California: Deep look into San Mateo County Sheriff recall and the history of sheriff recalls in California

Here's a deep look at the effort to recall San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus and some details on the history of sheriff recalls in California.

I'm cited, especially on the fact that with only 58 sheriiff's in the state, it's not a surprise that there are few recalls on the ballot.

While there have been a number of recalls against sheriffs in other places in the country (I see 4 since 2011 that made the ballot, with 3 removals), none have been in California. KQED's Brian Krans said that the most recent one he found (and maybe the only one) was in 1976 against Plumas County Sheriff W.C. Abernethy, who retired for six days before being sworn in for his sixth term in order to collect his pension. He was kicked out (though it was a close 2% margin).

The Supervisors are looking to put a ballot proposition for a vote in March allowing for removal of a sheriff with causes, with a 3/4's vote of the supervisor's. The article notes how California changed the law in the past over this.

The recall needs over 45,000 signatures.

The issue is over claims of a work romance and a use of slurs.  

Colorado: Loveland City Council recall set for March 4

The recall election against Loveland City Council member Troy Krenning has now been set for March 4. Seems like the lawsuits against it helped delay the election date.

The recall appears to be over votes to remove the City Manager and City Attorney, as well as a rescission, that Krenning claims avoided litigation.

Petitioners needed 1615 signatures to get on the ballot.

Krenning served on the council from 2013-2017 with one of the recall leaders, former Councilmember Dave Clark. 

California: State Senator Josh Newman, recall phoenix, loses reelection run

The political career of state Senator Josh Newman (D) has taken another swerve, as he lost his reelection race (with significant opposition from a union). Newman is already looking to comeback. 

Newman was kicked out in a recall in June 2018 with 58% against, and replaced by Senator Ling Ling Chang (R). Newman had previously beat Chang in 2016 by 2498 and then lost a recall vote in 2018, where Chang replaced Newman. (Chang did not technically run against Newman in the recall -- the vote was an up or down against Newman, with Chang selected in a same day replacement vote).

The recall was launched over a gas tax and the Republicans push to deprive Democrats of a 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate. The Democrats quickly recaptured the supermajority in the fall elections.

Oregon: Josephine County Commissioner losing in preliminary totals

Josephine County Commissioner John West is losing in the preliminary election vote, which was held on December 17, with 62% against. The recall is over claims of insufficient law enforcement funding, defunding a service district and an auctioning off of timberland. 

West sought an injunction claiming that the recall handbook wasn't followed.  The claim is that they used a statistical sampling method to check the signatures (checking 10%) instead of checking every single one. Petitioners needed over 4500 signatures.

The recall is apparently led by former Commissioner and state Representative Lily Morgan. Both are Republicans.

One of the other Commissioners, Herman Baertschiger, was not targeted as he did not run for reelection. He did face a failed recall attempt in 2022.

California: Chief Assistant named interim Alameda County District Attorney

With Alameda County D.A. Pamela Price out, her Chief Assistant Royl Roberts has taken over on an interim basis. AS I've mentioned before, not sure how this works, but I'm pretty clear no one else knows either. The county will be appointing a more permanent temporary replacement, perhaps in February.

Taiwan: KMT locks out ruling party and passes "Queen of the Hill" recall provision in committee

No idea what this means, but the opposition  Kuomintang Party locked the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, out of a committee room and passed the recent push to change Taiwan's recall law

The law is a  "queen of the hill"  which requires the pro-recall vote to top the amount of votes received in the official's original election. The Central Election Commission notes that Taiwan would be the only county with such a law. While I can't say about countries, Idaho has this law. 

The current law which currently has a "absentee veto" requirement (25% must turnout for the recall to count), 

No idea if that lock out counts or if this will just be rejected on the floor.

Maine: Arundel's RSU 21 School Board member loses recall vote after she resigns

Though she resigned weeks ago, the recall vote was still held for Arundel's RSU 21 School Board member Kristin Shapiro, and she lost 171-3

The recall effort was over claims about behavior and the board censured her for comments and outbursts, though the precipitating event seems to be that she is also on the contract negotiations committee (with a contract currently in mediation), which has led to tensions between teachers and the board. 

Petitioners needed 231 signatures (10% of gubernatorial turnout) in 14 days. 

