Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Sheriff Villanueva Demotes Challenger Vera, Who Claims Political Retaliation

Eli Vera was once a favorite of L.A. Sheriff Alex Villanueva.
Within days of taking office in 2018, Villanueva promoted Vera two ranks — from captain to chief — and assigned him to oversee operations in the department’s most active patrol areas: Compton, South L.A., and East LA.
When the sheriff needed someone to take on the highly sensitive task of reviewing his decision to re-hire a former deputy accused of domestic violence and lying, Villanueva turned to Vera.
Vera and two other top commanders found the sheriff acted within his powers to re-hire Carl Mandoyan. A judge later overturned Villanueva’s decision.
But when Vera decided to challenge the sheriff in next year’s election, everything changed. Vera says Villanueva sent him a letter asking him how he could possibly serve as a chief while running against his boss.
Last week, the sheriff answered his own question — Vera could not.
Villanueva demoted Vera one rank from one of 11 chief positions in the department to commander. He also moved him from the Technology and Support Division to the Court Service Division, considered by some a backwater.
'Retaliation' Or A Reasonable Personnel Move?
Vera called the move “politically-driven retaliation.”
“I think what he wants to do is hurt my campaign in order to bring discredit upon me,” Vera told LAist.
The sheriff’s department issued a statement denying any wrongdoing. It insisted that Vera's claims of retaliation "lack merit."
“Although we will not comment on personnel matters, the law is firmly established that at-will employees, in particular those who serve as confidential advisers to an elected leader, cannot oppose him/her politically and keep their advisory position," it said.
The sheriff has the right to remove senior-level advisers whose views do not align with his own agenda.
"The sheriff has the right to remove senior-level advisers whose views do not align with his own agenda," the statement continued. "Who has ever heard of a cabinet secretary running a negative campaign against the president who appointed them?"
Lee Baca was a chief when he ran against incumbent Sheriff Sherman Block in 1998, although Baca resigned when he made the runoff against Block.
Baca won the election after Block died five days before the election.
“He is afraid of my campaign,” Vera said of Villanueva. “This is an intimidation tactic that has zero impact on me.”
'It Would Only Disrupt Things If The Person Disrupts'
Asked if it makes sense for a sheriff to have a top commander on his staff who is running against him, Vera said, “It would only disrupt things if the person disrupts.”
Vera said he has never been suspended or demoted during his 32 years with the department. He said he would review his legal options with employment attorneys.
Vera, who has served in several positions since joining the department in 1988, announced his run against Villanueva in April.
He argues Villanueva's contentious relations with the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission and the county inspector general have damaged the department, declaring that he wants to "restore confidence" in the office.
Besides Vera, there are six other challengers to the sheriff, including former Assistant Sheriff and current LAX Police Chief Cecil Rhambo and Sheriff’s Lt. Eric Strong. Enrique Del Real, Britta Steinbrenner, Matthew Rodriquez, and April Saucedo Hood also have filed candidate paperwork with the Registrar of Voters.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.