The voters of Alameda County will decide March 5 during the primary election if county law pertaining to the recall of elected officials should be amended to align with state law, after a series of contentious board of supervisors’ meetings resulted in a 3 to 2 vote in favor Nov. 28 for the ballot measure.
Also of concern is a perceived conflict of interest in County Counselor Donna Ziegler’s role in crafting and supporting the amendment, as the measure would make appointed officials—including herself—immune from recall if approved. Currently, appointed officials can be recalled.
“County counsel is presenting an incomplete picture and being disingenuous,” Alameda County resident Jackie Cota said during the public comment portion of the board meeting. “It’s very frustrating because it feels like counsel is trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes.”
Some took exception to how the issue was addressed in the agenda and of its proposed ballot title, with no mention of the change to appointed officials, though such is explicitly defined by counsel in a document attached to the agenda.
“Propagating misinformation to the public to curtail their rights to a ballot vote through false premise is unacceptable,” Ms. Cota said. “They’re trying to take the rights of the people away.”
Ms. Ziegler defended her support for the change and said voters would have the final say, suggesting that county officials could more efficiently manage replacing appointments.
“Because the board of supervisors is able to remove county appointments without the need of a costly election, it is reasonable not to make those officers subject to recall,” she wrote in a letter to the board supporting the amendment.
The measure will be regarding recalls of elected officials only, after the supervisors voted against including appointed officials in a controversial decision, earlier this month.
If approved by voters, the measure would adjust county law to address constitutional issues related to recall procedures and signature gathering—with county law mandating that petition circulators be registered to vote in the county, though U.S. Supreme Court decisions have ruled such restrictions unconstitutional.
The president and vice president of the board—Supervisors Nate Miley and David Haubert, respectively—opposed the measure, though their three colleagues’ votes narrowly overruled them.
Critics questioned the timing of the move, suggesting such is an attempt to “interfere” with recall efforts underway seeking to remove Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price from office. Signature gathering in that effort is in progress and expected to be filed early next year, according to organizers.
The ballot measure will not affect the ongoing recall.
Still, those involved in the recall are unhappy and say the issue will confuse voters, with many attending board meetings to voice their opinions.
Dozens spoke out against the measure, some holding signs reading “Recall Pamela Price” and “people are dying.”
Speakers repeatedly mentioned the need for voters to retain the right to recall appointed officials—with one suggesting that as some of the highest paid and “most powerful” positions, public oversight is essential to ensure democratic functions are secure.
“Many residents and groups oppose this amendment, calling it a blatant power grab that removes the rights of voters to recall appointed officials,” Edward Escobar, supporter of recall efforts and founder of Citizens Unite—a local public advocacy group—said during the meeting. “Supervisors, you need to step up or be prepared to also be recalled. You’re put on notice.”
Regarding the newly-passed amendment, one recall organizer who lost her son to gun violence said if the supervisors want to change how recalls are conducted that should be addressed after the recall concludes.
“This is the wrong time for them to even address this issue,” Ms. Grisham said. “They have created a mount of confusion with the community, because they have no idea what’s going on.”
Further complicating matters are details recently questioned by the legal team for Ms. Price, the district attorney currently under recall.
Attorney James R. Sutton sent a letter to the board of supervisors Nov. 28—a copy of which was sent to The Epoch Times—arguing that existing county law requires petition circulators to be registered in the county—one of the issues the new ballot measure seeks to change.
“The county does not have the authority to ignore this law unless instructed to do so by a court,” Mr. Sutton wrote. “The registrar’s office, the board of supervisors and all other county officials therefore have a duty to enforce [county law] and to invalidate any and all signatures on the recall petition against District Attorney Price which were gathered by individuals who are not registered to vote in Alameda County.”
Mr. Sutton did not respond to requests for comment.
While the statements suggest a legal battle over the validity of petitions and signatures gathered is likely, proponents point to prior Supreme Court decisions that deemed such restrictions as unconstitutional.
