California: Legislature passes law that could fast-track recall effort

The California legislature has passed a new law (A.152) that will waive the 30-day cost review process, allowing them to speed up the recall. The law goes into effect only if the money covering the recall is already approved by the legislature, which it has. Newsom now has the bill, which he presumably will sign. At the same time, Republicans are accusing Newsom of "cheating" in the recall. 

I'm quoted in the AP piece, and, as I've noted before, this seems like a poorly thought out move. Newsom may benefit from a later recall date. Even worse, the Newsom team has now given the recall proponents another angle to attack -- claiming a corrupt process. There seems little benefit to hand over this weapon to their opponents.

Virginia: More info on Virginia Senate President Pro Temp recall effort

A further look at Virginia's recall law and what will happen in the recall effort against Virginia Senate President Pro Tempore and  State Senator Louise Lucas (D) over complaints that she asked police to refrain from arresting protestors over the confederate monument in Portsmouth. Lucas and 18 others were charged with crimes by the police chief, but the charges were thrown out and the police chief was fired.

Petitioners say they have 4651 signatures, which could be enough (they need 10% of 46500 votes). I'm wondering how a recall effort on the state level will hold up in court.

New Mexico: State Supreme Court allows recall of Otero County Commissioner to proceed

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Michael E. Vigil has affirmed the district court ruling and rejected an appeal by Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin to throw out the recall. Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, was arrested for rioting at the US Capitol on January 6 and a State Court Judge greenlit the recall effort.

 New Mexico is a malfeasance standard state and petitioners claim that Griffin used the county office building to raise money for the group and pay personal expenses, as well as filed for improper travel expenses and accepted money from a business association leader as an offset for the expenses.

Two fellow commissioners, Vickie Marquardt and Gerald Matherly, has said they will support the recall effort if he does not resign. The Attorney General of the state has also called for his resignation. 

In addition to his participation in the seditious riot, Griffin has been accused of calling for the murder of the Governors of Virginia and Michigan, and called for violence at President Joe Biden's inauguration. 

Petitioners would need 1574 signatures in 90 days. 

Missouri: Signatures handed in against Nixa Mayor

Signatures have been handed in against Mayor Brian Steele over his support for the city's mask mandate to combat the coronavirus pandemic. Petitioners handed in 97 signatures and they need 67.  

California: Newsom Sues Secretary of State over failure to list party preference on the recall ballot

A number of stories out on the recall -- none more "own goal" than Governor Gavin Newsom suing Secretary of State Shirley Weber over the listing of his Democratic party preference on the recall ballot. Due to a change in the law in 2019, Newsom is now allowed to list his party on the recall ballot (previously, there was no party listed). However, he failed to file the paperwork that would list his party preference back in February. The lawsuit argues that the narrow timeframe allowing a party preference to be listed is arbitrary. We'll see what happens with this suit. 

California: Another candidate in the recall race

Another reality star (well, adjacent) Steve Chavez Lodge (former detective who is engaged to Vicki Gunvalson, a star of the Real Housewives of Orange County) is running for Governor. He is using the slogan of "Make California, California Again."

Wisconsin: Petitions taken out against four Mequon-Thiensville Board of Ed members

Petitions have been taken out against four Mequon-Thiensville Board of Education Members Wendy Francour, Chris Schultz, Akram Khan and Erik Hollander over distance learning plans to fight the coronavirus pandemic. Though the plans were for the last school year, and petitioners had an election in April, they seemed to focus on it now due to what they claim are results published from opening meeting request. 

Petitioners need about 4100 signatures in 60 days. 

California: State legislature move to prevent adding ballot measures to recall election likely to stop Orange County Supervisor term limit extension

The legislature is looking to ban ballot measures from the upcoming gubernatorial recall election, with would stop an attempt to get an Orange County move to extend country supervisors' term limits. The term limit bill has engendered significant bi-partisan opposition. 

Colorado: Avon City Council votes to appeal judge ruling greenlighting recall on June 30

The Avon City Council has voted 3-2 to appeal a judge's ruling that the recall against Mayor Sarah Smith Hymes and Tamra Underwood has met the signature requirements and will take place by Election Day. The court found that the undercount is now counted for purposes of the recall. Neither Hymes nor Underwood participated in the vote. 

Here's some earlier detailed coverage of the fight. I'm not sure what happened to the recall of Councilmembers Amy Phillips.

