LA CHARTER ASSEMBLY Collective Analysis, 3 Models of Council Expansion

SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS

1 Councilmember/District

Proposal: Expanding from 15 Districts to 23, 25, or 31 districts

(Expanding from 15 Councilmembers to 23, 25, or 31 Councilmembers)

What benefits do we reap from this model of expansion?

What challenges might we anticipate from this model of expansion?

What would need to be true (other policies, practices, or other reforms that the

commission could propose alongside this model) for this model to work well (or to mitigate challenges)?

● Increased level of direct

representation

● Smaller districts/more

representative of those who

actually live there +3

● Takes fewer resources/

less capital to win

● Communities of interest

get clearer, more coherent

districts.

^●Marginalized neighborhoods

(Black, Latino, AAPI, renters,

youth) gain better access. +3

● LA’s current districts are

the largest in the country by

population (260,000

 residents)

● Smaller districts dilute

gatekeeping and make

corruption harder to hide. +1

● Makes districts more

competitive and easier for

new candidates to run and

win +1

● One representative = one

point of responsibility. +3

● No ambiguity about who is

responsible for constituent

services or local issues.

● Residents can vote out a

single failing member

instead of navigating shared

responsibility.+1

● Smaller caseloads allow

council offices to actually

return calls, emails, and

show up.+1 +1

● Single-seat districts

limit representation by

definition to only one

● Infrastructure (where

are we going to put all

these new CMs and

their staff)

● Budget (salaries and

staff for each new

member)

● Election hijinks

● Does not change the

first-past-the-post

electoral system

● Not a true proportional

representation system,

even with ranked-choice

voting

● How are districts

determined?

● Encourages more

competition between

districts for resources,

funding, etc

● Council members can

just “disappear” and not

engage meaningfully

● with constituents

● Candidates need to

state their political party

based on party

endorsements because

currently city

councilmembers lie

about their party

affiliation or state they

do not have any

affiliation. This

misleading leads to

voter misinformation.

● If the number of new

districts causes a shift

in district borders (e.g.,

Koreatown being split in

two), we could see

coalition building

between districts for

shared causes (this

could be good or bad).

● TEN of the 15 council

members are either very

conservative or

moderate Dems that do

not represent the voters

they represent. How

can the commission get

the voters to contact

their councilmembers

about their desire for

their rep to vote for the

31 seat model?

● Should be ranked

choice voting with

smaller districts (+1)

● Election oversight

must expand

● Voter funded

campaigns would also

need to expand.

● All 31 districts could

have elections on the

same date so that all

candidates have an

equal amount of

attention from the voters

and would reduce

confusion about which

districts are having

elections. (+2)

● Have the terms be

long enough for the

councilmembers to

make change (reco 4

years) and have tiered

voting so we’re not

getting a whole new

council every 4 years

(so half at a time, for

example, every 2 years)

● How can the model

for 31 seats be

approved when the

majority of the city

council members are

not in favor of losing

any power?

● how are these options/

models being presented

in communities that do

not not have internet and

or access to technology?

i live in an area where

everyone is retired and

no one here knew this

was happening? I'm

concerned about the

"outreach" to these

populations.

● Easier for working people,

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion

renters, and immigrants to

build relationships with their

● My biggest concern

with ALL OF THE

OPTIONS is how

exactly can we afford to

representative.+3

● More candidates can

viably run when districts are

smaller and campaigns cost

less.+1

● Neighborhood voices that

currently get drowned out

have a path to

representation.+2

● Encourages grassroots

organizing rather than

machine politics.+1

● Easier to draw districts that

reflect demographic realities

without diluting protected

groups.

● Avoids the litigation risks

associated with multi

member or at large

configurations.

● Smaller districts make

council offices easier to

monitor by press,

watchdogs, and constituents.

+1

● Big “fiefdoms” become

smaller, easier to audit, and

harder to abuse. +1

● More seats = more

ideological perspectives.+1

● New members can

champion specific issues like

housing, bus infrastructure,

disability access, climate

resilience, and youth

services.

● A larger council reduces

the outsized informal power

of the City Attorney, CAO,

and politically connected

insiders.

● More voices at the table

means fewer big citywide

decisions controlled by a

small circle.

● Single member expansion

is straightforward. + (easier

to do voter education) +1 +1

+1

● Avoids complex ballot

changes required for

proportional or multi member

do this? We know city

council won’t take a pay

cut. I don’t want to pay

higher property or

income or sales tax. It’s

expensive enough to

live here.

systems.

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion● Voters already understand

and trust the single member

model.

● More districts = more ways

to group communities

logically.

● Reduces the brutal

tradeoffs forced by the

current oversized 15 district

map.

● More districts best so less

# of people/district - 100,000

would be great and mean

about 35 districts similar to #

of community planning areas

● Makes communication with

district easier and more

tailored

● Having 31 districts allows

for neighborhoods to get

their needs and resources

met that are different than

other neighborhoods

● Streamlined decision

making because conflicts

between council members in

a single district would not

need to work together

● 31 single council member

districts gives the voters the

largest amount of

representation than any of

the other models because

the districts will gain more

equal power for

representation and

resources. This is the plan

the current city council would

likely dislike the most

because they stand to lose

power when their number of

seats doubles.

● In Los Angeles history,

District 12 is the only district

that has never elected a

Democrat because the

conservatives in the north

part of that district control the

vote. The benefits of 31

single council member

districts would mean that

District 12 would get split up

and the voters in the different districts would receive

council district member that

actually represents their

views.

● Developers and Real

Estate bodies hold much

implicit power as it currently

stands. Under a more

equitable and well

represented constituent

body, it allows for individuals

who would otherwise not

have a realistic chance to

run due to the capital put

against them would now be

able to truly represent their

constituency

What questions remain for us given this model of expansion?

What other reactions or notes do you have? (This is also where to put notes about the number of districts)

● How new districts lines

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion

would be drawn in a truly

representative and logical

● Very concerning that the current Council will have the final say of what goes to voters

● Even with independent redistricting, sets up unavoidable

^way+1● Given that LA has a weak

mayor system, does diluting

the strength of the council

members lead to a system

that would lead to outside

influences, eg the police

union or developers, having

undue influence over LA?

● What powers do council

members have vs the mayor

other other officials?

● If this is overly optimistic or

a stretch

● What voting system will be

used?

● How would communities,

like Koreatown, be split and

what are the ramifications?

● What are potential

opportunities to overlay

council expansion with

neighborhood councils?

Some neighborhood

councils have three council

members in their territory

and it makes event

coordination a nightmare

● Does NY have an example

where having 51 council

members diluted

communities? .

^{conflict between different parts of community for winner} take-all representation ● I would like to see the improvement of ethnic

representation. But, not a Koreatown style of insiders vs. outsiders. Too divisive and self serving.

● I would like to see this model with a proportional

representation of "At Large members to round out the "insider" approach that is represented by a personal friend - a former council member who stated that for certain things he was "Caesar"!

● Regardless of the numbers - we need to be sure that getting more councilmembers cannot mean diluting the power of the city council and giving the mayor more power.

SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS

1 Councilmember/District

Proposal: Expanding from 15 Districts to 23, 25, or 31 districts

(Expanding from 15 Councilmembers to 23, 25, or 31 Councilmembers)

MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTS

More than one councilmember per district

Proposal: Moving from 15 districts to 9 districts, but having 3 councilmembers per district (instead of having 1 councilmember per district)

(Moving from 15 to 27 councilmembers overall)

What benefits do we reap from this model of

expansion?

What challenges might we anticipate from this model of expansion?

What would need to be true (other policies, practices, or other reforms that the

commission could propose alongside this model) for this model to work well (or to

mitigate challenges)?

● A pluralistic approach

with more democratic

representation for each

district. -1

● If a council member

gets indicted, there are

still elected

representatives vs.

appointed

representatives.

● One of the most

beneficial reforms to

create a truly

representative district

● Allows for more

diverse political

ideologies to represent a

diverse population within

a district

^{● Pushes for more co} governance (something

we DESPERATELY

need to learn how to do)

^{+1● Gets rid of first-past} the-post

● A key factor of

proportional

representation systems

around the world +1

● Would there be a power

struggle between/among

the multi-members?

● LA currently has

problems with officials

“punting” responsibility,

especially when there’s no

clarity on who does what.

Under multi member

districts, this becomes

much more pronounced if

elected officials do not

work well together. +2

● Residents won’t have

“their” representative

anymore.

● When three members

share responsibility,

nobody is clearly

accountable.

● Every problem becomes:

“That’s not my part of the

district, ask the other one.”

+1

● We would need a clear

way for the multiple

members to be chosen

● Adjust public matching

funds program to

correspond to the lower

threshold to get elected

from a multi-seat district

● Determining the

neighborhoods within a

district would cause mass

confusion among voters

determining which

candidates they are

voting for

^{● Ideally, use a single} transferable-vote system

(YES I second)

○ Anything other

than MNTV (

^{Multiple Non} Transferable Vote,

it’s hyper

majoritarian)

● More constituents/

communities per district

are represented than in

a single-winner system

● Harder to vote out the

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion

right person when blame is

distributed.

● More representation

for minority communities

● Accountability to each

other as council

members as well as to

constituents, members

couldn't “hide” from

constituents as easily

● Greater chance of

communities feeling their

elected officials truly

represent them and look

like them. Could

encourage diversity of

representation in each

district and writ large.

● Diffuses the

overconcentration of

power per district, which

has led to multiple

corruption scandals +1

● Potential for

differentiated roles that

each member

specializes in

● Overlapping

representation creates

diffusion of responsibility.

● Multi-member districts

can hide insider

dealmaking inside the

delegation.

● Formal corruption

becomes harder to

investigate because

decision-making is murkier.

● Parties, and big political

organizations can run

slates of candidates.

● Grassroots candidates

become

disadvantaged because

they cannot compete with

coordinated slates.+2

● Slates tend to dominate

all three seats once they

gain foothold.+1 +1

● A large 3-member district

(300k–500k people) forces

unrelated neighborhoods

into the same district.

● Smaller, marginalized

communities lose the

ability to elect a

representative who is

theirs, not shared.+1

^{● Statistically, Multi} member districts nearly

always elect multiple

incumbents again and

again.+1

● Harder to challenge a

delegation than a single

member.

● Encourages “go along to

get along” culture among

councilmembers.

● Three offices means

three systems, three

leaders, three priorities.

● Confusing for residents,

business owners, renters,

unhoused neighbors, and

nonprofits.

● Instead of choosing one

candidate, voters must

judge a field of maybe 15–

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion30 candidates.

^{● Many voters skip down} ballot offices when

overwhelmed.

● Election education

becomes much harder.

● Drawing 9 mega-districts

is politically riskier than

drawing 31 smaller ones.

● Massive geographic

districts create more

conflict between

communities of interest. +1

● Litigation risk rises under

the Voting Rights Act.+1

● Multi-member districts

can look like adding

complexity for political

insiders, not residents. Can

get voters jaded.

● Complicated decision

making, prolonged periods

before action is taken +1

^{● The logistics of multi} point decisions increase

the cost of every action

● Current councils and

committees struggle to

keep quorum for decision

making meetings.

Increasing the variables by

3, means we’re more likely

to have punted agenda

items and stalled

conversations - just

accounting for sick days

and personal emergencies

(assuming the best case)

● Who am I supposed to

call? Right now I have to

keep track of a city council

member, a state assembly

member, a state senator, a

state congress person…

and they all have different

shaped districts. This gets

confusing really fast. One

phone number, please.

● The voters in the district

are competing for

resources with other

neighborhoods in their

same district. +1

● Additional barriers to

access resources and

raises more confusion

where to go to address

issues

● Having multiple people

responsible for a district

may result in no one being

responsible for certain

things? Constituent

concerns could be lost in a

vicious circle of officials

saying “not it.” +1

● The voting pool would be

the same for all 3 members

and smaller groups

wouldn’t increase their

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion

power as it would in the

model #1

● Raises more

unnecessary complications

to an already complicated

system+1

● From a PR perspective,

this could be hard to sell.

People like to know who is

their representative and

who is responsible for

them. Multiple members

per district might lead to

confusion and less

engagement in the civic

process.+3

● Suddenly we have to

keep track of three (or

more) members, rather

than one. It’s more

complicated.