In 2022, Kennebunk had a recall against school board member Tom Stentiford, which he survived. Contract negotiations were also a major part of that recall.

California: Temporary Mayor takes over in Oakland

City Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas has taken over as temporary Mayor over Oakland, though it will only be briefly. Bas was just elected to as an Alameda County Supervisor, so she will be leaving the mayoralty fairly soon.

California: Alameda County District Attorney and Oakland Mayor ousted in recall vote -- questions on who will replace them

After a bit of time, we have the final numbers in the two big recalls of Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price, 375,442-221-285 and Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, 86,535-56,220, with both ousted. Who will replace them is the big question.

On the SOCOA Blog, I provide my thoughts on why the law as (re-)written has opened up a surprising path that was previously banned by California -- both Price and Thao could run in the replacement race and Price could even be appointed to replace herself.

I want to provide some more background on the history of how this came about and the decisions that made these two recalls so fraught.

The starting point here should be 2017. During the recall effort against State Senator Josh Newman, the state legislature adopted laws that I would say were specifically designed to throw up roadblocks to getting recalls on the ballot. Some of these rules padded in months to the process after the signatures were turned in, forced a focus on the expense of the actual election (which seems to lead to inflated cost-projections), made it more difficult for signature gatherers, -- including specifying font/point size, which is not done for other signature efforts -- and (in one positive point) allowed signers to withdraw their names from the petition.

This was not enough, though. In 2022, following the recalls of Newman, California Governor Gavin Newsom, SF DA Boudin and three SF school board members, the legislature passed two laws impacting the recall, AB 2582 and 2584.

The big changes with these laws is that they tried to do away with the replacement election model for local officials and judges (there's also a requirement that recall petitions now carry the statement from the targeted official). State officials would require a constitutional amendment --there is an attempt to pass just such a law for Gubernatorial recalls). Presumably, the legislature believed that this would tamp down on recalls. Officially, they focused on the partisan nature of recalls, though dedicated readers (well, spambots) are aware that is very much not why the vast majority of local recalls occur – they are really policy or personality-based. Perhaps backers of the amendment could also have been concerned about people who lost the last election and either want to take the seat or simply regain it for another official. That happens (not that often, but enough that it could be its own category), but it is hard to say that this would solve that situation at all. If (as happens not infrequently) one governmental body is divided, the lack of a replacement race could lead to their opponents making the appointment.

As I mention in the piece, a good number of states forgo the replacement race, though it does not appear to actually limit recalls. Oregon, which has such a law and has had roughly the same amount of recalls as California since 2011 (when I started this here blog), is a prime example of how this may not stop voters from seeking an early termination to a term.

So how does the new law work? It requires (non-charter cities/counties and those that adopt the state law) position be filled according to existing official vacancy laws. Most of these vacancy laws are written for other circumstances – resignations, deaths or election to other offices. In those case, an election cannot be held concurrently with the original election. This leads to a nice delay between the election and the replacement.

But the way this law was written creates a hole – can someone run to replace themselves? The law now appears to do try to do two things at once. The 2022 change outright deleted the old Section 11381(b) dealing with local elections. The old 11381(c) is now (b) and seems to bar self-replacement, and reads “No person whose recall is being sought may be a candidate to succeed himself or herself at a recall election.”

However, right in the next sentence, the new 11382 specifically says “There shall not be an election for a successor in a recall of a local officer…” So if a jurisdiction like Oakland and Alameda mandate a vote for the replacement, is it a recall or is it simply a regular run-of-the-mill special election vacancy that is “filled according to the law”? If it is not a recall election – as the plain language clearly says – should Thao and Price be able to run in the replacement race?

The new law kicks it back to the local laws for the replacement procedure, and both Alameda’s and Oakland’s charters say nothing about barring recalled officials from replacing themselves.

Looking back, the earliest recall laws in California used a snap election method (similar to Wisconsin and as used in the UK and Canada) and the official facing the recall was automatically included on the ballot. Modesto seems to be the first city to the “yes/no” ballot question rather than a new election. Oakland seems to be the first city that combined the recall question and replacement vote into a one-day procedure and, at the time, allowed the official to replacement themselves.

