Measure K vs Measure J
The elected leadership of the County continues to disregard the will and votes of its citizens. The most recent examples of this are Measure K, Measure J and AB-428.
Measure K was an initiative placed on the 2020 ballot by 70,000 concerned citizens meant to alter term limits for the office of County Supervisor from three consecutive terms to one and establish a maximum compensation of each County Supervisor of $5,000 per month, including salary and benefits. Measure K also stipulated that these compensation provisions cannot be changed except by a vote of the people at the time of a general election.
In response, the supervisors placed a conflicting measure on the ballot.
Measure J was voted on by the 5 county supervisors and designed to disrupt Measure K’s grassroots effort. Presented as a “modernization of the County Charter”, voters thought they were voting for: removal of sexist language, the closing of political loopholes, putting a stop to future Governors meddling in local matters, increasing transparency and accountability of local government and limiting Supervisors to three terms. However the underlying purpose of Measure J was to leave term limits essentially unchanged, allow supervisors to increase their current salary, remove the stipulation in the current charter that requires a vote by the people to change supervisor salary and benefits (allowing them to set their own compensation), and make an end run around state law and legal precedent to restrict the people’s right to vote through an initiative or referendum.
The results of the November 2020 election were as follows:
Since the two competing measures passed, Article II Section 10 of the California Constitution states: “If provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall prevail.”
Measure K received the largest vote ever, for a charter amendment in San Bernardino County. Because Measure K received more votes than Measure J, Measure K should have been legally implemented immediately, while Measure J should not have been given any effect.
However, The Board of Supervisors responded by suing to overturn Measure K. Obviously acting to protect their own self-interests, and clearly going against the vote of the people. Before the results of the election were even certified, the Board requested an injunction to halt Measure K. Superior Court Judge Donald R. Alvarez granted a temporary restraining order and then on August 31, 2021 he ruled Measure K unconstitutional and blocked it from enforcement.
Additionally, on February 2, 2021, California Assembly Member, Chad Mayes submitted AB-428 – just two months after San Bernardino County voters approved Measure K. It should be noted that Mr. Mayes once served as Chief of Staff for Janice Rutherford, the current Supervisor for San Bernardino County District Two.
AB-428 is legislation that stipulates that voters may not set less than two, four-year terms for county supervisors. This law also includes the board of supervisors in the definition of county officer for whom the board is required to prescribe compensation. In other words, elected members of a county’s board of supervisors set their own compensation! Mayes argued the legislation was a “good governance” policy issue and was not an attack on Measure K. On the floor of the Assembly, Mayes stated that AB-428 did not directly affect Measure K. It’s apparent to us that AB-428 is a direct workaround for Measure K. AB-428 looks to ensure that citizens can never again (by initiative) set compensation or terms for their County Supervisors. AB-428 was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 4, 2021.
