november ballot

A series of proposed changes to the city’s charter — essentially its constitution — could give elected leaders in Los Angeles more oversight of the police department and enable the chief to fire problematic officers, reforms long sought by advocates that are likely to once again face fierce opposition.

Among the recommendations approved last week by the city’s Charter Reform Commission was a proposal that would require any LAPD accountability-related motion or ordinance passed by the City Council to automatically become law if not acted on by the Police Commission within 60 days.

Once the language is finalized, the proposals must clear the City Council and its committees before they can be put to voters on November’s ballot.

Another proposal would give city leaders the ability to override the policy decisions by the Police Commission, a board appointed by the mayor that sets the LAPD policies, oversees its budget and serves as a civilian watchdog.

With the police chief taking criticism for a recent rise in shootings by officers, several proposals sought to strengthen accountability for the use deadly force. One recommendation could require the LAPD to purchase “no less than” $1 million of liability insurance for its roughly 8,700 officers. The insurance would be used to cover legal fees if an officer is found liable for a wrongful injury or death, instead of tapping into the city’s General Fund budget.

Another potential change would “clarify and strengthen” the police chief’s ability to “to initiate and pursue the removal of officers with documented, repeated histories of harm or misconduct.”

Under city rules, the chief of police does not have the authority to fire an officer. Instead, they must send officers whose misconduct they deem severe to disciplinary panels, which occasionally lead to lighter penalties. The new proposal would give the City Council the power to override decisions not to fire, still leaving officers the right to appeal through the courts.

Mayor Karen Bass vetoed a similar bid to rework the disciplinary process in 2024.

The latest proposals drew cautious optimism from activists, many of whom claim the Police Commission is too cozy with the LAPD and have pushed for stronger independent oversight.

Godfrey Plata, deputy director of the nonprofit L.A. Forward, called the proposals a “huge victory” in the fight for police accountability.

“Months ago, police reform wasn’t even on the Charter Commission’s to-do list. Today, because community members came together to force conversations that likely never would have happened on their own, we have multiple reforms headed to City Council,” Plata said.

The Police Commission and LAPD issued nearly identical statements that said they are looking forward to working with the City Council on the charter reform process.

An LAPD spokesman declined to say how Chief Jim McDonnell felt about the proposal, saying it wasn’t “in his interests to give his opinion on something like this as long as it’s still with the full council.”

Samantha Stevens, a Los Angeles political consultant and former legislative staffer, said she is worried the proposed changes are a shortsighted solution to address police abuses that will create another layer of bureaucracy.

“If we don’t like how they’re running things, we should replace the commissioners.” she said. “I don’t know that this will be as effective when you’ve got 15 councilmembers now telling LAPD what to do in their own districts. Is that now too many cooks in the kitchen?”

The charter commission, which has been meeting since last July, must send all its recommended changes to the City Council by April 2.

California voters are being urged to put a poison-pill effort on the November ballot that would nullify a controversial proposed tax on the state’s billionaires.

Neither proposal has yet qualified for the ballot — supporters of each need to gather the verified signatures of hundreds of thousands of voters. But petitions that have been mailed and texted to California voters in recent days demonstrate the stakes in a contest that has drawn tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending.

“Government has wasted billions of our tax dollars on homelessness and many other failed programs with little to show for it,” reads the new mailing to voters. “We can’t afford more wasteful spending!”

The proposal is aimed at countering a proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires assets that would fund healthcare for the state’s neediest residents, but opponents say it would lead to lost tax revenues as California’s wealthiest flee the state.

Mailers and texts recently sent to voters describe the new proposal as an effort to create a more accountable, transparent and effective state government that would require auditing of new state taxes and ensuring they comply with existing law.

The small-font description of the proposed initiative included in the mailing specifies that any new tax enacted after Jan. 1 must be deposited into the state’s general fund and conform with current state tax policy, which is an oblique reference to a prior voter-approved ballot measure requiring that a significant portion of the state’s tax revenue be spent on education.

If competing proposals appear on a ballot and are successful, the one that receives the most votes nullifies the other. There are other ballot measure proposals aimed at thwarting the billionaires tax.

The mailers and texts were funded by a committee called Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, which was funded by another group, called Building a Better California, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

Earlier this year, the latter group received a $20-million donation from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, $2 million from former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and $2 million from Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, among donations from other Silicon Valley leaders, according to fundraising disclosure reports.

Attempts to reach spokespeople connected with the effort were unsuccessful Monday night.

Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the primary union backing the billionaire tax, decried what she described as an effort by a small number of the state’s wealthiest residents to avoid paying their fair share.

“So far, those few billionaires are failing,” she said in a statement. “Despite the expensive and wasteful tactics by a small group of billionaires that aim to deny voters a choice on the billionaire tax in November, our growing coalition and volunteer base is on track with signature collection and gaining momentum. The public is crystal clear on the fact that keeping ERs and clinics open is more important than billionaires getting more tax breaks.”

California’s budget is notoriously volatile because it is largely dependent on taxes paid by its wealthiest residents. Revenue hinges on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, all of which are grossly unpredictable.