As I note in the SOCOA blog post, the Partnoy v. Shelley (2003) ruling rejected the idea that the “recall and the successor election are in fact the same process” holding that it “cannot be contended that the incumbent is, in effect, on the same ballot as the potential successors.” The Court goes on to rule “that the words ‘recall election’ in California Elections Code section 11383 refers to the ‘yes or ‘no’ vote for or against recalling the incumbent official.” There is a discussion of how the law was written in 1911, but frankly, I don't see it in Franklin Hichborn's Story of the Session of the California Legislature 1911. There is also a look back at the 1974 amendment to the recall that took much of the text out of the California Constitution, though nothing that seems that pertinent to an answer.

 Note also that the California Fair Political Practices Commission holds (for state recalls) that they are two distinct parts of the same coin, with the recall portion deemed a ballot measure (and therefore there is no limit on fundraising/donations) and the second replacement part is a candidate election. It’s not clear how it would treat the second replacement part if there is no election.

Oakland has a weird mayoral carousel, which, thanks to the success of Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas, will lead to four mayors in a short time. But the city has been linked up to the state recall law for some time.

Alameda was a different story. It had its own recall law, but it was a bit of a Home Run Baker situation, with a law that officials claimed would not work – like a very short timeframe to count the signatures. They pushed for Measure B and, once that passed, picked and chose from the laws to delay the recall until Election Day.   

One fact that is interesting is that Price was apparently the first District Attorney in the County to originally win the office in an election rather than be appointed and then win in subsequent races. There were appointive replacements in 1994 and 2009. Another is that the law was changed to put the District Attorney election on the same time frame as the Presidential election, thereby giving Price a potential six year term.

There is another question that has a significant impact for Californians – can an official be reappointed to the position. It seems unlikely given the political risks to the supervisors. But, as I note, there are examples from other states. In California, there are many jurisdictions – especially the schools boards – that require replacement by appointment. Allowing self-replacement by appointment could lead to exactly the type of chaos that the original provision was designed to avoid.  There are also issues with when the official is out of office, though this is no longer applicable with Price.

All of this may sound strange, but California once had such laws and other states permit recalled officials to run to replace themselves — and some have succeeded. For example, the mayor of Fall River, Massachusetts, did so in 2019, losing the recall and winning the same-day replacement race. In the early days of the recall, California localities allowed self-replacement, and Oakland itself once had this very provision. For the reappointment, we saw an example this year in Oregon, where three Kings City councilmembers were recalled, and one of the ousted officials was chosen as a replacement for one of the other seats (a court challenge is pending).

Nebraska: Recall effort against Kimball Mayor fails

The recall effort against Kimball Mayor John Morrison failed, with petitioners unable to get the 280 needed (petitioners claimed they were 100 down). The recall was over a tax levy, a claimed delay in replacing a council member and other general issues.

Colorado: Two Collbran Trustees recall makes the ballot

Collbran Trustees Matilda Evans and Lorraine Zentz will face a recall vote in early 2025. The issue seems to be how they were elected. Both ran unopposed and the election was cancelled under Colorado law. Petitioners seem particularly unhappy with the Town Administrator. 

Petitioners did not have enough signatures on the first pass, but they met the hurdle in a 15 day cure period. They needed 32 signatures. The recall must be held in 90 days from the January 7th meeting.

California: SCOCA Takeaways from California’s recent local recalls

 Here

Takeaways from California’s recent local recalls

by Joshua Spivak · November 25, 2024

Overview

There are two takeaways from this year’s general election results for the contests involving Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón, Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price, and Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao. Combined with the recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, these contests are a clear voter rejection of sentencing reform and progressive prosecutors. And obvious flaws in recent changes to recall laws at the state and local level are now causing headaches for local officials struggling to apply the tangled new procedures to these contests. The results show that attempts by elected officials to discourage recalls failed, that by bungling the reforms those officials made recalls more expensive, and they opened the door to some bizarre replacement scenarios.

Discussion

Strong signs of voter preferences

Voters have turned against the progressive prosecutor movement and its push for rethinking some fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system. The movement, launched with the election of Philadelphia defense attorney Larry Krasner as district attorney in 2017, initially scored some big wins with ideologically-aligned candidates winning district attorney elections nationwide. But Election Day 2024 in California highlights the movement’s electoral problems: Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price and Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao were recalled, and Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón lost his reelection race (after surviving a recall drive that just missed qualifying in 2022) — all this just two years after San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin was recalled. That might be the end of progressive prosecution in California.

