Measure C
Los Angeles Elections | May 16, 2017
If Measure C passes, and you give an accused police officer two choices, they're definitely going to pick whichever one is likely to be the most lenient.
Our reviewerWhat Measure C Actually Changes — And Why It's Complicated
Measure C, on the May 16, 2017 Los Angeles ballot, reforms how the LAPD's Board of Rights handles officers the police chief has already recommended for termination over misconduct. Today's board pairs two command-level officers with one civilian — a structure built after the 1991 Rodney King beating exposed a near-total lack of accountability, with 183 officers logging four or more excessive-force complaints between 1986 and 1990 and zero terminations, and fewer than 2% of all allegations ever sustained.
Measure C would let an accused officer choose between that same board or a new, all-civilian, three-person board instead. It would also move oversight of the civilian juror pool from the Police Commission's Executive Director to the City Council, with a report back to the council after two years.
The strongest case for the measure is independence: handing civilian-pool oversight to the City Council, rather than a body adjacent to the department it's meant to check, is a genuine improvement.
The case against is just as direct: giving an accused officer a choice all but guarantees they'll pick whichever board is more lenient, and city reports already show civilians vote more leniently than officers on the current board — without a clear, confirmed explanation why.
There's a real counterargument worth weighing, too: an all-civilian option could protect whistleblowers from retaliatory termination votes, and doubles as a live comparison of which board structure works better before the city commits to one model. Notably, the endorsements split almost entirely along one line — LAPD-adjacent figures and the police officers' union in support, the ACLU, the LA branch of Black Lives Matter, and the LA Times editorial board in opposition.
Why We Love It
- Moves oversight of the civilian juror pool from the Police Commission's Executive Director to the City Council, reducing the department's own influence over who judges its officers
Considerations
- Lets an accused officer choose between two boards, and city reports show civilians already vote more leniently than officers — a choice likely used to seek the softer outcome
- Was placed on the ballot as the city's response to a police union lawsuit seeking an all-civilian board, raising questions about whose interests it was designed to serve
The History Behind the Board of Rights
Before 1992, the Board of Rights was made up entirely of three command-level officers, with no civilian seat at all. That changed after the March 1991 beating of Rodney King by four LAPD officers, which triggered the Christopher Commission's review of the department's internal discipline system — and found the numbers above indefensible.
All four officers involved in the King beating were acquitted by a federal jury, an outcome widely seen as the spark for the 1992 Los Angeles riots, which killed 55 people, injured more than 2,000, and caused over $1 billion in damage before the National Guard arrived. The civilian seat added to the Board of Rights afterward is the version Measure C would now make optional.
A Suspicious Bit of Timing
Measure C is the only item on this particular ballot — and a single-measure election tends to draw only its most motivated voters, mostly those inclined to vote Yes. Critics have flagged the timing as no accident.
We Recommend This To Readers Who:
-
You care most about board independence
Moving the civilian pool from the Police Commission's Executive Director to the City Council is the article's strongest point in Measure C's favor.
-
You're wary of giving officers a choice of board
Reports show civilians already vote more leniently than officers, and letting the accused pick their own board could compound that.
-
You want to weigh the whistleblower angle
An all-civilian option could also protect officers targeted for retaliation after whistleblowing, and functions as a natural A/B test of which board works better.
The Bottom Line
The article's author remained undecided by publication — favoring the City Council oversight change but wary of letting officers choose the more lenient board — and noted that support for Measure C broke almost entirely along a police-aligned-versus-civil-rights-groups line.