● Regarding multi-seat

districts elected by

proportional ranked choice

voting - Ireland and

Australia have both used

those systems to elect

local government for 100

years each and the Irish

and the Australians are no

smarter than people in LA,

so given the opportunity,

we can understand and

vote under this system if it

is approved for us

What questions remain for us given this model of

expansion?

What other reactions or notes do you have? (This is also where to put notes about the number of districts or councilmembers)

● Is this a model that the

majority of voters in the

city want given they

have not been informed

or engaged by the

commission?

● The neighborhood

council model has been

a complete failure for

many neighborhoods

that do not get any

representation in a NC.

 how is that going to

change when there are

three council members

in one smaller district?

+100

● What happens if the 3

members sub-divide the

district, essentially

turning subdivisions into

single member district

areas?

● How does this

fundamentally change

the way City Council

makes decisions? How

will legislation be

proposed and decided

on among

councilmembers with

larger districts and

shared representation

powers?

● Are the 3 members

required to be in

agreement and have 1

vote on the Council, or

does each member have

a vote?

● How would I decide which candidates to vote for and

support in other ways?

● I like the “neighborhood Council” style of diversity within each district

● Would each district get the same number of representatives (ie, a Senate or House approach?)

● What about a bicameral approach similar to congress? An at-large board and a neighborhood-specific board?

● This approach seems fraught, and would need a lot of explanation before an election.

● What is the purpose of reducing the number of districts? ● Is this similar to proportional representation in some national governments?

● If ranked choice voting, would the person with the most votes have the most power in their district?

● Progressives and marginalized groups generally gain more representation with a proportional representation system ● It doesn’t have to only be nine three-seat districts, it could be more than nine districts, I think 11 three seat districts makes more sense

● Ranked choice voting confused a lot of NY voters and I fear it will do the same because it’s so different from what we do now.

● I’m not a fan of this because now we’ll have more people to keep track of. Why isn’t it simpler and easier to have 27 CMs with separate districts, rather than 9 districts with 3 CMs in each?

● Los Angeles is an enormous geography. Why would we need to vote within such large districts? LA is comprised of a diversity of neighborhoods and subregions within the city, so this doesn’t seem to make sense in terms of achieving more representation. More seats but less representation?

SINGLE-MEMBER EXPANSION PLUS ADDING A REGIONAL DISTRICT OVERLAY

Or, expanding the number of single-member council districts WHILE ALSO creating a new set of regional districts that overlap with multiple single-member districts

Proposal: Moving from 15 districts to 20 districts, each with 1 councilmember; AND ALSO adding 5 regional districts (large enough to contain 4 single-member council districts each), each with their own councilmember serving the entire regional district

(Total: 20 councilmembers of single-member districts + 5 councilmembers of regional districts = 25 total councilmembers)

What benefits do we reap from this model of expansion?

What challenges might we anticipate from this model of expansion?

What would need to be true (other policies, practices, or other reforms that the

commission could propose alongside this model) for this model to work well (or to mitigate challenges)?

● Regional District leaders

have an opportunity to

coalition-build (and

therefore lobby the city

and county government).

● Perhaps enhanced

accountability for council

members.

● Opportunity for an

added layer of

engagement with the

public, should a

councilmember be

unresponsive.

● There could be added

leadership/expertise by

having the regional

representative

● More specific and

responsive representation

● I used this model on a

state board and the at

large positions keep

project moving forward

and overlap terms so

initiatives do not get “lost”

when people leave office.

● Regional districts would

be incredibly expensive to

win

● More oversight and

appears to be more layers

between the public/

grassroots and

leadership. Could create

delays in motions, laws,

reaching consensus, etc.

 +2

● Two classes of

councilmembers

● Single-member district

reps serve 250k people;

regional reps serve ~1M+.

(+1)

● Regional reps inevitably

gain more influence,

media attention, donor

interest, and citywide

leverage. +2

● You end up recreating

at-large seats by another

name, which is something

LA has historically

abolished to protect

minority representation.

+3

● Residents won’t know

who actually represents

them. +4

● District rep? Regional

rep? Both?