Add the fact that state voters approved Proposition 36, which reversed the penalties lowered by 2014 Proposition 47 for certain drug and theft crimes. Proposition 36 passed by a wide 20% margin and undid Proposition 47, restoring some of these offenses to felonies. That suggests voters believed it was a mistake to reduce those crimes to misdemeanors, given the perception of higher crime statewide.

Suffering swift electoral losses is not surprising for reformers with new ideas, particularly in the criminal justice arena. The same fate befell past attempts to soften California’s crime-and-punishment laws, with a voter backlash following soon after. California has a long history of voter reactions to perceived soft-on-crime programs: witness the 1986 purge of the California Supreme Court after it abolished capital punishment, and California led the nation in experimenting with three-strikes-you’re-out legislation. District attorneys in particular have long been judged based on crime-fighting success and high-profile convictions. As with any other significant change in policy, softening criminal justice approaches is always vulnerable once challenges set in.

Nor is it surprising that voters deployed direct democracy against the nouveau progressives. The initiative and the recall are ready tools for voters feeling buyers’ remorse, and are often used by voters who fault elected officials for moving too slowly or for blocking specific policy. And they work well — since 2011 in California 79% of recalls that went to the ballot resulted in removal.

Progressive prosecution advocates may have succeeded in temporarily reframing the debate around criminal justice issues. But voters rejected those policies at the ballot box. These election results, plus other trends showing California voters trending towards more conservative political options, are perhaps a sign of returning to “tough-on-crime” positions.

The legislature’s errors make the replacements unclear

Votes are still being counted, but both Price and Thao lost their recalls and Alameda County and Oakland now need to use the untested new replacement laws. The legislature (in 2022) and Alameda County (in 2024) revised state and local recall law, substituting a tangled new set of contradictory provisions for what had been a simple replacement procedure.

In 2022, following recall campaigns against state Senator Josh Newman, California Governor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, and three San Francisco school board members, the legislature adopted AB 2582 and 2584. Those laws, coupled with a major 2017 revision, made significant changes aimed at making recalls more difficult to get on the ballot.^[1]

Those new laws also revised the replacement model for recalled local offices; the important revised provision here is Elections Code section 11382. California’s local official recall law is used by all non-charter cities, and many charter cities and counties also adopted it.^[2] Before 2022, both that law and the law for recalling state officials used the same replacement procedure: a same-day replacement race in which the targeted official is not allowed to run. The new section 11382 now uses a replaced by law model; the state official replacement procedure is unaffected because changing it requires a constitutional amendment.

Section 11382 refers back to local vacancy laws, with the office filled “according to law.” That’s the same law local governments use for any vacancy, and may allow appointment by other officials to fill the remaining term of office. There is no immediate same-day replacement vote. In some cases, as in Oakland and Alameda County, there is a later replacement election. Legislators argued that the change would make recalls less partisan (and perhaps hoped to discourage recalls in general), but that is not how recalls work.^[3] With most local electorates dominated by one party, local recalls generally are motivated by policy not partisanship.

The new rules have already caused problems: Shasta County recall proponents petitioned the governor to allow them to vote on a replacement, and in Downey a recall in January resulted in a city council seat staying vacant for nearly a year until the general election. The upshot is that the new replacement procedure is largely untested and unknown by voters, and experiments with it have gone poorly.

And if the intent was to discourage recalls by switching to appointed replacements, that was always unlikely; for example, Oregon has an appointed model and has nearly as many recalls as California since 2011 despite being a fraction the size. The incidence of California recalls looks unaffected by the change — 22 officials have faced recall votes in the two years since the law revision.

Next, let’s look at how problems with the new replacement procedure are playing out in real time in Alameda County and Oakland.

Oakland replacement issues

No one knows who Oakland’s replacement mayor will be. That’s because Oakland ties itself to the new Elections Code section 11382 — which, as a charter city, it could have ignored.^[4] This likely causes a revolving door of mayors and a low-turnout replacement race.

Here’s how it works. The mayor is temporarily replaced by the city council president (who remains as council president) and, if the next election takes place over a year later, there is a special election within 120 days of certification.^[5] The replacement uses ranked choice. The current city council president is Nikki Fortunato Bas, who appears to have won the race for county supervisor. She presumably will remain as president until she is sworn in as a supervisor, and then another council member replaces her as council president and mayor. Then there will be a new election, maybe in April 2025.

