Connect with us

Politics

Editorial: Voters just passed L.A. County's most important government reform in decades

Published

on

Editorial: Voters just passed L.A. County's most important government reform in decades

Supporters of Measure G declared victory this week, eking out a win with roughly 51% support. While the Los Angeles County charter changes didn’t get as much attention as other high-profile measures on the ballot, make no mistake: This wonky governance reform package may be the most transformative decision county voters have made in decades.

By 2026, the county will for the first time have an ethics commission to regulate conflicts of interest and lobbying and investigate misconduct by elected officials and county employees. This is long overdue for a government with a $45-billion budget and 100,000 employees. A recent investigation triggered by the federal corruption case against former Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas found significant problems in the county’s contracting process, prompting investigators to recommend a new ethics and compliance officer and other measures to prevent conflicts of interest.

In addition, in 2028, voters will elect an executive to lead the county government. The position — in effect a county mayor — is also long overdue. For more than a century, L.A. County has been governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors, which was fine when the region had more cows than people. But today the county has a population and geographic footprint larger than those of many states. Imagine trying to run New Jersey with a five-member legislature and no governor.

An independently elected chief executive who can manage departments and make decisions will be clearly accountable to the public. That should motivate progress on long-standing needs such as closing the dangerously decrepit Men’s Central Jail and diverting qualified inmates to rehabilitation facilities; addressing problems in the child welfare system; and providing adequate substance abuse and mental health treatment.

Advertisement

And in 2032, nine members will be elected to the Board of Supervisors, which should allow for more representation of the county’s geography, politics and ethnic diversity. Supervisor Kathryn Barger’s 5th District currently stretches from Los Feliz to Lancaster, for example; it’s an impossible job to understand and act on behalf of communities with such divergent needs.

With a county executive in place, the supervisors’ jobs will change too. The board will primarily be responsible for delivering services to the unincorporated portions of the county, legislating and holding the executive accountable.

This should ensure a better, more transparent government. Countless failures and inefficiencies have never come to light because the county lacked even the most basic checks and balances that are essential to democracy.

This will be a monumental shift for L.A. County that good-government advocates — including The Times’ editorial board — have long been pushing for. Four times since 1962, voters have rejected ballot measures to expand the board of supervisors or add an elected county official. The state Legislature considered bills to make similar changes in 2015 and 2017, but neither got enough support.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn deserve credit for co-authoring Measure G. They recognized that with a popular L.A. city governance reform package already on the November ballot, this year presented a rare opportunity to overcome voters’ historic skepticism about expanding county leadership.

Advertisement

While Measure G clears the way for the government overhaul, many of the details still need to be worked out. A governance reform task force will be appointed in the coming weeks to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on how to implement the governance and ethics reforms. This will be crucial in laying the groundwork for success — and ensuring that the special interests that opposed Measure G, including county employee unions, don’t try to weaken or stall the ambitious plans.

County voters finally embraced change. They deserve a government that can deliver on its promises.

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending