LOS ANGELES, CA – Los Angeles County voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to replace the Board of Supervisors’ power to impose final contract terms on public safety unions with binding arbitration, under a charter amendment listed on the ballot as Measure A.
If a majority of voters approves it, the amendment would cover 14 bargaining units representing about 16,500 county workers, including firefighters, deputy sheriffs, lifeguards and deputy medical examiners. It would not apply to bargaining units whose workers can strike.
The measure is being pushed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees who by law cannot go on strike. They say binding arbitration would add balance to contract talks. The Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 to place the measure on the ballot, with Supervisor Holly Mitchell abstaining.
No formal opposition to the measure has been submitted, but the county’s chief executive and one supervisor have raised concerns about its cost and its effect on budget decisions.
Measure A would cover 14 bargaining units
According to the impartial analysis by County Counsel Dawyn Harrison, Measure A would amend the County Charter to create a binding arbitration process for disputes between the county and certified labor organizations representing specified bargaining units.
The covered employees 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. District attorney investigators are also among the covered workers.
The ballot title refers to reiterating good-faith negotiation obligations and establishing impartial binding arbitration for certified public safety employee disputes. Negotiations would begin as they do now, with both sides expected to bargain in good faith, and arbitration would come into play only if an impasse is declared.
How the current system works
Under the current system, if the county and a union cannot reach an agreement, the Board of Supervisors can impose a final offer that the union must accept. Contract talks are often contentious, but imposing final terms is rare. According to initial reports, it has happened only twice since 2001.
Derek Hsieh of the deputy sheriffs’ union said the employer currently has near unilateral control over contract provisions. Supporters of the measure describe the change as a way to remove that control from one side of the table.
Three-member panel would decide impasses
Under Measure A, an unresolved dispute would go to a three-member Board of Arbitrators, according to County Counsel’s analysis. The county and the union would each appoint one arbitrator.
The third arbitrator would be chosen from a list of seven qualified arbitrators, either by agreement of the parties or by alternately striking names from the list. That third member would chair the panel.
After 30 days, unless the parties agree to extend the period, the panel’s decision would become public, final and binding. County Counsel’s analysis says no further action by the Board or the electorate would be required for it to take effect.
Board placed the measure on the ballot
The Board adopted a motion by Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis on Feb. 10 directing County Counsel to draft the charter amendment. The motion was tied to a memo from the Chief Executive Office that was posted with the agenda.
On March 3, the Board adopted the ordinance and its title and summary, according to the County Counsel document that placed the amendment on the ballot. The vote was 4-0, with Mitchell abstaining.
The Board’s ordinance calling the special election sets the vote for Nov. 3, 2026, on a charter amendment establishing binding arbitration for disputes between the county and certified public safety employee organizations.
Supervisors voice different views
Mitchell raised concerns when the Board discussed placing the measure on the ballot. “Arbitrators aren’t elected,” she said. “They’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, like healthcare, capital improvements, all those things.”
Horvath, an architect of the measure, said the process opens the books and lets the parties base decisions on facts rather than political preferences. She said it also shows whether there are resources to meet the demands that are coming. Horvath has previously said that just six of the 21 California jurisdictions with binding arbitration, including two counties, have had to resort to it.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger said during the Board’s discussion in February, “A fair and efficient bargaining process is necessary to maintain competitive wages and benefits and improve recruitment.”
County CEO warns of fiscal risk
Joe Nicchitta, then the county’s acting chief executive officer, wrote in a February memo to the Board that voter-approved mandatory arbitration has caused significant financial disruption and has prompted bankruptcy for cities in California and other parts of the country. He called the measure a seismic change in how the county conducts labor negotiations.
The memo tied to the Feb. 10 agenda says the county budgets $20.8 billion a year for salaries and benefits. It also says arbitration awards would bind the Board whether or not they require redirecting funds from policy priorities or safety-net services.
In his summary of the potential impact, Nicchitta pointed to Vallejo, which adopted binding arbitration more than 50 years ago after a police strike. There, a mediator determined in 2007 that the city could not shrink its fire department, and the city declared bankruptcy eight months later. Vallejo voters dropped binding arbitration in 2010.
County budget shows scale of labor costs
The Chief Executive Office presented a balanced 2026-27 Recommended Budget of $48.8 billion, according to its April 14 transmittal letter to the Board. Nearly 60 percent of the new ongoing revenue in that budget, or $186.4 million, is invested in wages and benefits for the county workforce.
The letter does not address Measure A. It shows the size of the county’s compensation spending, which is the area the measure would affect for the covered bargaining units.
Unions fund the campaign
Public safety unions backing the measure had raised about $7.7 million through mid-October. Supporters include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Association, Firefighters Local 1014 and the lifeguard association.
No opposition campaign funds have been reported. According to initial reports, the progressive groups La Defensa and L.A. Forward oppose the measure and object in particular to including sheriff’s deputies.
What voters will see
Voters will find the full text of the proposed charter amendment ordinance in the voter materials for the Nov. 3 election. The materials also include the Auditor-Controller’s fiscal impact statement for Measure A.
The county’s Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk administers the election. A simple majority of county voters is needed for the charter amendment to pass.
Election date is Nov. 3
Measure A will appear on the countywide ballot Nov. 3. If it passes, unresolved impasses with the covered bargaining units would go to a three-member arbitration panel instead of to the Board of Supervisors. If it fails, the current process, in which the Board can impose final terms, would remain in place.