Oakland voters can thank the legislature for the added mayoral election expense — from a change in law that was touted as reducing recall costs — when it could simply have held a special election for a replacement at the same time as the recall vote.

Alameda County District Attorney

Alameda County has several problems. The county’s outdated recall law (adopted in 1926) set a timeline for counting the signatures and holding a recall election that officials claimed would be impossible to meet.

The county supervisors moved to solve these problems with Measure B, which aligned the county with existing state recall laws for local officials — the same laws the legislature recently changed. Measure B caused great confusion, leading to arbitrary choices by the county in navigating between the two potentially-applicable recall laws, and a long delay in getting the recall to the ballot.^[6] The county now faces three unknowns that did not exist before the laws were changed: when is Price removed, when does the replacement procedure occur, and can Price replace herself?

It’s unclear when Price is actually removed from office. Elections Code section 11382 says that the office is vacated once the recall is deemed successful, which may not be until the certification occurs.^[7] But Elections Code section 11384 says that the officer is removed “upon the qualification of the officer’s successor.”^[8] Neither section references the other, so it’s unclear when a recalled local office should be considered vacated.

Alameda County supervisors apparently intend to install a temporary replacement (term TBD), and then choose a longer-term replacement to serve until the next general election in November 2026. The county charter lacks a clear procedure here, so no one knows if that plan is lawful. If section 11384 controls, Price could claim the position until the qualification of a full successor. But the temporary replacement can also claim that they are the only replacement allowed until the replacement race. Litigation, anyone?

And the discrepancy between the old and new recall rules has apparently pushed the replacement race to November 2026. The former laws would have required a faster signature count, and the county clerk would have been barred from using statistical sampling — both factors produced a longer count time here. Alameda’s charter says that the appointed replacement sits until the replacement race is held in the next general election, which could have taken place in November 2024 if the process followed the older, faster timeline. Instead, thanks to the 2022 revision and Measure B, county voters may not get to choose a replacement prosecutor for two years.

Can Price and Thao replace themselves?

The new recall laws make it unclear whether Price can be appointed to replace herself, or whether she (and Thao) can run in their own replacement races. Under the pre-2022 Elections Code and Alameda County’s pre-Measure B law, the answer to both was an unambiguous “no.”^[9] The answer would be the same for recalled state officials, who are barred from replacing themselves.^[10]

The new law for recalled local officials leaves troubling procedural gaps. It keeps the old provision in section 11381 that “No person whose recall is being sought may be a candidate to succeed himself or herself at a recall election.”^[11] And the new section 11382 provides that “[t]here shall not be an election for a successor in a recall of a local officer” — but local laws in both Oakland and Alameda require a replacement election. Those sections say nothing about who can run in a replacement election, which is no longer fairly part of the recall election because the two are now held separately, perhaps years apart. That makes it unclear whether the local replacement race is an ordinary special election vacancy that is “filled according to the law.” Worse, both charters are silent about barring recalled officials from replacing themselves.^[12]

The upshot is that these recalled local officials might be eligible to replace themselves. There’s scant law on this. One decision during the Gray Davis recall in 2003 arguably supports self-replacement eligibility here: it rejected the idea that the recall and the successor election are the same process, holding that the recall election is only the yes-or-no vote on the incumbent and that it “cannot be contended that the incumbent is, in effect, on the same ballot as the potential successors.”^[13] Another case, decided on the statutory scheme for state officials, upheld a bar on Governor Newsom running in his replacement race.^[14] But both decisions were before the 2022 revision, so their effect now is uncertain.

Self-replacement may sound novel, but California once had such laws and other states permit recalled officials to run to replace themselves — and some have succeeded. For example, the mayor of Fall River, Massachusetts, did so in 2019, losing the recall and winning the same-day replacement race.^[15] In the early days of the recall, California localities allowed self-replacement, and Oakland once did too.^[16] So it’s not the bare fact of allowing self-replacement that’s the problem here — it’s that no one knows if that’s on the table now.

