LOS ANGELES — This November, Californians will vote on a number of statewide, county-wide, and city-wide propositions and charter amendments. 

Two LA county measures will ask voters to weigh in on labor disputes and changes to the agencies overseeing ethical standards. Six citywide charter amendments, or changes to the city’s “constitution,” are also on the ballot, alongside two citywide propositions. Santa Monica residents will vote on five local measures, and Culver City residents will vote on one. 

With a long ballot set to address everything from new budget cycles to voter ID requirements, here’s a Westside voter’s guide to the election.

Measure A: Should the County make new rules for arbitrating labor disputes and prohibit public safety employees from going on strike?

Measure A would change the process for resolving labor disputes involving County public safety employees like firefighters, sheriffs, district attorney investigators, and medical examiners. 

Currently, when a labor dispute cannot be resolved between a union and the County, the County gives their best and final offer, which is accepted by default even if the union disagrees. The accepted offer is the last offer made by the county, usually after long negotiation processes, regardless of what the other party is seeking.

Measure A would change this process by establishing a three-member Board of Arbitrators to make final decisions when the two parties are not able to resolve disputes. The union and County would both appoint an arbitrator, and a third person, who would be the Chairperson, would be agreed upon by both parties. 

The measure would also prohibit strikes by firefighters, deputy sheriffs, law enforcement supervisors and managers, lifeguards, and some other civilian employees at these agencies. 

Measure A being approved would impact 14 bargaining units across six union groups.

Argument in favor: The labor unions who would be covered by Measure A initiated a campaign called Safer Los Angeles County arguing in favor of the measure. They say that the Board of Arbitrators would help expedite negotiations, and the Board members would be independent experts who would be unbiased, encouraging fair treatment.

Argument in opposition: No argument in opposition was submitted for this measure, but some accountability advocates have said that binding arbitration procedures can limit transparency as the actions of arbitrators are not overseen publicly, according to LAist. 

Measure E: Should the new County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance have independence standards, and reinstate a past funding commitment?

Voters passed Measure G in the November 2024 election, mandating an independent ethics commission and compliance office be established by 2026. The commission and office will be established under Measure G regardless of whether or not Measure E passes. 

Measure E would establish the independence of the County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance. It would also set specific standards and sources for funding.

Regardless of Measure E, the Ethics Commission will set policies and oversee the Office of Ethics Compliance, which imposes penalties for violations of ethical standards. A yes on Measure E would establish that the County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance can investigate misconduct by county officials, candidates, lobbyists and contractors. It would also mean the agencies could issue subpoenas and fine violators up to $15,000.

Measure E also outlines nomination processes for serving on the Commission, designed to make the members representative of the general public and experienced in various sectors of the law and public policy.

It also establishes a guaranteed minimum budget of $14.3 million for the agencies annually. 

When voters passed Measure G, it unintentionally repealed Measure J, which was approved in 2020. Measure G rewrote portions of the county charter, and Measure J was not preserved in the process due to an “unfathomable drafting blunder,” according to CalMatters.

Measure J mandated that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue is allocated to incarceration alternatives like mental health treatment and other programs. A yes on Measure E would restore this threshold for minimum county funding for alternatives to incarceration, correcting the error unintentionally caused by Measure G. 

A no vote on Measure E would not prevent the Commission from being established. Instead, it would not have the powers, independence protections, and funding outlined in the measure. A no on Measure E would prevent the mandatory funding for incarceration alternatives from being reinstated.

Argument in favor: Supporters argue that an independent ethics commission would help prevent political interference in ethics investigations. They say Measure E is an important step towards more transparency and accountability, while also fixing an unintended consequence of Measure G.

Argument in opposition: No opponents submitted arguments to the ballot, but some have voiced concern for the incarceration-alternatives mandate in Measure J that a yes vote on Measure E would reinstate. 

Six charter amendments are aiming to make changes to the city’s governing documents. The amendments cover campaign finance rules, budget cycles, and oversight for departments including Public Works, airports, water and power. It also includes decisions on a half-cent tax increase and whether City Council should be required to meet three times a week or once a week.

Read more about the charter amendments here. 

Measure FD: Should the City impose a half-cent tax increase to create a dedicated funding source for the LA Fire Department?

Measure FD would impose a half-cent sales tax increase to generate approximately $345 million annually for the LA Fire Department (LAFD). A yes on Measure FD means raising the city’s sales tax rate from 10.25% to 10.75%.

Revenue would be kept in a dedicated fund for LAFD staffing, equipment, repairs, and new facilities. 

Arguments in support: Arguments in support, including a website made by the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, note that the city’s average response time is nearly twice the national standard. The funding would be used to bolster the LAFD’s staff, hiring at least 1,000 additional firefighters and paramedics, according to the website.

Arguments in opposition: Opponents to Measure FD include the Police Protective League, who launched a campaign in opposition. Arguments against the measure note that it would push the city’s sales tax to its cap. LA County and City’s combined local and district sales tax rate is 10.25%, and the state generally caps sales taxes at 2% of district taxes. The remaining local capacity for the city and county’s tax rates was at 0.5% in October. If Measure FD passes, there will be no room for additional increases.

Prop. TE:Should the city give some Palisades properties a one-time tax exemption?

Prop. ULA, which was approved by voters in 2022, put a special documentary transfer tax on properties valued over $5 million. A documentary transfer tax is a one-time tax imposed when ownership of a property is transferred. A yes on Prop. TE means that properties damaged in the Palisades fires that have or will be sold for over $5 million would be exempt from the tax.

A yes on Prop. TE also means that some Palisades sellers who already sold fire-damaged properties would receive refunds on the tax they paid.  

Argument in support: Supporters argue that Measure ULA was never intended to penalize those selling fire-damaged homes, as many people have no choice but to sell their property in efforts to recover financially. They say that providing tax relief is a common sense act of compassion for fire victims that would help the financial burden imposed on wildfire survivors.

Argument in opposition: No argument in opposition was submitted to the ballot.

Measure ES: Should the City create a new annual parcel tax to fund education?

A yes on Measure ES means making a parcel tax to provide reliable funding for the public school district. A parcel tax is a special tax that taxes an individual property with a flat rate not based on the value of the property. These taxes are used by school districts to raise money outside of property taxes and state General Fund income.

Known as the “Excellent Santa Monica Public Schools Parcel Tax Measure,” Measure ES would establish an annual tax of $495 on each parcel of property in the City, adjusting for inflation. Senior citizens, nonprofits, religious properties and affordable housing projects will be exempt from the tax.

The tax is intended to replace the funding allocated for education under the Master Facilities Use Agreement, which is set to expire in 2027.

The proceeds will be deposited into the City’s General Fund, and each fiscal year the proceeds will go directly to the school district. 

The City Attorney’s analysis says that the tax would raise an estimated $12 million annually for education. If the measure takes effect, an oversight structure would need to be established within 90 days, and annual independent audits would need to be performed. 

Argument in favor: Supporters argue that the City is in unprecedented financial distress, lacking a stable, locally controlled source for funding public schools. The ballot argument says the tax would replace funding that is set to expire next year to protect funding for teachers and critical educational programs.

Argument in opposition: Opponents say they support excellent schools in the City, but the measure is the wrong way to fund them. The ballot argument says that the measure would permanently shift responsibility from the City to the taxpayers, when the Master Facilities Use Agreement has funded public education for years. 

Measure GG: Should the City change some housing policies and add two new grounds for eviction from some affordable housing units?

Measure GG is a proposed amendment to the City’s eviction laws that has drawn strong division among residents. 

The Rent Control Charter Amendment (RCCA) and Housing Policies in the City Charter (HPCA) outline the conditions required for legal evictions and other policies surrounding housing.Measure GG would amend the just-cause eviction laws to give landlords two new grounds to evict tenants from deed-restricted and affordable housing units. A deed-restriction is used in an affordable housing development to reserve units for extremely low-income to moderate-income renters.

A yes on Measure GG means that if a tenant no longer qualifies, or if they do not provide proof of income when given a written request, they can legally be evicted.

The measure would also change the term limit rules for Rent Control Commissioners, who can serve no more than two four-year terms. A yes on Measure GG means Commissioners can serve up to three four-year terms.

A yes on this measure also means changing the maximum annual unit registration fee for rent-controlled units. Currently, the maximum fee is $288, and Measure GG would adjust this maximum rate by inflation, up to 5%.

Argument in support: Supporters argue that Measure GG will ensure that the Rent Control Board can stay in their positions for the same amount of time as City Councilmembers. They also argue that the eviction grounds established in Measure GG would help make sure affordable housing units are reserved for tenants who income qualify.

Argument in opposition: Opponents of Measure GG say that renters who were previously protected from evictions would be vulnerable, and hardworking families who see their incomes increase even slightly over the qualified income could be at risk of eviction. The argument notes the measure would result in annual rental registration fees increasing every year.

Measure RR: Should the City base failure-to-pay evictions on market rates?

Measure RR would change the City’s rent control law and eviction protections. Evictions based on a tenant failing to pay rent would be limited when a tenant owes less than a certain amount of their rent. 

Currently, evictions are allowed when a tenant owes any amount of rent. Measure RR would set an amount of rent owed before a tenant can be evicted based on one month’s fair market rate. The landlord would need to provide written notice demanding the tenant pays the rent. 

A no on Measure RR means just-cause eviction rules would stay the same, and landlords could initiate an eviction when a tenant owes any amount of rent.

Argument in favor: Supporters of the measure say it presents a common-sense eviction process, allowing renters a window to pay their owed rent without imposing the costs on landlords. 

Argument in opposition: No argument in opposition was submitted to the ballot.

Measure VV: Should the City amend eviction rules for owners who want to move back in?

The Rent Control Charter Amendment (RCCA) and Housing Policies in the City Charter (HPCA) govern eviction protections for renters. 

The RCCA governs evictions for rent-controlled units, and the HPCA outlines evictions for most other units. Currently, some eviction protections do not apply to single-unit residences and condominiums — this includes an HPCA policy that says if an owner wants to evict a tenant for the purposes of moving back into the unit, the owner or a relative must move in within 30 days of vacancy. They also must intend to stay for at least a year.

The RCCA procedures use a similar structure, but the owner must intend to occupy the unit for at least two years and must move in within 60 days of vacancy.

A yes on Measure VV means extending HPCA protections to tenants in single-unit residences and condos, making these regulations universal for Santa Monica renters.

A yes on Measure VV would amend the HPCA renter protections to match the RCCA’s, meaning owners would need to intend to occupy the unit for at least two years, moving in within 60 days of vacancy, in order to legally evict a tenant for the purposes of moving into the unit. 

Argument in favor: Supporters say Measure VV would extend the protections afforded to rent-controlled units to single-family homes and condos that are not rent controlled. It argues that the measure would align the two procedures to create stability across rent control rules.

Argument in opposition: The opposition to Measure VV argues it would unfairly penalize mom-and-pop landlords by imposing fees and delays on people who want to move back into properties they already own. The opposition argues that by extending eviction protections to single-family homes and condos, it also extends a mandatory relocation fee of up to $40,000 to owners of these units.

Measure TT: Should the City tax corporations for booking hotel rooms for more than 30 days?

Measure TT relates to taxes on hotels, motels, and home-shares. Currently, the City defines a “transient” as a person who stays in a unit for 30 days or less. The City imposes a tax on owners of buildings that are rented out for 30 days or less, known as the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).

Current TOT are 15% for hotels and motels and 17% for home-shares. TOTs are currently not imposed when corporations book out blocks of temporary units, like hotel room blocks.

A yes on Measure TT means that a corporation or other legal entity would also be considered a transient, and would be subject to paying the same TOT as individuals, when it pays for any rental regardless of booking length. 

A corporation could have their TOT returned to them if the same person occupies the same room for at least 31 consecutive days. 

The measure would also allow the City Council to establish a Major Event Period, a time period where the City expects increased demands for hotels and other rentals. During this period, a hotel would not be required to return TOT to a corporate entity. 

Argument in favor: Supporters of Measure TT say that it would not create a new hotel tax, but would instead update rules surrounding major events like the upcoming 2028 Olympic Games. During a Major Event Period, corporations would not be able to avoid paying hotel taxes when they book blocks of rooms for more than 30 days, modernizing ordinances to contribute to tourism-generated taxes.

Argument in opposition: No argument in opposition was submitted to the ballot.

Measure T:Should the City increase its Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)?

Like Measure TT, Measure T concerns TOTs, or taxes imposed on owners renting out units for less than 30 days. Currently, the City has a TOT rate of 14% that has been in effect since 2012.

Measure T proposes increasing the existing TOT rate to provide additional revenue for the City’s General Fund. A yes vote would increase the existing TOT from 14% to 16% over a two-year phase. A no would leave the existing TOT at 14%.

Argument in favor: Supporters of Measure T emphasize that the rate would increase gradually and would generate an estimated $2 million annually. They note that gradually increasing the taxes that hotels pay gives time to adjust before the influx of visitors that will travel for the 2028 Olympics.

Argument in opposition: No argument in opposition was filed.

Similarly to Measure ES, Measure AA would add a new parcel tax on all property in the City. The tax would be used to provide additional funding to the school district and would expire after 10 years.

The tax would be calculated at a rate of $0.48 per square foot with a maximum tax of $15,000 per parcel. Senior citizens and those receiving supplemental income for a disability would be exempt.

Argument in favor: Supporters point out that Culver City receives the lowest funding allocation per student possible from the state, arguing that the tax would help supplement funding for schools. The ballot argument also emphasizes accountability, as a committee of parents and residents will be established to make a plan for budgeting and spending.

Argument in opposition: Opponents say that Measure AA is the latest in a string of parcel taxes voted on in November 2024 and March 2024. The argument in opposition says that taxpayers shouldn’t be subjected to another parcel tax just two years after the most recent one was implemented.

Measure YV: Should Culver City lower the voting age to 16 for City and school district candidates and ballot measures?

Measure YV would allow 16-year-olds to vote on City and school district candidates and ballot measures. It would require that budgetary items and logistical systems are determined by each legislative body involved before 16-year-olds can vote. 

Argument in favor: Supporters of the measure say that it would be an investment into Culver City’s future, strengthening local democracy by allowing younger voters. They argue that 16 and 17-year-olds already contribute to the community through work, volunteering, and student organizations, and Measure YV would give them a voice in elections that would impact them.

Argument in opposition: No official opposition argument was submitted, but a website, Vote 16 Culver City, argues that high school social dynamics could cause peer prefssure and emotional factors to impact votes. Opponents note that Culver City already rejected a similar measure in 2022, and the same logic that drove them to decline the measure then applies today.

There are 14 statewide propositions on the ballot. The propositions cover housing bonds, local election funding and recalls, voter ID requirements, the “billionaire tax,” and more.

Read more about the statewide propositions here.

Learn more about where to cast your ballot here.