LA Council Punts Charter Reform on Non-Citizen Voting, Police Oversight

LOS ANGELES, CA — The Los Angeles City Council Tuesday agreed to hold off on a proposal to allow non-citizen voting for further study, with the goal of possibly placing the issue before voters in 2028.

In a unanimous vote, the council sent the draft ballot language to a committee following remarks by several council members who raised concerns about the impacts of the proposal.

Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez, who advocated for the proposed charter amendment, said he had not done enough outreach on the proposal and received letters from Black community leaders raising concerns.

"I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. The Black and Brown solidarity is deep to me, and means something to me, and I don't want this to be something that gets pushed through that is seen as negative, something negative for the city of Los Angeles," Soto-Martinez said.

He said he would continue working to get the charter amendment passed in the future, but in a way that would be celebrated.

Soto-Martinez introduced the proposal two months ago. If approved by voters, it would allow the city to implement non-citizen or "residential" voting for city and Los Angeles Unified School District elections via an ordinance.

Soto-Martinez said people with some form of legal status such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Temporary Protected Status holders, and legal permanent residents would be allowed to vote under such a program.

Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon Tso had previously said the proposal was written in a "permissible" manner, giving city officials time to create a non-citizen voting program and answer vital questions.

Councilwoman Traci Park, who supported the proposal two weeks ago, said she could not this time around, pointing to concerns about the city's ability to protect those with mixed-legal status in the event that federal immigration agents decide to show up at polling places.

"My concern is that if this goes to the ballot, the voters won't really know what they're voting for, because we don't really know either," Park said. "These are things that should be figured out well in advance before we put anything in the charter at all."

Councilman John Lee, who opposes non-citizen voting, also raised concerns about the city's ability to protect voter roll information.

San Francisco, which allows non-citizen voting, warns on its official voter registration form and on its election website that "Any information you provide to the Department of Elections, including your name and address, may be obtained by Immigration and Customs, better known as ICE, and other agencies, organizations and individuals."

"They are real issues that must be addressed before Los Angeles asks voters to approve a similar system," Lee said.

Soto-Martinez criticized some of his colleagues' points and described them as fear-mongering.

"This is only simply saying that we should have the council have the ability to do this in the future, and many of the comments that were made today are fear-mongering, to cite the website from San Francisco to say as a reason why we shouldn't do something," Soto-Martinez said.

Meanwhile, in a separate 8-6 vote, the council agreed to punt another major charter reform proposal that if approved by voters would have given the City Council more oversight over the general policies of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Council members Bob Blumenfield, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Heather Hutt, Lee, Tim McOsker, Adrin Nazarian, Park and Monica Rodriguez voted to send the matter to committee for further study.

The decision came after the council went into closed session about a threat of litigation by the Los Angeles Police Protection League.

The LAPPL, which represents LAPD officers with the rank of lieutenant and below, sent a letter to the council on June 17 criticizing the council for failing to "meet and confer" with them, as required under their labor contract.

"Somebody within the city administration and/or the Employee Relations Group did not follow the law and did not formally contact us to meet and confer over potential changes to our city charter. They screwed up," LAPPL President Ricky Mendoza said in a statement.

"They need to own up to their mistake, correct the record with the City Council and follow the law. It's that simple."

Under a California Supreme Court decision known as the Seal Breach ruling and collective bargaining laws, the city is mandated to properly notify the union and to meet and confer on issues impacting officer representation, according to the LAPPL.

In their letter, LAPPL officials said that after a thorough review of communications with the city, there was nothing specific on reforming police oversight, police discipline or any other matter about the LAPD.

The union said the city reached out via email on Feb. 23, March 4 and May 19 to discuss LAPD-related charter proposals.

They also received a fourth "Last, Best, and Final Offer" email on June 11, which was not mentioned to City Council members, union officials said.