Answering the reappointment question for Price may have statewide implications. There doesn’t seem to be any provision in Alameda’s charter that bars reappointing Price. But again, there are examples from other states. This year in Oregon three Kings City councilmembers were recalled, and one of the ousted officials was chosen as a replacement for one of the other seats (a court challenge is pending).^[17] The appointment provision matters because many offices in California (school boards, for example) require replacement by appointment.^[18] If Alameda County sets an example allowing self-replacement by appointment, that could cause exactly the type of chaos that the original local recall law avoided.

Conclusion

Local voters in California have dealt a major blow to the progressive prosecution movement, but only time will tell if this marks its end. What is clear now is that long-standing well-established recall procedures are in a jumble. Thank the legislature for much of this unnecessary recall process confusion and the open questions about replacements, and thank your local officials for adding some extra complications. At least these “reforms” failed to protect incumbents from voter rejection of their policies. And that’s the ultimate point here: the fact that recalls are almost always policy-driven means that it’s difficult for any procedural changes to hide an official from voter wrath. The recall is meant to empower voters root out those elected officials they consider unsatisfactory, and it’s very good at its job.

—o0o—

Joshua Spivak is a senior research fellow at the California Constitution Center.

1. 
   See Ronayne “California Democrats again seek to alter recall laws,” Associated Press (June 27, 2021) for a look at the 2017 changes. ↑
   
2. 
   Elections Code § 11004 defines a “local officer,” and general local recall election procedures are in Elections Code §§ 11200 to 11242. The problematic provision here is § 11382, which provides: “There shall not be an election for a successor in a recall of a local officer pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 11200). If a majority of the votes on a recall proposal for a local officer are ‘Yes’, the officer is removed and the office shall be vacant until it is filled according to law.” ↑

3. 
   Carrillo, Spivak, Kaliss & Madnick, California’s Recall is Not Overpowered (2022) 62 Santa Clara L. Rev. 481, 494–95 (recall has not been effective as a partisan weapon; instead it is most successful at validating existing public policy); Spivak & Carrillo, California’s latest stupid reason for attacking recall elections, SFGate (Sept. 4, 2022). ↑

4. 
   See Spivak & Duvernay, Sucks to be you, general law cities!, The Recorder (Sept. 1, 2022) discussing the difference between charter and general law cities. ↑

5. 
   If the recall occurs within the last year of office, the city council president or an appointee (if the president declines) holds the position for the rest of the term. For some reason, while the city council president would then be allowed to run for election for a new term, an appointee mayor would be specifically barred from doing so. ↑

6. 
   Spivak & Carrillo, How Alameda Become Mired in a Recall Rules Roulette, The Recorder (Apr. 23, 2024). ↑

7. 
   Elec. Code § 11382 (“There shall not be an election for a successor in a recall of a local officer pursuant to Chapter 3 of Division 11 of the Elections Code (commencing with Section 11200). If a majority of the votes on a recall proposal for a local officer are “Yes”, the officer is removed and the office shall be vacant until it is filled according to law.”). ↑

8. 
   Elec. Code § 11384 (“If a majority of the votes on a recall proposal are “Yes”, the officer sought to be recalled shall be removed from office upon the qualification of the officer’s successor.”). ↑

9. 
   Former Elec. Code § 11381(c) (“No person whose recall is being sought may be a candidate to succeed himself or herself at a recall election nor to succeed any other member of the same governing board whose recall is being sought at the same election.”); Alameda County Charter § 62 (“The name of the person sought to be recalled shall not appear on the ballot as a candidate for the office.”). ↑

10. 
    Cal. Const., art. II, §15(c) (“If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.”). ↑

11. 
    Elec. Code § 11381(c). ↑

12. 
    Alameda County Charter § 60 (“Whenever a vacancy occurs in an elective County office, other than a member of the Board of Supervisors or Board of Education, or the office of Superintendent of Schools, the Board of Supervisors shall fill such vacancy, and the appointee shall hold office until the election and qualification of his successor. In such case there shall be elected at the next general election an officer to fill such vacancy for the unexpired term, unless such term expires on the first Monday after the first day of January succeeding said election. A vacancy on the County Board of Education or in the office of Superintendent of Schools shall be filled at the time and in the manner and for the term now or hereafter provided by general law.”). ↑

