LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles finds itself in search of its own George Washington.
In a bold move last year, voters from an area with a population surpassing that of all but ten states decided to establish a new office to oversee their government. Now comes the daunting task of defining the scope of this position, which will serve nearly 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, potentially becoming the most powerful local government role in the United States and reshaping California’s political landscape.
The pressing question now is how much unbridled power should be granted to an office that’s still being designed. Key issues revolve around the relationship between the new executive—who will wield final authority over the county’s nearly $50 billion budget and have the power to hire and fire heads of numerous county departments—and the existing Board of Supervisors, who have historically monopolized these powers.
“This marks a fundamental shift in the culture of county governance, as it extracts executive authority from the Board of Supervisors. The challenge is figuring out how to implement that change,” explained Raphael Sonenshein, former head of a Los Angeles city charter reform commission in the 1990s and current executive director of the Haynes Foundation. “People are just starting to grasp what a critical design challenge this is.”
A 13-member task force convened for the first time on Friday to embark on a three-year journey toward reimagining the county’s governance structure, a process that will also involve creating an ethics commission and establishing four additional supervisor districts. However, their most significant hurdle will be setting up the county executive role in time for voters to fill it in the November 2028 election, which is expected to attract a host of ambitious politicians, civic leaders, and business magnates from the nation’s second-largest metropolitan area.
While elected county executives are a common sight across the country, managing major cities like Chicago, Houston, and Miami, the concept remains novel in California. Since the mid-1800s, local governance across California’s 58 counties has been dominated by five-member boards of supervisors without an overarching elected authority.
“It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to predict how politicized [the county executive role] will be,” remarked Drexel Heard, a former executive director of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. “That person will undoubtedly become the most powerful individual in Southern California.”
The Veto Dilemma
For decades, reformers have sought to revamp the Board of Supervisors, which has been criticized for its lack of accountability. Once dubbed the “five little kings”—or more recently, “five little queens”—each member currently represents around two million constituents, akin to three congressional districts. Past reform efforts either fizzled out before making it to the ballot or met with voter rejection.
Last summer, however, a shift occurred when three of the five current supervisors championed Measure G, a charter amendment that rode a wave of public discontent regarding corruption within local governance to secure a narrow victory in November.
“LA County has long been governed by a system that I believe no longer reflects our current realities,” stated Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who was instrumental in drafting Measure G and campaigning for its passage, during the task force’s inaugural meeting on Friday. “I want to express gratitude to the voters of Los Angeles County for recognizing the necessity for this reform and for making it happen, as we all aspire to see change in how we conduct our work.”
During the campaign for Measure G, critics raised concerns over the lack of clear checks and balances for the new executive role. LA County currently operates under an appointed CEO who manages the budget and serves at the board’s discretion. In contrast, the new position will be directly elected by voters for a four-year term, likely leading to the dissolution of the CEO role.
“Until now, the board could grant the executive as much authority as they chose,” Sonenshein noted. “With an elected executive, that option disappears. It will be an independent office.”
Measure G outlined many responsibilities for the new executive, such as budget approval and oversight of county departments managing health clinics, jails, parks, foster care, beaches, libraries, and more. Additionally, in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles, the county government also provides police and fire services and establishes land-use policies. Yet, many details about the executive’s role remain unresolved.
“They couldn’t possibly detail every single aspect in the charter amendment—attempting to do so would have led to omissions,” commented former Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who served on the board from 1994 to 2014 and now directs the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “They covered the broad strokes… but the finer details still need addressing. And there are numerous specifics.”
This responsibility rests with the task force, a diverse group that includes West Covina’s former mayor, the president of an SEIU local, a North Long Beach pastor, a political scientist from Pomona College, and a digital marketing executive with experience running campaigns for brands like Google Play and Taco Bell. Five members were appointed by the current board (one from each sitting supervisor), three by labor unions, and five at-large members selected from resident applications.
They will determine how much authority individual supervisors retain over services within their districts versus what is transferred to the new executive. Additionally, they will decide on the number of jobs and appointments the new office will control, from the hundreds of staffers currently under the CEO to board positions on bodies ranging from the LA Metro transit authority to the regional air quality board, currently filled by supervisors.
A significant constitutional question looms regarding the executive’s veto power. While the text of Measure G states the executive can reject any motion or legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors, it does not clarify whether the board can override that veto.
“Imagine a scenario where the board votes in favor of county-wide renter protections, but the county executive opposes it,” illustrated Mike Bonin, director of the Pat Brown Institute at Cal State LA and a former member of the LA City Council. “If the vote is 8-to-1 in favor, can the county executive veto it and nullify the board’s decision?”
At Friday’s meeting, members of the new task force laid out ambitious plans for various implementation aspects, starting with the ethics commission. However, no concrete decisions were made, not even regarding the frequency of future meetings.
“It felt like the first day of class,” remarked David Phelps, a city planning commissioner in the San Fernando Valley who also owns a comic book and collectibles shop, during his introduction at the meeting. “Thank you for trusting us. I feel the weight of this moment—I do not take it lightly.”
During public comments, one attendee voiced opposition to Measure G due to the absence of a term limit for the executive role. “That’s essentially a dictatorship,” he cautioned. “We don’t want someone in a CEO position wielding more power than anyone else.”
Seeking a Founding Father
The inaugural county executive will be sworn in come December 2028, and much of the new office’s character will depend on how its first occupant chooses to wield the potential power that comes with it. Bonin compared it to George Washington establishing critical precedents for the American presidency, such as voluntarily serving only two terms and shunning titles like “His Excellency.”
“It’s hard to imagine that anyone who endures the trials and indignities of campaigning for an office representing more people than most governors would shy away from maximizing their power and expanding the role,” Bonin speculated.
The opportunity to shape this new office is likely to attract a plethora of ambitious politicians and officials from the LA area, all viewing the role, which represents a quarter of Californians, as a stepping stone to statewide positions.
Real estate developer Rick Caruso has the financial resources and name recognition to be a strong contender, though he is also eyeing runs for governor or mayor on the 2026 ballot. Miguel Santana, president of the California Community Foundation and a former city government budget overseer, is also seen as a potential candidate.
Some members of Congress, like Janice Hahn, and former Cabinet secretaries, like Hilda Solis, have returned from Washington to run for seats on the Board of Supervisors. Given the gridlock in the U.S. Capitol—especially with Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff just settling in—it’s plausible that other Los Angeles-area members of the California delegation might consider returning home for a significantly more powerful role.
Additionally, three members of the current board are nearing the end of their terms. Horvath, who led the push for Measure G, has expressed that she “has given it some thought” regarding a run but is currently focused on seeking reelection and implementing Measure G.
“Not many who run for office would shy away from the chance to be the second most powerful elected official in California, right after the governor,” Bonin noted.
Regardless of who enters the race, the new executive position promises to invigorate California’s political landscape. With this election, alongside the expanded Board of Supervisors races slated for 2032, expect a whirlwind of costly and competitive campaigns.
“If you’re a political consultant based in LA,” observed Mike Trujillo, an LA-based political consultant, “it’s like being a kid in a candy store.”
