L.A. County Measure A puts binding arbitration on Nov. 3 ballot

Los Angeles County voters will decide on November 3 whether to adopt binding arbitration for public safety labor negotiations. The measure, known as Charter Amendment A, would require an independent panel to resolve contract disputes if the county Board of Supervisors and unions reach an impasse. This change would affect 14 bargaining units representing approximately 16,500 workers, including firefighters, sheriff’s deputies, lifeguards, and deputy medical examiners.

Under the current system, if negotiations stall, supervisors can impose a final contract that unions must accept. This power has been used only twice since 2001. If Measure A passes, that unilateral authority would shift to a three-member arbitration panel. The county and the union would each select one arbitrator, and the two sides would jointly choose a third member to serve as chair. The panel would hear evidence on wages, hours, and other employment conditions before issuing a public, binding ruling.

The proposal stems from a signature-gathering drive by labor unions representing non-striking public safety employees. Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, stated that unions worked with supervisors and county leadership to add safeguards. Hsieh argued that the current process gives the employer near unilateral control over contract provisions. He said the threat of arbitration would encourage both sides to avoid extreme proposals and reach agreements before a panel intervenes.

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who helped draft the measure, said the process opens financial records and bases decisions on facts rather than political preferences. She noted that only six of the 21 California jurisdictions with binding arbitration have actually used it. Horvath emphasized that arbitrators are expected to consider the county’s fiscal situation, a design feature intended to prevent financial instability.

The board voted 4-0 in early 2026 to place the measure on the ballot, with Supervisor Holly Mitchell abstaining. Mitchell expressed concern that arbitrators are unelected and may not weigh countywide trade-offs such as healthcare, homeless services, or capital improvements. She cited the experience of Vallejo, a Northern California city that adopted binding arbitration more than 50 years ago following a police strike. In 2007, a mediator ruled that Vallejo could not reduce its fire department despite fiscal problems. Eight months later, the city declared bankruptcy. Vallejo voters repealed the provision in 2010.

No formal opposition has filed a campaign against Measure A. However, some progressive groups, including L.A. Forward and La Defensa, recommend a "no" vote. La Defensa criticized the inclusion of the Sheriff’s Department, arguing that law enforcement groups should not receive extra leverage in negotiations. The group stated that bundling deputies with other workers weaponizes a process they otherwise support.

Supporters have spent millions to promote the amendment. Union financial disclosure reports show that groups representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, and other employees raised $7.7 million through mid-October. No campaign funds have been reported for opposition. Dave Gillotte, president of the International Association of Firefighters Local 1014, which represents more than 3,000 county fire employees, said the measure creates leverage to move both parties toward a contract. He noted that the current system lacks that pressure to finalize deals.

Justin McBride, a researcher at the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, described binding arbitration as a routine part of the labor relations framework. He pointed to a 2010 Cornell University study of New York negotiations, which found that the number of cases reaching arbitration declined after several years as parties learned to work together. McBride said academic studies do not show that one side consistently benefits more than the other. He noted that while some municipalities have faced economic challenges due to arbitrator decisions, the process generally results in deals that both parties accept, even if neither is fully satisfied.