determined the winners in six city council races and three community college board races, as well as races for mayor, city attorney, and city controller. Mayor Eric Garcetti defeated a field of 10 challengers to win a second term. Only one incumbent, Board of Trustees Seat No. 6 Member Nancy Pearlman, was defeated in the primary. Incumbents won all the remaining races. The community college board does not have a majority vote requirement, so the March election served as a general election for those three seats.
Campaign finance was in the forefront of this election in light of recent efforts by the council and citizen groups to limit the influence property developers have in city government through political contribution restrictions. Winners in this election cycle joined the rest of the city's government in dealing with local issues, such as budget shortfalls and a potential city charter change to increase civilian roles in police disciplinary hearings. The victors saw entanglements with national politics over the matter of immigration.
This election was the second impacted by Charter Amendment 1. Passed in March 2015, the amendment shifted city elections to even-numbered years beginning in 2020. As a result, officials elected in 2017 won special five-and-a-half year terms ending in 2022.
The filing deadline for candidates to run in this election was December 7, 2016. The Los Angeles city clerk certified the lists of candidates in the section below on December 16, 2016.[1][2][3][4]
Elections
Mayor
Primary election
|
|
Garcetti's potential gubernatorial candidacy
In his quest for a second term, Garcetti faced a field of 10 official challengers in the primary election, including one who wanted him to commit to not seeking a higher office if he wins re-election. Garcetti had been discussed as a potential candidate for governor of California in 2018. One of his opponents, Mitchell Schwartz, called on Garcetti to pledge that he would not seek the statewide office if re-elected to a second term as mayor. Schwartz argued that running for governor would be a distraction from carrying out the duties of the mayoral office, saying, "You can't be mayor while you're running. You would barely be serving." A consultant for Garcetti's campaign stated that "[h]e hasn’t made any decision about running for any political office other than the mayor’s office" and called Schwartz's demand a stunt.[5]
Attorney
Primary election
Controller
Primary election
City council
General election
District 1
|
District 7 |
Primary election
District 1
District 3
District 5
|
District 7District 7 was vacant at the time of candidate filing. |
District 9District 11
District 13
District 15
|
Community college
General election
Board of Trustees Seat No. 2Incumbent Mike Eng did not file to seek re-election. |
Board of Trustees Seat No. 4
|
Board of Trustees Seat No. 6
|
Additional elections on the ballot
In addition to the city primary elections, Los Angeles voters cast ballots for their public school district, one county ballot measure, and four city ballot measures on March 7, 2017.
City ballot measures
May 16
• Measure C: Los Angeles Civilian Review of Police Disciplinary Matters
March 7
• Measure M: Los Angeles Marijuana Regulation and Taxation
• Measure N: Los Angeles Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Initiative
• Measure P: Los Angeles Harbor Department Leases Maximum Length Increase Charter Amendment
• Measure S: Los Angeles Changes to Laws Governing the General Plan and Development
County ballot measures
March 7
Campaign finance
Most campaigns for Los Angeles city offices in Los Angeles must file campaign finance reports with the city's ethics commission. Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees are the only exception to this requirement as of the 2017 election cycle. Scroll through the table below to view the campaign finance activity for all the other candidates with totals for each race.
