With signature collection efforts well underway, public protesters and organizers with Save Alameda for Everyone—a group seeking to recall Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price—spoke out at an Alameda County Board of Supervisors meeting Nov. 14 against resolutions the board is considering that would change the rules of recall procedures.
“We are going to recall Pamela Price,” Brenda Grisham, recall organizer and mother of slain 17-year-old Christopher LaVell Jones, told supervisors during the meeting. “You can interfere all you want to, but in the end, you’re going to have to deal with the citizens of Alameda County that elected you to have their best interests at heart.”
The measures being considered would replace a section of county law declaring California law would govern the recall of Alameda County officials, with one distinction between the two nearly identical proposals: one included both elected and appointed officers while the other only mentions elected officers, thus excluding the right for citizens to recall appointed positions.
Following more than an hour of comments from opponents of the proposals, supervisors debated the merits of the complaints raised by the public.
“I think at this point it doesn’t serve the public good or the public interest to move ahead at this time,” Nate Miley, the board’s president, said during the meeting. “We would be placing ourselves in the way of an effort to move ahead with a particular recall.”
Supervisors Keith Carson and Elisa Márquez supported the resolutions and argued that officials have a responsibility to act on the knowledge that the charter is out of compliance.
The president and Vice President David Haubert opposed both measures, with the first including appointee recalls failing, though all three of their colleagues voted yes on the second proposal excluding appointee positions from recalls.
A second reading is scheduled for the next board of supervisors meeting Nov. 28.
Critics say the timing is problematic given the current recall, while supporters say such is needed to address dated language—approximately 97 years old—that is out of alignment with state law.
If the five-member board ultimately passes the resolution, the matter would be put to voters during the March 5 primary election. Such would not affect recall efforts if enough signatures are verified before the election results are certified by the Secretary of State, according to organizers.
“We’re going to submit our petitions in January or February,” Chris Moore, a leader in the recall effort, told The Epoch Times Nov. 15. “Their change does not impact our timeline.”
He told supervisors during public comment that the group has already collected more than 70,000 signatures—approximately the number needed to qualify for a recall—and anticipate having more than 100,000 by December.
“We have more than enough signatures at this point, and we’re going to get more,” Mr. Moore told The Epoch Times.
Once signatures are filed with the county’s registrar of voters, county law requires timelines be met for certification, with an election required within 40 days after such—an issue that County Counsel Donna Ziegler questioned as potentially difficult for election officials due to time constraints and no training, as no recall elections in the county have taken place in more than 30 years.
Such is one reason why Ms. Ziegler supported the resolution seeking to change the county charter suggesting that aligning with state law will benefit the county.
Other speakers noted what they said was a conflict of interest regarding Ms. Ziegler statements regarding both proposed resolutions because she is also subject to recall—something she acknowledged with remarks during the meeting, saying that she never claimed her analysis was objective.
“Any county officer should recuse themselves from this matter,” one protester said during the meeting. “You can see that conflict in their recommendations and should consider taking this to an external legal source.”
While documents presented by Ms. Ziegler to the board informed supervisors that Alameda County was alone in its lack of compliance with state law, at least six counties in the state, many in the Bay Area, have language in charters that lack alignment with state law, including neighboring Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo.
“Your county counsel’s recommendation contained incorrect and misleading material,” protester Raquel Brand told supervisors during the meeting. “The county counsel misled you into thinking that we are the only county that deviates from state law.”
Some argue the measure is an attempt to exclude the public from making decisions and exercising rights provided to them by county law.
“These county charter amendments are a power grab by the Alameda County unelected bureaucrats, and the Board of Supervisors, masquerading as a modernization of recall procedures, which will obliterate the rights of the citizens of Alameda County in a clear effort of election interference,” Jackie Koda said during public comment. “The people have an expressed constitutional right to have their own recall provisions, a power that they’ve exercised for the past 97 years.”
Further complicating matters is what some called a lack of clarity regarding how the proposed ballot measure excluding the recall of appointees is written, with some saying its wording misrepresents its intention.
“The proposed ballot measure title is confusing and is misleading,” Hunter Cobb, of Alameda, told supervisors. “That omission would create prejudice in favor of the measure.”
Speakers also criticized the timing of the initiatives, suggesting that such should have been addressed before a recall occurred and not in the middle of the process.
Supporters of the recall say public safety is driving the fast pace of signatures collected, noting the fear and uncertainty many feel when doing routine activities like parking their vehicles or shopping.
Violent crime in Oakland is up 22 percent for the year, with robbery up 35 percent, and auto theft up 49 percent, according to the city’s weekly crime statistics.
“You all are responsible for law and order,” one woman, only identified as Catherine, told the supervisors during the meeting. “If you allow the breakdown of law and order, you’re going to suffer consequences.”
