LAUSD Charter Amendment SC: What Los Angeles Voters Will Decide
Los Angeles voters will decide on Tuesday, November 3, whether to bring the campaign finance rules for Los Angeles Unified School District school board candidates more in line with the rules that apply to candidates running for mayor of Los Angeles, under Charter Amendment SC, a ballot measure that has drawn little statewide attention but that could change how school board campaigns in one of the nation’s largest school districts are funded, policed and disclosed. The measure asks a simple ballot question: shall the Los Angeles City Charter be amended to clarify the campaign finance rules for Board of Education elections and allow for changes by ordinance? Behind that procedural wording lies a substantive change in who can give, how much they can give, and who watches the money.
Under Charter Amendment SC, LAUSD school board candidates would be required to follow many of the same campaign finance rules as candidates for Los Angeles mayor. That includes a contribution limit with a baseline of 1,000 dollars from any individual donor for any individual office, subject to periodic adjustment, along with time limits on contributions and expenditures, and subjection to audits or investigations by the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, according to the impartial analysis prepared by the city’s legislative analyst. Candidates would still be allowed to contribute unlimited personal funds to their own candidacies, as mayoral candidates may, and they would not be subject to certain mayoral fundraising provisions or to the city’s public matching funds programme, which remains a mayoral-candidate benefit that school board candidates would not receive.
LAUSD Charter Amendment SC: Why the Rules Date to 2007
The current school board campaign finance rules have been in place for almost 20 years. In 2007, voters approved Charter Amendment L, which set rules for campaign contributions, financial disclosures and campaign finance training for LAUSD school board candidates, according to LA City Clerk records. Those rules, contained in City Charter Section 803, have since sat apart from the mayoral rules in Charter Sections 470 and 471 and Article 9.7 of the Municipal Code, creating a parallel system that supporters of Amendment SC describe as repetitive, unclear and harder to enforce than a single set of rules would be.
Charter Amendment SC would remove repetitive language from Section 803 and require school board candidates to follow the mayoral campaign finance rules, with exceptions for provisions that apply only to candidates for city elected offices, such as limits on contributions from city contractors and lobbyists, and for the public matching funds provisions. It would also allow future changes to the school board rules by ordinance, rather than requiring another charter amendment for every adjustment, a procedural change that supporters say would let the city keep the rules up to date without returning to voters for technical fixes. Critics of that procedural point, to the extent they have raised it, would note that ordinance changes are easier to make than charter changes, and therefore give the City Council more ongoing control over school board election rules, a trade-off between flexibility and voter control that is inherent in the measure.
The proposal emerged from the city’s larger charter reform process, a multi-year review of the city charter that produced several measures on the November ballot. Mona Field, a former member of the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission, wrote that she was disappointed the council did not pursue some larger reforms but still believed the charter amendment measures on the November ballot deserved careful attention and yes votes. The Los Angeles City Council voted 14-0, with one member absent, to place Charter Amendment SC on the ballot, a unanimous vote that suggests the measure was not, at council level, a partisan or factional fight, even if its consequences for future school board races could still be significant.
LAUSD Charter Amendment SC: The Case For and the Missing Case Against
The official argument in favour of Charter Amendment SC, signed by Los Angeles City Councilmember Adrin Nazarian, LAUSD Board of Education Member Nick Melvoin, former Charter Reform Commissioner Diego Andrades, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles, presents the measure as a clarification and modernisation of the rules. In that argument, supporters say the measure would align school board campaign finance rules with mayoral rules, apply the 1,000 dollar contribution limit, impose time limits on contributions and expenditures, and subject school board candidates to audits and investigations by the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. They also note that the measure would not impose a tax, would not change school programmes, and would not be expected to have a financial impact on the city, a point echoed in the City Administrative Officer’s analysis.
No official argument against Charter Amendment SC was filed for the voter information guide, according to the city’s voter guide materials, which means voters will not see a formal opposition case in the official pamphlet. That absence does not mean there are no possible concerns. A measure that aligns school board rules with mayoral rules could be questioned on the grounds that school board races are different from mayoral races, that independent spending by outside groups would remain a major factor regardless of contribution limits, and that a 1,000 dollar limit, while familiar in mayoral races, could still be seen as either too high or too low depending on a voter’s view of campaign finance. Those are the kinds of arguments that often appear in campaign finance debates, but in this case they were not presented as an official argument against the measure.
The measure also matters because the Los Angeles Unified School District extends beyond the boundaries of the City of Los Angeles, serving students and families in a district that overlaps multiple cities and unincorporated areas, even though the charter amendment is a City of Los Angeles measure. The special election for the measure has been consolidated with the November 3 city and state elections, meaning voters will encounter it alongside other city measures and statewide contests, and the outcome will be determined by voters in the city, not by the full district. That distinction is important for understanding who decides and who is affected, and it is one of the reasons the measure’s campaign finance rules are framed as a city charter change rather than a district-wide rule.
LAUSD Charter Amendment SC: Cost, Timing and What Happens If It Passes
If voters approve Charter Amendment SC, the new rules would apply to future LAUSD Board of Education elections, not retroactively to past races, and the measure would not, by itself, change who sits on the board or how schools are run. The City Administrative Officer, Matthew W. Szabo, concluded that the measure would have no expected financial impact on the city, and it would not impose a tax or change school programmes, a finding that supporters have cited as evidence that the measure is a governance clarification rather than a spending or tax proposal. That lack of a fiscal impact also means the measure’s debate has focused on campaign finance principles, rather than on budget trade-offs.
For parents, teachers and community members, the practical effect of the measure would be felt in how school board campaigns are run and disclosed. A 1,000 dollar individual contribution limit, time limits on contributions and expenditures, and Ethics Commission oversight would, supporters argue, make it easier for voters to understand who is funding school board campaigns and to compare those campaigns with mayoral campaigns, which already operate under similar rules. Opponents of stricter campaign finance rules in general might argue that limits can make it harder for challengers to raise enough money to compete with incumbents or well-known candidates, a broader debate that applies to many campaign finance measures, even if it was not presented as an official argument against this one.
The measure would also clarify enforcement and independent spending rules for school board elections, by aligning them with mayoral rules and by giving the Ethics Commission a clearer role in audits and investigations. If the measure passes, it will do so by a majority of votes cast on the measure, and its rules will then govern future Board of Education elections, including the next school board cycle. If it fails, the existing Section 803 rules from 2007 will remain in place, and any future change would again require a charter amendment or another ballot measure, unless the council pursues a different approach. Either way, the November 3 vote will settle, for now, whether Los Angeles voters want school board campaign finance to follow the mayoral model.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from The LA Local, Los Angeles City Clerk and Los Angeles City Council.