In Los Angeles, a proposal backed by several City Council members is moving through the city’s charter reform process.
At its core, the plan would shift more authority over the LAPD from the current structure—where the mayor and an appointed Board of Police Commissioners play central roles—to the elected City Council. That change would allow council members to directly shape policing policy through legislation, something they currently cannot do in the same way.
Supporters of the idea, including councilmembers like Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez, frame it as a governance issue. Their argument is that elected officials, who are directly accountable to voters, should have clearer authority to set rules around policing—just as they do in other areas of city policy.
Proposals tied to this shift include limits on certain police practices, changes in cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and adjustments to how protests are handled.
Abolish the police.
— Eunisses Hernandez (@EunissesH) April 13, 2021
There is also a financial oversight component. A separate but related effort would expand the role of the city controller’s office in auditing LAPD operations, creating a new structure to examine spending and internal practices more closely.
Opposition has been immediate and forceful, particularly from police unions and some officials who argue the move could politicize law enforcement decisions. Their concern is that transferring authority from an appointed commission to elected politicians could lead to rapid policy swings based on political pressure rather than long-term planning or departmental expertise.
The charter reform process itself adds another layer. The proposal has received an initial green light to move forward for consideration, but it is far from final. It must go through the full City Council, and if approved there, it would ultimately be placed on the ballot for Los Angeles voters to decide.
That final step is key. Despite the language of a “takeover,” the structure of the process means the outcome will hinge on a public vote. Between now and then, the debate is likely to sharpen, with both sides framing the stakes in very different terms—one emphasizing democratic control and accountability, the other warning about the risks of shifting too much authority too quickly.