Partisanship in Los Angeles' municipal government
While the elections for local offices in Los Angeles are nonpartisan contests, local government in Los Angeles had become almost entirely a one-party system in practice. The mayor, city attorney, city controller, 12 of the sitting 13 council members, and at least four of the seven community college board of trustees members were Democrats, prior to the election. The city council had one Republican member, District 12's Mitchell Englander. The Los Angeles Times reported that no Republican candidate for mayor had advanced to the general election contest since Mayor Richard Riordan's departure in 2001.[6][7]
Issues
Property development and campaign finance regulation
| The city council motion from January 10, 2017, to ban campaign contributions from property developers. Scroll in the box to read the entire document. |
Regulating campaign contributions from area developers in Los Angeles city elections became a point of action for some city councilors and citizen groups in 2017. The city's planning structure, which allows for one-off zoning changes by the city council, has led to concerns that campaign contributions to councilors influence which plans are and are not approved. In January 2017, council members David Ryu, Paul Krekorian, and Joe Buscaino introduced an ordinance that would prohibit campaign contributions to city races from developers with projects before the council. The idea was seconded by Councilman Paul Koretz, and Councilman Mike Bonin also voiced his support for the measure. Buscaino, Bonin, and Koretz were up for re-election in 2017.[8]
The push to restrict the potential influence of developers came after local reporting revealed a broad pattern of donations from particular developers to almost all of the city's elected officials. Councilman Ryu voiced his support for the council's measure, saying, "By introducing sweeping reforms, we will work to restore Angelenos’ faith in the city’s ability to fairly review and approve major development projects. We need a campaign finance system that limits the influence of big-pocketed developers, and instead empowers thousands of small donors to have their voices heard."[9][10][11]
Any entities holding city contracts or registered as lobbyists with the city are already prevented from making contributions. While such restrictions on campaign finance have been upheld in the past, concerns have been expressed about whether or not a restriction applying to those who are only under consideration for contracts might be seen as limiting free speech and contradicting the verdict of Citizens United. Additionally, any such ban would face difficulties in precisely defining how long developers are banned from donating before or after a project comes before the body, as well as who could be included in the list of banned persons, such as spouses or employees of the developers.[12]
District 11 Councilman Mike Bonin proposed another way to address public concerns over campaign finance later in January 2017: creating a fully publicly funded option. The city provides a public funding option of up to $225,000 for city council candidates who meet certain requirements. "Instead of tweaking the system, let’s fix it and replace it with a better one," Bonin said, contrasting his idea to the proposed ban on developer funds.[13]
Meanwhile, citizen initiative Measure S will appear on the March ballot. If approved, it would impose a moratorium on construction that increases development density for up to two years, prohibiting project-specific amendments to the city's general plan, requiring a public review of the city's general plan every five years, requiring city staff—not developers or project applicants—to perform environmental impact reports, and establishing other changes to the city's general plan laws.[10][11]
Budget shortfall and lawsuit payouts
The financial issues that grew out of the 2008 recession continued in Los Angeles with a projected shortfall of $245 million in 2017. The city also must find additional funds to cover $208 million in lawsuit settlements. The City Administrative Office (CAO) suggested that the council borrow between $50 and $70 million via bonds to begin the installation payments on a $200 million disability public housing lawsuit settlement and $8 million for settlements in fatal police shooting cases. The city had already been using its reserves to begin paying for the lawsuits, but significant withdrawals from the reserves could ultimately affect the city's bond rating.[14]
The council's budget and finance committee voted 4-1 to start the bond issuance, with a projected completion of the issuance by June 2017. This vote was followed by an 11-1 vote of the full council to move forward with the process in January; District 12 Councilman Mitchell Englander was the sole vote against. The CAO proposed the use of judgment obligation bonds as a solution to the problem at hand, but he also advised the mayor and city council to "provide funding within the budget at a level that is based on a comprehensive review of existing cases by the City Attorney" and to budget long-term for the city's liabilities.[14]
Englander defended his vote, stating, "While the cases are different year to year, the settlement amounts have grown. Not adequately budgeting for this reality by calling it a 'one time cost' is simply not responsible." He also voiced concerns over how the bonds could affect the city's bond rating and called judgment obligation bonds "one of the worst forms of debt."[15]
History of budget shortfalls
In 2014, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana told the council the city would face budget deficits through 2018, even if its spending did not increase and rising employee costs were reduced. At that time, Santana projected the following budget outcomes by fiscal year:[16]
- $165.2 million shortfall in 2015-2016
- $186.8 million shortfall in 2016-2017
- $73.9 million shortfall in 2017-2018
- $20.9 million surplus in 2018-2019
Santana proposed not providing cost-of-living increases to city employee pay and having employees pay 10 percent of their health insurance premiums to help reduce the city's costs. He also warned that Mayor Eric Garcetti's proposed budget for the 2015-2016 fiscal year would not allocate funds for proposed road repairs or enhanced ambulance services.[16]
It also did not address funds needed for unpaid police officer overtime. Following the recession, the city had begun delaying payments for police overtime in order to balance the budget, but the practice had accumulated $112 million of unpaid police hours by 2014.[16]