● Bureaucracy will play

them off each other. +2

● Developers, police,

wealthy donors, and

lobbyists get more

leverage because they

can forum-shop between

the two reps.

● Regional districts of 1M

people behave like mini

citywide races.

● Best funded, most

● The voters need to

have a separate vote for

them to vote for the at

large regional council

member so they see the

difference +1

● The voters need to be

educated about the

benefits of this plan so

they know that what

they are voting for.

●

established, and most

connected candidates

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansiondominate.+1

● Working-class

neighborhoods do a lot

worse under this model

statistically +2

● You get constant

jurisdictional battles and

policymaking gridlock.

● Regional seats cross

multiple district

boundaries and dilute

cohesive racial groups.+!

● If a district is 60% Latino

or 45% Black, but the

overlay district includes

wealthy white

neighborhoods, that

power disappears.+2

● A regional district with

1M people is extremely

expensive to campaign in.

● Mailers, advertising,

canvassing — all cost 3–

5× more.

● Community candidates

are shut out.+1

● Local neighborhood

concerns get deprioritized.

+1

● Regional reps will

concentrate on issues that

sound big but aren’t what

the local community is

asking for

● Staffers won’t know

whether to route projects,

budget amendments, or

constituent requests

through district reps or

regional reps.

● Slower service delivery.

● More conflict between

elected officials and

departments.

● Voters already struggle

to follow LA’s complicated

governance structure.

● Adding overlapping

layers makes the system

feel less democratic and

more engineered.

● Reform must be clear

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion

and intuitive but this

model is neither.

● The 1999 Charter

passed because it was

simple but this will make

the 2026 Charter VERY

hard to understand, so

voters are more likely to

vote no on charter reform

if it contains complicated

districts +1

● This hybrid model is

much harder to message

and defend.

● High risk of being voted

down even if

commissioners like it.

● Very expensive to run

for the five at-large seats

+1

● Weird power balance

between the at-large

councilmembers and the

smaller district

councilmembers

^●● Very complicated for

voters+1+1 +1 +1 +1+1

+1 +1 +1+1

● Same concerns as

above (option 2) as to

how responsibilities to

constituents may be lost

by having multiple officials

be responsible. +1+1

● If they have different

responsibilities, having

regional officials would

mean that people have

less representation on

those issues.

● Unclear what is gained

with the regional

councilmember. +1

● Voters would struggle

with more regions and

districts that create even

more confusion+1

● This adds more

complication and

bureaucracy. We need

less layers in LA, not

more.

● This change would

possibly be the most

confusing and hard to

understand for voters in

LA because most voters

are disengaged and only

vote during the year there

is a presidential election.

● This sounds like having

mini-mayors on top of the

council members. Too

many layers to getting

things done.

● Would take a huge

amount of voter education

investment, and even with

a large educational

investment, it would still

be challenging to

reeducate the voters

●

What questions remain for us given this model of expansion?

Collective Analysis: 3 Models of Expansion

What other reactions or notes do you have? (This is also where to put notes about the number of single-member districts or

regional districts)

● What are the regional

district reps responsible

for vs regular reps?+1

● How are the regional

seats elected

○ Must candidates

run at one level

only (ex: could a

candidate not be

elected to regional

but then run for

district seat?)

● This seems similar to

how we already have a

county board of

supervisors

^●●

● The regional councilmember would skew the ratio of constituents-to-councilmembers.

^{● I do not like this at all. It could create “gangs” of like} minded groups who can block gains ● This is another layer we’d have to deal with on top of city council and BOS. Nothing gets done as is. How do we expect to have accountability when the layers of corruption can get higher.

● This one is confusing +1

● Would regional district have different powers? Would there be a benefit to distinguish? +1

● Would a Regional District person operate similarly to a County Supervisor? I can see this being confusing for voters ⁺¹● This seems horrendously overly complicated-now there’s a councilmember, a regional council member, AND an LA County supervisor to keep track of. +1 +1

● Regardless of model, neighborhood council should be empowered to do more

● Examples where the regional person works in the same body like proposed here? The examples of overlapping districts with state assembly and state senator districts doesn’t really apply here where regional rep would work in the same body as the smaller districts

● What about two elected bodies like the state with the assembly and the State senate?’