California: Conservative groups look to recruit tens of thousands for poll watching

Conservative groups are looking to tens of thousands of volunteers at the polls during the recall vote, with accusations that past volunteers of the group have engaged in intimidation tactics to suppress voting. Since there will be mail-in ballots, I wonder if that may matter less than in other places. 

Here's an editorial in the LA Times denouncing the attempt to spread the "Big Lie" of claiming any loss on your part is election fraud to California. 

Ohio: Newton Falls fails to schedule recall again, with November date rejected

 The saga of the recall of Newton Falls Councilwoman Sandra Breymaier (D) continues, as the council failed to schedule a recall for November 2, with a 2-2 vote (Councilwoman Breymaier and her supporter voted to set it on that date). The council has until July 6 to set the recall date.

The Ohio Supreme Court had previously stopped a June 1 recall election, holding that the city council did not have enough votes to legally schedule the election. It is now unclear whether the recall can go forward. 

The recall was scheduled for June 1, with a 2-1-1 vote with Breymaier abstaining.

In one of the previous failures, Breymaier's supporters looked to push the recall to the May 2022 election. This was rejected after Mayor Ken Kline (R) refused to let Breymaier vote and Breymaier's two council supporters left the meeting (and the law director was ejected). A different councilmember (who opposed the recall effort) resigned.

A previous attempt to set the May 25 election date has been rejected by the County Board of Elections because three members walked out, depriving the council of a quorum. 

There was part of a previous crazy scheduling event here, as the Newton Falls City Council scheduled the recall of Councilwoman Sandra Breymaier (D) for May 25, 2021. Breymaier's supporters looked to push the recall to the May 2022 election. This was rejected after Mayor Ken Kline (R) refused to let Breymaier vote and Breymaier's two council supporters left the meeting (and the law director was ejected).

The recall is over complaint of unprofessionalism, name-calling against the mayor and a vote in favor of smart meters. Breymaier claiming that Kline is behind the recall effort. Breymaier notes that she is a swing vote on the Council. Kline denies he is behind the recall effort.  

Newton Falls has an interesting history with the recall.

Colorado: Judge rules that Avon recall must be scheduled for June 30

A judge has ruled that the recall against Avon Mayor Sarah Smith Hymes and Councilmembers Amy Phillips and Tamra Underwood has met the signature requirements and will take place on June 30. The court found that the undercount is now counted for purposes of the recall.

Very interesting discussion in the Vail Daily (written by Tom Lotshaw) on the underlying issues in the court case over the recall. The City Clerk had found that petitioners failed to hand in enough valid signatures to he recall effort is over leaving a real estate transfer tax in place is still ongoing. Petitioners need 496 signatures, though it was originally believed to be 479. They missed on Underwood by 71 and by Hymes by 51. Phillips is up for reelection in November, so the recall was not allowed based on the grace period.

Because of Vail's election law, voters can cast ballots for four candidates. So there is a significant debate on voters that did not cast all four votes (the undervote). Here's the article by Lotshaw explaining the current court fight:

Each side points to provisions governing recall processes in the Colorado Constitution and Colorado Revised Statutes. Those require signatures equaling 25% of the “entire vote cast” for all the candidates for the particular office in the last preceding election, with that 25% of the entire vote cast then divided by the number of candidates who were elected to the office in that preceding election. 

 The town and the Avon Recall Committee seem to agree that 1,984 voters cast 5,276 votes in the 2018 election for the Avon Town Council, when Hymes and Underwood were elected to their seats. Disagreement seems to center around the “undervotes” in the election, and how they should factor into the tally of votes cast. 

 With eight candidates running for four open seats on the Avon Town Council in 2018, people could vote for up to four candidates. Not every voter cast all four votes, however, resulting in 2,660 undervotes. 

 The town of Avon argues that the undervotes, along with the 5,276 votes cast, make up the “entire vote cast” total used to determine how many voter signatures the Avon Recall Committee needed to submit. That results in the town’s calculation of 496 voter signatures. 

The Avon Recall Committee, in its answer to the town’s complaint, argues that the undervotes should not be part of the total, resulting in its calculation of 330 signatures needed to trigger a recall election. 

“Had each elector cast their maximum allowable votes for town councilor positions, i.e. four votes for four open candidate seats, there would have been 7,936 total votes cast for the town councilor candidates. Under that scenario, there would have been no undervotes,” the Avon Recall Committee writes in its answer to the town’s complaint, filed Jan. 11 by attorney Alan Sweetbaum, of Denver. 