The billionaire tax would cost more than 200 of the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

The proposed tax would retroactively apply to billionaires’ assets as of Jan. 1, and has already prompted some of California’s wealthiest residents to leave the state. It has also created a wedge among Democrats. Some argue that it is necessary to address tax inequities that benefit the rich and harm everyone else. Among the supporters is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who kicked off the billionaire tax proposal drive in February.

But others, notably Gov. Gavin Newsom, oppose the effort, saying policies that vary by state would drive innovators and businesses outside of California.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — While the U.S. Senate remains deadlocked over President Trump’s call for strict citizenship voting requirements, Republicans in some states are pressing ahead with their own measures that could require documentary proof of citizenship to join or remain on the voter rolls.

Proof-of-citizenship legislation won final approval this week in South Dakota and Utah, already has passed one chamber in Florida and received a committee hearing in Missouri. In Michigan, supporters of voter citizenship documentation submitted 750,000 petition signatures this week in a bid to get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections, with violators subject to fines, imprisonment and potential deportation.

When people register to vote, they affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. But Trump contends that’s not enough. He wants prospective voters to show proof of their citizenship.

Democrats and voting rights advocates say the Republican measures amount to voter suppression, as they may prevent many eligible voters from casting ballots. Similar laws have been overturned by courts as an unconstitutional burden on voting rights.

What would the federal legislation do?

The federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. That could be satisfied with such things as a U.S. passport, citizen naturalization certificate or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo identification.

The federal bill also would require a photo identification to cast a ballot, which some states already mandate. The Republican-led House approved the legislation last month on a mostly party-line vote, but it has stalled in the Senate under a filibuster threat from Democrats.

South Dakota and Utah

Legislation passed in South Dakota and Utah would create a two-tier voting system. People who provide documentation of their citizenship could vote in all elections. Those who don’t could vote only in federal elections for president, U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

The bifurcated voting system is modeled after Arizona, where tens of thousands of voters who have not provided proof of citizenship can cast ballots only in federal elections. Arizona implemented its system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections.

The bills in South Dakota and Utah would take effect upon a governor’s signature, meaning they could be in place for newly registered voters ahead of the November elections.

Utah’s bill also directs election officials to use an online service from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check the citizenship status of existing voters. Those flagged would be sent notices asking for proof of citizenship to remain eligible to vote in all elections.

Florida and Michigan

Neither the Michigan initiative nor legislation passed by the Florida House would require people to submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Instead, the measures would create a behind-the-scenes review that could result in some people being asked for citizenship documentation.

Under the Michigan measure, the secretary of state would review driver’s license records, juror records and federal Homeland Security and Social Security data to determine whether registered voters are citizens. Those flagged would be removed from the voter rolls if they cannot provide proof of citizenship.

The Florida legislation would require election officials to verify the citizenship of all registered voters using the state’s driver’s license database. Anyone whose citizenship could not be verified would be required to submit documentary proof.

Why are some pushing for proof of citizenship?

Trump and some fellow Republicans have complained for years about noncitizens voting in U.S. elections, although evidence of doing so is rare. The few cases found are not nearly enough to affect an election result, studies have shown, and those caught face severe penalty.

In 2024, a student from China was charged with perjury and attempted illegal voting after registering to vote by showing a University of Michigan student ID and signing a document asserting he was a U.S. citizen. He later contacted a local clerk’s office requesting to get his ballot back, and ultimately fled the country.

The case provided part of the impetus for the Michigan ballot initiative, said Paul Jacob, chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting, which is backing the measure.

“We want a system we can have confidence in,” Jacob said. “The way you avoid big problems in elections is to fix the small problems when they rise up and present themselves.”

Voting rights advocates’ concerns

Constitutional amendments limiting voting to “only citizens” have won widespread support when placed on state ballots. But voting rights advocates note that requiring documentary proof can get complicated.

During a recent debate in the Florida House, Democratic state Rep. Ashley Gantt recounted how her aunt was born in a South Carolina home at a time when some hospitals didn’t accept Black patients. As a result, she has no birth certificate and has had difficulty trying to demonstrate her citizenship, Gantt said.

A proof-of-citizenship law “would stop many thousands — if not more — U.S. citizens from voting in Florida,” said Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel at the nonprofit Fair Elections Center. “It requires documentation that a lot of eligible citizens don’t have, or don’t have access to.”

Nationwide, about 21 million people — 9% of voting-age citizens — lack documentary proof of citizenship or cannot easily obtain it, according to a 2024 report by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland.

Other states

Legal challenges are common when states pass proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters.

After Kansas adopted a proof-of-citizenship law 15 years ago, more than 31,000 U.S. citizens ended up getting blocked from registering to vote. Federal courts declared the Kansas law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Two years ago, New Hampshire and Louisiana both passed proof-of-citizenship laws, prompting lawsuits. New Hampshire’s law went to trial last month and is awaiting a ruling. Louisiana’s election commissioner acknowledged in a December court filing that the requirement has not been enforced.

A nonprofit group also filed a legal challenge to a Wyoming proof-of-citizenship law passed last year. But a federal court dismissed that case while ruling the group lacked standing to sue.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.