Garcetti, meanwhile, sought to reduce city expenses by limiting workers' compensation costs and efficiency improvements. Santana's projections also took into account Garcetti's plans to reduce the top business tax rate in the city from 2014 to 2018. The move was expected to reduce the city's tax revenues by $45 million annually with proponents, including the mayor, arguing that it would make the city more attractive to companies.[16]
Civilian disciplinary panels for LAPD
Voters in May approved Charter Amendment C which allows Los Angeles Police Department officers to have their disciplinary hearings overseen by a panel of three civilians instead of a panel of one civilian and two officers ranking captain or higher. In January 2017, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to place a ballot measure about the change before voters on May 16, 2017.[17][18]
These disciplinary panels, called boards of rights, have the power to penalize officers up to and including termination of employment. After the board of rights makes a ruling, the chief of police can accept or reduce the disciplinary action taken against an officer; the chief cannot increase the severity of the discipline. Proponents of the change have emphasized the importance of citizen involvement and civilian oversight in the city's policing. There have also been assertions that the removal of police hierarchy from the process would improve the fairness and transparency of the rulings. Critics have responded with concerns over the tendencies of civilian panelists to give more lenient rulings in favor of officers and worries over how to ensure that civilian panelists have the necessary expertise to rule in these cases.[17][18]
The proposal to create entirely civilian-ruled boards has been supported by the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), a union representing the city's police force. The group called for an increase in civilian involvement in a lawsuit it filed against the city in May 2016. The lawsuit also leveled accusations against Police Chief Charlie Beck, arguing that he was corrupting the handling of misconduct cases. President of the LAPPL Craig Lally stated, "These officers are scared to death to go to a Board of Rights. They’ll cop out to anything to avoid the board, even if it's untrue."[17]
Council President Herb Wesson supported the measure to create all-civilian panels and responded to accusations that the pressure of the union had forced the council's hand, stating, "In my lifetime, whenever there is citizen participation, things are better." He also clarified, however, that he did not see the proposal as a critique of Beck's handling of disciplinary cases. Mayor Garcetti added his support to the change, saying, "It would free LAPD command officers to spend more time on police work."[17]
Beck and others, meanwhile, have responded by noting a study demonstrated that civilian panelists were more lenient in their decisions than commanding officers. Other voices supported an increased role for civilians dependent on the backgrounds and tenure of those selected to serve on the panels. Peter White, a member of the L.A. Community Action Network and Black Lives Matter, stated, "There could be an opportunity to fundamentally change the way discipline is rendered in the LAPD[, but] not with the current proposal."[17]
Civil rights attorney Connie Rice, who has worked with the department on community policing, raised similar concerns over how to ensure a civilian panel would have the necessary knowledge for evaluating the cases that come before it. Former member of the board of police commissioners John Mack also expressed doubts over how much the proposed change would improve the disciplinary processes. He stated, "There’s a tendency sometimes for civilians to go overboard in giving officers the benefit of the doubt in cases of categorical use of force, or [officer-involved shootings], even when the facts and the evidence demonstrate otherwise."[18]
Origin of civilian member and 1999 study
The existing single civilian member on the panels was instituted effective in 1995, following a public vote on Charter Amendment F in 1992 that amended the city charter. In 1998, the LAPPL unsuccessfully sought to amend the charter again to change the panels to two civilian members and one commanding officer member. A 1999 report by the LAPD found that the civilian members of the boards of rights were more lenient in their recommended punishments than the police members of the panels in cases where an officer has been found guilty of misconduct.[19]
As the Los Angeles Times reported in 1999, "[T]he conventional wisdom among Police Department insiders and reform advocates was that civilians would come down harder on misconduct." Most disciplinary hearings were unanimous among the three members, with only 35 minority opinions being issued out of 460 cases between 1996 and 1998. Twenty-five of those minority opinions were written by the civilian member; all but one of those was described as being more favorable to the accused officer, according to then-Commander James S. McMurray. In the 10 cases where a commanding officer member of the panel wrote a minority opinion, the disagreement was in favor of finding the officer guilty of more charges or punishing him or her more severely than the majority opinion.[19]
Sanctuary city status affirmed by mayor
Mayor Eric Garcetti stated that Los Angeles would maintain its approach as a sanctuary city following the election of President Donald Trump and the issuance of executive orders related to immigration and federal funding to cities. Since 1979, the city of Los Angeles has placed limits on how immigration status is considered by its local police force. President Trump, however, has sought to remove federal funds from local government entities that do not actively uphold new and existing immigration policies. The disagreement rests on differing stances about local control and obligation in immigration enforcement.[20][21]
Garcetti made clear the city government's intention to continue limiting the degree to which local law enforcement interacts with federal immigration policy implementation following the 2016 presidential election. Speaking to students of the Los Angeles Unified School District in late November 2016, the mayor stated, "We participate all the time with our federal immigration authorities and we will continue to do so. We just require, as the courts have decided, that there be a warrant."[22] Following an executive order signed by Trump that would revoke funding from municipalities over such stances, Garcetti stated the city government's conviction that there would be grounds to challenge the order in court.[20]
About the city
- See also: Los Angeles, California
Los Angeles is a city in California and the seat of Los Angeles County.As of 2010, its population was 3,792,621.
City government
- See also: Mayor-council government
The city of Los Angeles uses a strong mayor and city council system. In this form of municipal government, the city council serves as the city's primary legislative body and the mayor serves as the city's chief executive.[23]
Demographics
The following table displays demographic data provided by the United States Census Bureau.
| Demographic Data for Los Angeles, California | ||
|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles | California | |
| Population | 3,792,621 | 37,253,956 |
| Land area (sq mi) | 469 | 155,857 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White | 52.1% | 59.7% |
| Black/African American | 8.9% | 5.8% |
| Asian | 11.6% | 14.5% |
| Native American | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander | 0.2% | 0.4% |
| Two or more | 3.8% | 4.9% |
| Hispanic/Latino | 48.5% | 39% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate | 77.5% | 83.3% |
| College graduation rate | 34.4% | 33.9% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income | $62,142 | $75,235 |
| Persons below poverty level | 18% | 13.4% |
| Source: population provided by U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census" (2010). Other figures provided by U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2014-2019). | ||
| **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Los Angeles California election. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
| Los Angeles, California | California | Municipal government | Other local coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ City of Los Angeles City Clerk, "2017 Primary Nominating Election Candidates," December 16, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "A dozen hopefuls step up to the starting line for Los Angeles mayoral race," November 11, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles City Clerk, "Candidates," accessed December 1, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles City Clerk, "Los Angeles City Clerk - Election Division," accessed December 1, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Challenger for Los Angeles mayor wants Garcetti to pledge not to run for higher office in 2018," January 5, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Column: Are Republicans extinct in L.A.?" September 7, 2014
- ↑ UCLA Blueprint, California Republican: Where Have They Gone?" Fall 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Editorial: Ban developer contributions to City Hall," January 14, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Political donations flow as Rick Caruso seeks approval for a 20-story tower near the Beverly Center," December 28, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 LA Weekly, "Should L.A. Limit Campaign Contributions From Developers?" January 11, 2017
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 EGPNews, "Los Angeles City Council Introduces Campaign Finance Reform," January 12, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Column: When it comes to political donations in L.A., what's legal can be worse than what's not," January 11, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "L.A. Councilman Mike Bonin proposes full public funding for city campaigns," January 16, 2017
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Los Angeles Daily News, "LA City Council urged to borrow up to $70M to cover lawsuit payouts," January 9, 2017
- ↑ Council District 12, "Casting the lone 'no' vote on judgement obligation bonds," January 20, 2017
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Los Angeles Times, "L.A. faces three more years of deficits, budget official says," April 17, 2014
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 89.3 KPCC, "Plan for LAPD civilian discipline panels moves forward," January 12, 2017
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Los Angeles Times, "Union-backed changes to LAPD disciplinary system could go to voters," November 23, 2016
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Los Angeles Times, "Civilians Show Leniency on Police Boards of Rights," June 9, 1999
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Los Angeles Times, "Immigrants here illegally believe life is about to get a lot tougher," January 27, 2017
- ↑ Fortune, "Mayors of NYC and Los Angeles Pledge to Remain Immigrant Sanctuaries," November 11, 2016
- ↑ ABC7.com, "Garcetti doubles down on LA being sanctuary city for immigrants," November 21, 2016
- ↑ City of Los Angeles, "About the City Government," accessed September 15, 2014
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |