Comments
MEMO TO CHARTER REFORM - The Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission is considering Los Angeles City Council enlargement, together with changing how the City Council is elected, from the current winner-take-all, single-seat district system to multi-seat districts elected by proportional ranked-choice voting, a form of proportional representation to be suited for local non-partisan elections like for LA City Council.
The following memo has been sent to the Government Structure Committee of the Charter Reform Commission, in advance of their November 12 meeting, where they will be debating city council enlargement and election systems. The meeting will take place at Pierce College, 600 Building, 6201 Winnetka Ave, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. The schedule of all Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission meetings.
To: Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission
From: Marcela Miranda-Prierto, Executive Director, CalRVC
Michael Feinstein, Former Santa Monica Mayor and City Councilmember
Subject: Proportional Ranked-Choice Voting Elections and Public Matching Funds in Los Angeles
Date: November 10, 2025
Dear Charter Reform Commissioners and Commission Staff,
As described in the program’s Findings and Purposes (in the City Charter), the Los Angeles Public Matching Funds Program, established by LA voters in 1990, aims to limit special interest influence and empower more viable voices in elections by providing public financing to qualified candidates. Following an amendment to the program in 2019, candidates can receive matching public funds at a 6:1 ratio for individual contributions, significantly enhancing their campaign resources.
How would the implementation of Proportional Ranked Choice Voting (PRCV) and/or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) elections impact the Public Matching Funds Program?
(1) In PRCV elections (for multi-seat city council districts) or RCV elections (for single-seat city council districts), only one election would be held in November, instead of a March or June primary followed by a November run-off, if no candidate receives a majority in the primary.
PRCV and/or RCV elections would help extend the use of the City’s limited public matching funds, because these funds would only have to apply to a single election instead of two. (This same positive effect would apply to democracy vouchers, if the City moves to implement them as well, which the City Council recently voted to study.)
The more efficient use of public matching funds via PRCV elections becomes even more critical if there is City Council enlargement, because enlargement would increase the demand for such funds if more seats were being contested and more candidates were running. Similarly, the demand for such funds would increase if public matching funds are extended to LAUSD elections, as is also under consideration.
In its City 2025-2026 budget letter, the LA Ethics Commission states:
“...increasing the number of City Council districts or providing public funding for qualified LAUSD candidates, will also affect the trust fund balance. Not only could each of those changes further decrease the trust fund balance, they would likely require an increase to the mandatory annual appropriation in order to sustain a properly functioning matching funds program.”
That’s why, in its October 2025 Recommendations to the LA Charter Reform Commission, the Ethics Commission recommends an:
“Increase the annual appropriation to the matching funds trust fund if additional elected offices are added to the program.”
Even today, there is already stress on such funds. In FY 2025-2026, the City withheld its annual appropriation to the public matching funds trust fund because the City declared a fiscal emergency, and the trust fund balance was enough to cover elections in the next four years—the two conditions laid out in the City Charter allowing the City Council to withhold its annual appropriation.
(2) How much could these savings be if LA goes to PRCV and/or RCV elections and eliminates the need for run-off elections?
The level of saving would depend upon how many future city council races would go to run-offs if LA does not adopt PRCV or RCV for its city council elections, and instead retains its two-round contingent run-off system. This is impossible to predict and would depend upon many factors.
Between 2011 and 2024, 37 of 52 regular City Council elections (71.2%) were decided in low turnout, less diverse primary elections, and 15 (28.8%) went to general election run-offs. Between 2011 and 2017, these elections were held in odd-numbered years, with 24/30 (80%) decided in the primary and 6/30 (20%) went to run-offs.
Starting in 2020, LA’s elections were moved to even-numbered years (following a charter amendment approved in 2015), and accompanied by the 6:1 public matching funds program. Already, this combination has seen primaries more competitive, leading to more general election run-offs and fewer races decided in the primary.
Since 2020, 13/22 (59.1%) of City Council races were decided in the primary, and 9/22 (40.9%) went to run-offs, as well as 3 out of 6 citywide races (50%). Even in the current system, this percentage of races that go to run-offs could increase as term-limited incumbents cycle out of office.
If voters approve an increase in the size of the City Council, this would go into effect in 2032. If such an increase is not accompanied by a move to multi-seat districts elected by PRCV (or single-seat districts elected by RCV), then with many new districts having no incumbents, it is very possible that even a higher percentage of the new districts would go to run-offs, as a result of many candidates running in the new districts and dividing the vote so that none receive a majority in the primary.
All of this suggests substantial savings to the City’s Public Matching Funds program if the need for these run-offs were eliminated by going to single-election PRCV (or RCV).
(3) What level of public matching funding per city council candidate is currently allocated in the primary and the general election, that would not need to be allocated a second time if LA adopts PRCV or RCV and eliminates its primary elections?
-
According to preliminary figures from the LA City Ethics Commission, the average amount of primary election public financing received per qualifying city council candidate was $136,590.86 in 2022 and $152,261.96 in 2024; and the total amount allocated per seat was $409,772.58 in 2022 and $431,408.90 in 2024.
-
According to preliminary figures from the LA City Ethics Commission, the average amount of general election public financing received per qualifying city council candidate was $184,679.99 in 2022 and $202,030.28 in 2024, and the total amount allocated per seat was $369,359.99 in 2022 and $404,060.57 in 2024.
(4) What percentage of primary election candidates who currently qualify for public matching funds in a primary election go on to a general election run-off and qualify for matching funds a second time?
-
According to preliminary figures from the LA City Ethics Commission, between 2015 through 2024, approximately ⅓ of City Council candidates (57/183 or 31%) who qualified for and received public matching funds in the primary also appeared on the general election ballot in run-offs and received matching funds a second time. (The other races were decided in the primary.)
-
Starting with the 2020 elections in even-numbered years, and after the 6:1 public matching funds program went into effect, more candidates per election sought matching funds, with 51/157 primary election city council candidates qualified for and received public matching funds. Of the 51, 17 appeared on general election ballots—again approximately ⅓ receiving matching funds a second time.
Assuming the same number of candidates per seat would qualify for matching funds in the future in a single PRCV General Election as in a primary under the current system, this ‘⅓ number of campaigns funded’ would be the number of campaigns that currently go to a run-off that would no longer be needed to be funded a second time—or to be more conservative, maybe 3/10.
However, with more seats up for election after a charter amendment to enlarge the size of the City Council, more candidates could seek and receive public matching funds in the primary, and more run-offs could occur with more viable candidates dividing the vote.
(5) If there is a City Council enlargement, would LA further amend its Public Matching Funds program regarding how candidates qualify for the program and what funds are allocated?
This is certainly possible, but could not be predicted today, as it would depend upon many factors, including by how many seats the size of the City Council is enlarged, the size of the new districts, and the vote threshold needed to be elected (i.e., in single-seat, winner-take-all elections or in multi-seat, proportional representation elections).
However, the program may be amended; by eliminating the need for primary elections under PRCV or RCV, the need to allocate matching funds for run-off elections would be eliminated.
(Contributed to CityWatchLA by Marcela Miranda-Prierto, Executive Director, CalRVC and Michael Feinstein, former Santa Monica Mayor and City Councilmember.)
