An advocacy group filed a lawsuit Monday seeking a judicial declaration that voters’ approval of a Los Angeles County charter overhaul measure in 2024 did not inadvertently repeal a previous ballot item that required the county to annually set aside money for jail-diversion and other social service programs.
The Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit by Californians United for a Responsible Budget seeks a judicial review and declaration that Measure J — approved by voters in November 2020 — remains in effect and enforceable, despite the 2024 approval of the Measure G charter-reform package.
Measure J requires the county to set aside 10% of its locally generated, unrestricted money and spend it on jail-diversion programs and other social services aimed at preventing people from landing behind bars. The funds were intended to be used on programs such as job training, business development, housing services and youth development.
But last year, county officials discovered that the measure was never codified in the county charter after it was approved by voters. That gave rise to concerns that when county voters in 2024 approved Measure G, which updated the charter to overhaul county government with changes including an expanded Board of Supervisors and an elected CEO, Measure J was inadvertently repealed.
County officials said last year that without some type of administrative action, Measure J will go away at the end of 2028.
The Board of Supervisors last year directed its staff to explore ways of correcting the administrative error.
But the lawsuit filed Monday by CURB contends that since Measure J wasn’t codified until after the passage of Measure G, the newer measure could not have repealed the previous one.
“A charter amendment that had not yet been filed with the Secretary of State was not part of the charter, and a measure that was not part of the charter cannot have been repealed,” attorney Dale Larson said in a statement. “California law does not permit a voter-approved reform of this magnitude to be erased by a clerical error, and we are simply asking the court to confirm what the law already makes plain.”