‘It’s a Tough Call, But Why I’m Voting NO on Measure A’

The following is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect that of the OB Rag.

It’s About County Measure A on the November 2026 Ballot

By Lu Rehling

My decision to vote NO on Measure A might have been easier to make if that single measure did not include three quite distinct types of changes to the San Diego County Charter, each with its own major long-term consequences. That bundling was the choice of the Supervisor who initiated the measure, Terra Lawson-Remer (the Board Chair), supported by her fellow Democrats on the Board, Monica Montgomery Steppe and Paloma Aguirre.

Their crucial decision to pass a bundled measure on to voters was pretty obviously political: A way to help the medicine of an unpopular extension of term limits go down by adding in a spoonful of sugar—promises about ethics oversight and increased accountability.

If those promises stood up to scrutiny, I might be casting a reluctant yes vote on Measure A, despite my mixed feelings about the term limits provision. However, we all know how political promises can go south once an election is over, so a closer look is in order.

Here are the THREE major provisions of Measure A:

1. Institutionalize ethics oversight
New Ethics Commission overseeing Supes, Sheriff, Attorney General, and other elected officials.

Pro: Unbiased monitoring could help to ensure that our representatives stay on the straight and narrow path.

Con: Questionable how independent this new commission truly would be. Reading the fine print in the measure, it turns out that the Supes and their legal staff would both appoint Ethics Commission members and have the ability to remove them without cause– sort of like the fox guarding the henhouse.

2. Increase accountability
Add new Budget Analyst & Program Analyst positions, require more public info about public spending, and give Supes more power to hire and fire county leadership – putting them more directly in charge of appointments and operations while weakening the role of the Chief Administrative Officer.

Pro: Improved data and disclosure, plus the ability to make elected leaders responsible to their constituents for managing how the county gets things done, instead of disinterested bureaucrats who might be resistant to change or the Board’s agenda.

Con: Potential for politicizing the work of county civil servants, giving self-interested elected officials too much control instead of valuing neutral professional expertise and apolitical qualifications.

3. Extend term limits
From current limit of two four-year terms to three four-year terms for a possible total of 12 years.

Pro: Big government and big, long-term projects can benefit from leadership continuity and experienced, motivated Supes who demonstrate to voters that they can finish what they’ve started.

Con: Would be grandfathered in, giving a future election incumbency advantage to some Supes who were elected when the two-term limit was in place, which can be seen as a form of bait-and-switch. Plus, our citizens have voted for term limits as recently as 2010, not wanted to be governed by career politicians too comfortable in their jobs and potentially entrenching their power. In fact, recent polling shows only 10% of San Diego voters favor extending term limits for Supes.

But what about endorsements?

For me, the potential advantages of all three of proposed changes are counterbalanced in varying degrees by the potential downsides. So, looking beyond the content of Measure A itself, I also checked out the supporters on each side who officially endorsed it. And, oof! my tough decision got even tougher. As a progressive, seeing the infamous Carl DeMaio and other Republicans say no makes every fiber of my being want to vote yes.

Plus, on the surface, the support for Measure A by the Middle Class Taxpayers Association sounds appealing. But then, looking into the makeup of that group, heavily dominated by organized labor interests, and noting that the other major supporters of the measure are labor and establishment figures, raises a concern. The inclusion of one of our City Ethics Commissioners is not reassuring, considering what we’ve witnessed going on under their watch.

In my view, the influence of organized labor on our local Democratic party and its leadership often pushes it more mainstream than truly progressive and also seems to be a factor behind some of its shadiest elected officials, donations, and deals (reference Mayor Gloria and the sordid history behind Midway Rising as leading examples of this influence). I say this sadly, as a typically strong supporter of organized labor, former union member, and child of a Detroit auto worker family, but I don’t fully trust the politically influential Measure A endorsers either.

So, bottom line, I’m going to vote based on the content of the measure itself, which:

• Tries to do too much (jamming together quite different provisions under the title “modern government”).
• Directly favors ambitious politicians already on the board.
• Undermines neutrality in civil service by not crossing enough I’s and dotting enough T’s to ensure impartial implementation.
• Claims the label “independent” without actually ensuring independence for what would otherwise be the measure’s biggest selling point of ethics oversight.

IF Measure A passes: I hope that the Supes do their best to enact all of its aspects honorably, most importantly by maintaining a hands-off approach to the Ethics Commission.

IF Measure A fails: I hope that the Supes will make what modest, demonstrably effective administrative reforms they can without changes to the Charter, and only then, perhaps, come back to the voters with a couple of measures that honestly separate out the issues, while also tightening their language and application. That way, citizens of San Diego County could choose whichever government improvements they might want without also having to swallow some bad medicine.

Your vote on Measure A could really matter: Recent Union Tribune polling shows about 40% of voters support, about 35% oppose, and 20% remain undecided. Interestingly, this poll also shows that, while support for the Ethics Commission is high, opposition to extending term limits extension is even higher. So, the politically calculated bundling of multiple issues within this measure is creating a damned if I do, damned if I don’t dilemma for many of us.

Despite my personal see-saw about how to vote, it feels good finally to make up my mind with the possibility of actually making a difference. I encourage others to join me: Vote NO on County Measure A.