With recall efforts underway in Alameda County targeting elected officials, voters have approved a measure to protect appointed officials from recall.
According to unofficial results, more than 65 percent of over 228,000 Alameda County voters in the March 5 primary voted in favor of Measure B—a proposal that says those appointed cannot be recalled, but also changes guidelines for recall efforts for those who are elected.
While the change in the county charter—which is to align with state law—will not impact the ongoing recall campaign of District Attorney Pamela Price, because signatures were filed before March 5, the current campaign to recall Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao could be tested legally, as organizers are still gathering signatures.
One critic of the newly passed measure questioned the timing of the change.
“Doing this in the middle of a major recall is just asking for litigation,” Len Raphael, certified public accountant and Oakland resident, posted March 4 on X.
The new law increases the number of signatures needed to qualify for a recall election of an elected official and lengthens the time the county must validate signatures and respond to filings.
Many public commenters were opposed to the measure during board of supervisors’ meetings last year.
After meetings with dozens of comments from the public and debate between supervisors—with the president and vice president opposed—the proposal narrowly passed 3–2, which put the measure on the ballot.
Now the law will protect those in appointed positions including Donna Ziegler, the county counselor, who some want recalled. Some critics suggested before the election that her role in crafting the language of the ballot measure and supporting the proposal was a conflict of interest.
“County counsel is presenting an incomplete picture and being disingenuous,” Alameda County resident Jackie Cota said during the public comment portion of one particular board meeting in November 2023. “It’s very frustrating because it feels like counsel is trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes.”
One former congressional candidate expressed frustration with the process and the lack of public safety in the community, which some have blamed on public officials.
“Lawlessness in Alameda County while the Board of Supervisors works to deceive the voters … to give up their authority to make them accountable,” Alison Hayden, candidate for the 14th District congressional seat and third place finisher in the March 5 primary, posted Feb. 22 on X. “Only an independent audit [with] change of leadership will correct it.”
Supporters of the new law argued that change was needed to adapt to the county’s growing population and increased diversity and suggested the rules were meant for a smaller voter base and should be amended to resolve potential legal issues by matching state law.
“Alameda County’s recall provisions are outdated, likely illegal as written, and need to be fixed,” supporters wrote the county in campaign filings last year. “It’s a mess—and it will be challenged in the courts if we don’t fix it.”
Some suggested the county charter was unconstitutional and needed to change because it required signature gatherers to be registered to vote in the county where they circulate petitions, among other things.
But opponents argued the new law will complicate current and future recall efforts while creating opportunities for supervisors to reject public opinion and appoint officials that are recalled by voters.
“Measure B has a major loophole,” opponents wrote in campaign filings last year. “Supervisors could overturn any recall election by appointing the removed official to the very same position.”
