Our View: Vote no. Measure A is a rushed plan to make Kern a charter county

Local government watchdog Michael Turnipseed, the executive director of the Kern County Taxpayers Association, was correct when reacting to a proposal to make Kern County a "charter county" rather than keep it a "general law" county, as it has been for more than 150 years. He warns the change would not be a "silver bullet" solution to the county's fiscal and management problems. It has risks. But it should be considered.

Writing in The Californian earlier this year, he noted "the idea was worth serious, sober debate." Regrettably, debate has been sparse.

Instead, on the June 2 ballot is Measure A, which proposes to establish "Kern County as a California Charter County. The proposed Charter would allow for Members of the Board of Supervisors to appoint or call for a special election to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors."

Voters should reject Measure A until a "sober debate" occurs and county residents better understand what they are adopting. The proposal also should be placed on a general election ballot, rather than a primary ballot, which typically sees fewer votes cast. Only a simple majority of votes cast is needed to pass Measure A.

Measure A's words do not address the consequences of making Kern a charter county, nor does it explain future plans. Most immediately, the measure would allow the Board of Supervisors to appoint someone to fill 4th District Supervisor David Couch's seat on the board, when he becomes the 32nd District assemblyman. Couch is running unopposed for the job. The board could also call a special election to fill the supervisorial seat before the next general election.

The governor doesn't always make appointments to fill vacancies. In 2024, when Zack Scrivner resigned as 2nd District supervisor, Gov. Gavin Newman called a special election to allow citizens to decide on a replacement.

Supervisors giving themselves the power to replace a board member is hardly sufficient reason to change a governing structure that dates to the county's founding in 1866. And Measure A does not acknowledge the board's full intention.

When voting to place Measure A on the June ballot, supervisors explained that the new county charter would contain only one provision - to allow supervisors to appoint a replacement in the rare occasion a board vacancy occurs. But that single-provision charter is just a shell. Future amendments can be placed before Kern voters to fill out the charter. Meanwhile, some state laws will prevail.

In other words, Kern's new charter - a local "home rule" constitution - would be created in a piecemeal way, rather than a comprehensive, thoughtful manner.

In his Californian article, Turnipseed described a better process: "It requires a Board of Supervisors willing to lead a transparent conversation about how Kern County should be governed for the next generation, not merely to close the next budget gap. And it requires discipline - clarity about which changes are designed to improve efficiency, accountability and transparency, and which are simply efforts to shift political power."

Turnipseed noted that drafting a charter is "inherently political. It requires broad community engagement and genuine census-building among labor organizations, public safety unions, business leaders, nonprofit groups and residents."

Turnipseed also said earlier this week that he didn't foresee the board taking an activist stance and trying to make additional changes.

In hastily placing Measure A on the ballot, supervisors said they were following Shasta County's lead in becoming the 15th county - out of California's 58 counties - to become a charter county. That's hardly comforting. For the past several years, Shasta has been embroiled in political battles over election denial and home rule.

California's only other charter counties and the years they adopted their charters are: Los Angeles (1913); Butte (1917); Tehama (1917); Alameda (1927); San Bernardino (1931); San Francisco (1931); Fresno (1933); San Diego (1933); San Mateo (1933); Sacramento (1933); Santa Clara (1951); Placer (1980); El Dorado (1994); and Orange (2002).

If making Kern a charter county is an idea worth considering, it's worth doing right. Take the time to involve the public in the process, consider residents' concerns, identify consequences and better explain and justify why the way Kern has been governed for more than 150 years should be changed.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.