Sheriff’s ballot measure advances
Supervisors vote to draft proposal for Nov. 8 ballot giving them power to remove Villanueva
In an unprecedented action, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to craft a proposed measure, aimed for the November ballot, that would give the board the ability to remove Sheriff Alex Villanueva and future elected sheriffs from office.
Lawyers for the county were tasked with writing a charter amendment that would go before county voters on Nov. 8. If their measure receives a majority of votes cast, the board would be granted the power to remove an elected county sheriff for the first time in its history. Removing a sheriff would take a vote of four of the five supervisors.
The five-person board voted 4-1 to draft the measure, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger casting the lone dissenting vote. Barger said she questioned the basis of the proposal, calling it politically motivated, and asked why it only targets the sheriff and not other county leadership positions. Supervisors Hilda Solis, Sheila Kuehl, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell strongly supported the ballot measure. A finalized measure containing the triggers for removal and exact language will come back to the Board of Supervisors on July 26.
During the past four years, Villanueva has blocked investigations of deputy gangs and resisted oversight into several fatal shootings by deputies, often defying subpoenas, the board’s motion said.
Those actions prompted the supervisors to repeatedly pass motions to investigate the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, including two motions in 2020 for independent reviews of the fatal deputy shooting of 18-year-old Andres Guardado, a security guard from Gardena, who was shot five times in the back, as shown in two independent autopsies.
Increasingly, the relationship between the sheriff and the Democratic-dominated Board of Supervisors, who hold the Sheriff’s Department’s purse strings, has become outright toxic.
The Sheriff’s Citizen Oversight Commission, after hearing testimony from families who lost loved ones from deputy-involved shootings and about the existence of deputy gangs, suggested the charter amendment, Mitchell said.
“Unfortunately, the county has had a long and troubling history with sheriff oversight and transparency,” explained Mitchell, a co-author of the motion with Solis. “The sheriff has denied multiple subpoenas, intimidated and harassed individuals tasked with oversight, and the current system has allowed abuse of power to thrive largely unchecked. So the board must put this question to the voters.”
On Monday, Villanueva made clear he will take the county to court to defend his rights as a duly elected official. Villanueva said in a Facebook press release that such a move by the county supervisors, if made into law, would “allow corrupt Board members to intimidate sheriffs from carrying out their duties to investigate crime.” He argued that “this measure will likely be ruled by the Courts to be unconstitutional.”
The motion states that the sheriff could be removed from office by the Board of Supervisors for any of the following actions:
• A violation of any law related to the performance of duties as sheriff.
• Flagrant or repeated neglect of duties.
•A misappropriation of public funds or property.
•Willful falsification of relevant official statements or documents.
•Obstruction of any investigation into the conduct of the sheriff by the inspector general, Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, or any government agency with jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation.
The motion also refers to previous Sheriff Lee Baca, who was sent to federal prison on corruption charges, and Peter J. Pitchess, who “resisted any involvement in the first internal investigation of deputy gangs from outside the department.”
According to the motion, despite efforts to provide oversight of the Sheriff’s Department, “the board has nevertheless been limited in its ability to serve as a sufficient check against the sheriff’s flagrant disregard of lawful oversight and accountability.”
Kuehl said the charter amendment is not political or personal but instead was about accountability.
“It is about the ability to hold someone accountable when they have a powerful position,” she said.
Kuehl and Hahn said they have received strong support from constituents to move ahead with the ballot measure. Hahn said she received 1,000 emails in support.
An overwhelming majority of speakers who spoke to the board during the virtual meeting Tuesday favored adding the charter amendment, which would create new checks and balances on the Sheriff’s Department.
“We need a charter that works for the people of Los Angeles County, one that gives us a tool when a sheriff violates the law,” said one speaker, Anthony Arenas.
“The need is great to be able to have these checks and balances because current and past sheriffs have violated community trust over and over again,” said Bridget Prince of San Gabriel.
A few said the board and the sheriff should work things out without making it political.
“We work closely with law enforcement,” Adriana Quinones of Hacienda Heights told the board. “We need police reform, but we do not need to make this political.”
Barger agreed, saying the board action was political, not practical: “The motion appears to be more personal than it is about the office of the sheriff,” she said.
Since Villanueva will be in a runoff with former Long Beach Police Chief Robert Luna on Nov. 8, having a charter amendment granting the board power to remove the sheriff seems like bad timing, Barger said.
A statement released last week about the upcoming vote on the measure from Villanueva’s campaign said the board should stick to policy, not politics.
“The people of Los Angeles would be better served if the supervisors spent their time doing their jobs by reducing homelessness and improving healthcare, instead of trying to seize even more power,” read a statement from Villanueva’s campaign. “The sheriff is an elected position, just like the supervisors. Just as the sheriff has no business asking for power to fire the supervisors, the reverse is also true.”