As a consequence, individual supervisors often exercised substantial influence over the governance of the county, and the group was collectively known as the "five little kings".

[4] Supervisors are elected to four-year terms by a vote of Los Angeles County citizens who reside in the supervisorial district.

In March 2002, Los Angeles County voters passed Measure B to limit the supervisors to three consecutive four-year terms.

The change was made in response to several candidates either dropping out or declining to accept the position to replace former Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen.

Antonovich was the lone supervisor to oppose the change, stating that such a move would lead to a more autocratic form of government and disenfranchise the 1.3 million who live in unincorporated areas.

[13] The fourth Tuesday of the month is reserved for the purpose of conducting legally required public hearings, Board of Supervisors motions and department items continued from a previous meeting, have time constraints, or are critical in nature.

[13] Following that, presentations of various dignitaries (e.g., local consulate officials, awards to County employees and the general public, and pets for adoption) are made.

The county is sued frequently by various public interest law firms and organizations on behalf of people who disagree with the Board's decisions.

However, former supervisor Gloria Molina supported expansion of the Board (to potentially increase Hispanic representation), and former supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky supported both Board expansion and the creation of an elected County Executive, much like in King County, Washington.

[15] [16] From 2005 to 2015, the board had a program, known as 287(g), that allowed federal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into county jails to determine whether inmates were in the country legally.

[17] After 2015, the board of supervisors and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department still cooperate with federal immigration agents.

[22] One deputy public defender testified to the board: “I feel like you are making a mockery of my life’s work … clearly somebody failed to think this through.”[23] The American Civil Liberties Union has also criticized the appointment of Tinkham.

The court found that supervisors, all white, purposefully gerrymandered districts so that Latinos were a minority in each of them, a Voting Rights Act violation.

In early 2015, the board was to discuss and adopt a set of policy priorities and post them on the county's website, together with an explanation of how they would be implemented and a schedule of hearings so the public could weigh in.