“However, the town contends there were undervotes, which necessarily eliminates the possibility that there were 7,936 total votes cast in the 2018 election for the town councilor positions. Yet, the town contends that 7,936 total votes were cast for purposes of determining the number of signatures required to trigger a recall election … The town clerk’s miscalculation improperly increased the number of signatures the town claimed were required to trigger a recall election.” 

 Wisor and Sweetbaum declined to comment on why the undervotes should be included or excluded from the total vote used to calculate the signatures needed, with more filings in the case expected in coming weeks. 

In its complaint, the town of Avon argues that interpreting Colorado law for recalls and the “entire vote cast” as the Avon Recall Committee proposes would “violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because they require a town elector to cast the maximum votes allowed in order to have their participation in the town council election equally and fully counted for purposes of a recall.”

Tennessee: Judge rejects Nashville charter amendment election on technicality over date provision

A judge has rejected an upcoming July 27 referendum election which would have a recall provision. The judge's decision was based on a rule that required a single date for the election on the petitions, while he put two dates on the petitions.

14,000 signatures were handed in by an anti-tax attorney who is also proposing easing recall laws against Nashville city officials, with a charter amendment that will lower the amount of signatures needed to get on the ballot from 15% of turnout to 10%, expand the signature timeframe to 75 days from 30 and ban officials from running to replace themselves in a recall. 

There is a debate over how many signatures are needed. The city says that they need 31,212 signatures based on the November election. Petitioner Jim Roberts claims they should use the August election and the number would be 12,142. I don't think the judge has ruled on this. 

California: Nextdoor removes political ads promoting recall of San Francisco D.A.

Apparently the Nextdoor service does not allow political ads, so they removed ads targeting the San Francisco D.A. Chesa Boudin. 

Virginia: Signatures being collected against Virginia Senate President

Signatures are being collected against Virginia Senate President Pro Tempore and State Senator Louise Lucas (D) over complaints that she asked police to refrain from arresting protestors over the confederate monument in Portsmouth. Lucas and 18 others were charged with crimes by the police chief, but the charges were thrown out and the police chief was fired.

Petitioners say they have 4651 signatures, which could be enough (they need 10% of 46500 votes). I'm wondering how a recall effort on the state level will hold up in court.

North Dakota: Petitions approved against Governor and Lt. Governor

Petitions have been approved for a recall against Governor Doug Burgum (R) and Lt. Governor Brent Sanford (R). The issue seems to be complaints about the government's steps to fight the coronavirus pandemic, with complaints about being "not free" or "under bondage" for the mask mandates. Lead petitioner is Michael Coachman, who previously ran for Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor and Governor. Petitioners would need 89,464 signatures to get on the ballot.

Colorado: Buckhorn Valley Metropolitan District Board Members recall set for June 29

A recall against Gypsum's Buckhorn Valley Metropolitan District Number 2 (BVMD) President John Hill, Anna Maria Ray, David Garton, Jr. and Scott Green (a fifth seat is open) has been scheduled for June 29. Petitioners needed about 300 signatures to get on the ballot (40 percent of voters). They handed in 378. 

The issue is developer control of the community (petitioners claim the developers of the area have too much control of the board and its decisions). The cost seems to be about $65,000-$70,000.

Maryland: Recall effort threatened against Baltimore City Council members

A former Republican Baltimore Mayoral Candidate, Pastor Shannon Wright, is collecting signatures to use try for a recall against Mayor Brandon Scott, City Council President Nick Mosby, City Council Education Committee head Robert Stokes and Councilman Ryan Dorsey. The rules seem to require 75% of council members approve the effort. It's not clear if there is an actual petition or just an online one. 

California: Newsom Recall is a go; 43 verified signatures removed

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) recall is a go, with only 43 verified signers of the original petition asking to have their signatures removed. Petitioners needed 1495,709 signatures and got 1719900 valids. We now move to the next stage of the process and see if the push to schedule the recall soon happens. 

Washington: Judge deciding on potential Bridgeport Council recall effort

Hearings are being held on the effort to recall five Bridgeport City Council members over claims of negligence in filing annual financial reports. Unfortunately, the story doesn't mention the council members' names, but the current Council members are Matthew Schuh, Mike Bjornstad, Jacqueline Hentges, Esiquio Martinez and Sergio Orozco (no word on a recall against Mayor Janet Conklin). Washington is a Malfeasance Standard state, so the judges has to decided if the claims are enough to get a recall on the ballot. Additionally, four members are facing elections in November, which may hit the grace period preventing a recall from occurring.