2026 CANDIDATE SURVEY
Adam Miller
Candidate for Los Angeles City Mayor
To help foster greater discussion about reforming City Hall, we asked City of LA candidates to participate in a six question survey. Half of the questions seek general feedback, and the rest are issue specific.
Please note survey responses, candidate information, and website links are provided for informational/educational purposes only. Fair Rep LA is presenting these responses as submitted without edit, evaluation, or commentary. Fair Rep LA does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or their responses in any way.
Survey Info:
-
Answers: Respondents were told that questions could be answered in 1-2 sentences, and that while additional context was welcome, the form had a 1,250 character limit for each question (approximately 200 words).
-
Resource Document: Additional background information was provided via a resource document.
-
Participation: Surveys were sent to all City of LA candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. This is a very busy time for candidates, so we appreciate everyone who made time to respond. Please avoid reading too much into a candidate’s lack of participation. We respect the limited bandwidth campaigns have, and it's possible that our request(s) may have been lost in their inbox.
-
Background: The City of Los Angeles is undergoing the first comprehensive review of our city’s governance structure in 27 years. The Charter Reform Commission recently transmitted a report containing over 60 recommendations to the City Council, who will soon be deciding what will be sent to the November ballot for potential approval by voters.
The recommendations I most strongly support are those that increase accountability and structural representation in city government. Los Angeles has a deep delivery problem, and much of it is structural. With 15 council members representing nearly 4 million people, individual constituents have almost no real access to their elected representative. Reforms that bring government closer to the people it serves, modernize how we elect leaders, and make city decision-making more transparent are the right direction. I have spent my career building organizations where accountability flows to measurable results, not political process. Charter reform is an opportunity to embed those values into the foundation of how this city governs itself.
My primary concern with any charter reform package is implementation: even the best structural changes fail without the operational capacity to execute them. Expanding the council, shifting to ranked choice voting, and extending the franchise all require significant administrative investment, robust voter education, and realistic timelines. I have seen what happens when ambitious plans meet an underfunded, fragmented bureaucracy. The recommendations are largely sound in principle. My concern is whether City Hall has the leadership and capacity to implement them well. That is exactly the kind of challenge a mayor with real operational experience needs to own.
Charter reform should also address ethics enforcement and the structural conflicts of interest that have fueled years of corruption and scandal at City Hall. The current system is self-policing in ways that have failed Angelenos repeatedly. I would add proposals that strengthen the independence of the Ethics Commission, tie budget authority to measurable performance outcomes, and create real-time public transparency on city contracting. I will also push for stronger conflict-of-interest rules for elected officials and their staff. Structural reform means nothing if we do not also reform the culture of accountability that governs how decisions get made and who benefits from them.
Yes, I support expanding the council from 15 to 25 members. Los Angeles is the second largest city in the country. Fifteen council members representing nearly 4 million people is not representation, it is tokenism. Each district is so large that most constituents will never meaningfully interact with their council member, and most council members cannot possibly be responsive to that scale of constituent need. Smaller districts mean more direct accountability, more community access, and better-informed decisions. My one concern is that adding seats without reforming the underlying culture of City Hall only scales our problems. Expansion must be paired with stronger ethics rules, clearer lines of accountability, and a mayor willing to hold the council to results.
Yes, I support moving to ranked choice voting. Runoffs are expensive, suppress turnout, and consistently produce results that do not reflect the preferences of the full electorate. RCV consolidates elections to November, when turnout is highest, and gives voters more meaningful choices without the fear of wasting their vote. That is a better democratic outcome. I would add that voter education is essential to making this work. RCV only improves representation if voters understand how to use it. The city must invest significantly in outreach, particularly in non-English speaking communities, ahead of the 2032 implementation date. A reform that confuses or alienates voters will undermine the very goals it is designed to achieve.
As a parent with three children, including two teenagers, I do not support lowering the voting age. Voting is a right and responsibility that should be limited to citizens over 18.