13. 
    Partnoy v. Shelley (S.D.Cal. 2003) 277 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1074. ↑

14. 
    Clark v. Weber (C.D.Cal. 2021) 557 F.Supp.3d 1010. ↑

15. 
    Rios, Majority of Fall River Voters Opt For Recall, But Mayor Still Wins Election, WBUR, (Mar. 13, 2019) (61.45% of voters cast ballots to remove Mayor Jasiel Correia, but in the five-person replacement race, Correia came in first with 35.4%). ↑

16. 
    The earliest recall laws in California used a snap election method (similar to Wisconsin and as used in the UK and Canada) and the official facing the recall was automatically included on the ballot. Modesto seems to be the first city to use the “yes/no” ballot question rather than a new election. Bird & Ryan, The Recall of Public Officers: A Study of the Operation of the Recall in California (1930) at 66. Oakland was the first city to combine the recall question and replacement vote into a one-day procedure and, at the time, allowed the official to replace themselves. Ibid. at 68, 71. ↑

17. 
    Sherman, King City’s appointment of recalled city councilor is challenged in court, Tigard Life (Aug. 21, 2024). ↑

18. 
    Section 11302(b)(4) does bar reappointing an official who resigns in the face of a recall, but that seems inapplicable here. Section 11203(a) covers vacancies arising before the election: “if a vacancy occurs in an office after a recall petition is filed against the vacating officer, the recall election shall nevertheless proceed.” ↑

California: Telemcula School Boardmember, ousted in June recall, wins back office in November

Big reversal of fortune here, as Temecula School Board President Joseph Komorsky who lost in a June 4th recall, was elected back to the school board, winning by about 200 votes out of over 16000 votes cast. The board now once again has a conservative majority.

Komorsky was kicked out over complaints about extremist views, including transgender policy, banning critical race theory and rejecting a textbook because of a mention of Harvey Milk as well as the firing of the superintendent. 

Washington: Yakima County Coroner facing recall threats

Yakima County Coroner Jim Curtice (R) is facing recall threats and calls for his resignation by the Yakima County Republican Party. 

Curtice admitted that he "was using drugs found on dead bodies and accusing his chief deputy of trying to poison him to cover it up." So far, no charges have been filed.

The first recall attempt against Curtice was rejected as factually and legally deficient, as it relied on news reports. Washington is a malfeasance standard state, so a showing of a statutorily delineated violation is needed. Here's a look at how the recall process works.

Colorado: Norwood Mayor survives recall vote

Norwood Mayor Candy Meehan survived the recall vote, held on December 10 as a special election, 77-58. Petitioners needed 11 signatures and handed in 30. 

It sounds like the firing of the Town Clerk and the resignation of the Town Manager and Deputy Town Clerk are the cause. The mayor was also accused of inappropriately using funds.

Texas: Denton City Council member facing petitions led by Mayor

The recall effort against Denton City Council member Brandon Chase McGee has failed. Petitioners handed in 2985 signatures and needed 2751. They got 2668, with 317 being tossed out.

The recall was over a failure to approve Planning and Zoning Commission members. A former Mayor led the recall effort, though it seems Mayor Gerard Hudspeth may have been involved. 

The nominee, Erica Garland, lost to McGee in May. 

They need at least 2751 valids to get on the ballot.

Nebraska: McCool Junction board member recall scheduled for February 11

The recall against McCool Junction Village Board member Patricia Wagner has made the ballot and is scheduled for February 11. The clerk is trying to make the election all-mail ballot. The recall was over claims of open meeting violations and abusive talk.

Petitioners needed 42 signatures.  

Massachusetts: Beverly Mayor and two school board members facing recall efforts

An attempt to recall Beverly Mayor Mike Cahill is up in the area, as the Teachers Association threatened a recall, though now that a strike is settled, it is unclear if they will move forward beyond the first step (the gathered 400 signatures to get there). They need 5998 signatures in 28 days to get to the ballot.

There is also recall attempts against School Board President Rachael Abell and Board Member Jeffrey Silva. 

Note that the Mayor's office was just changed to a four year term from a two year term, though November's election will be that first four year term vote. 

California: San Francisco Supervisor recall "reaps the whirlwind"

Some more detail on the recall effort against San Francisco Supervisor Joel Engardio over the city's approval with Prop. K of a new park on the Great Highway. The article (where I am quoted an called a "recall maven") notes that Engardio was a big supporter of the recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin (who is a constituent of Engardio and says he will vote against the recall). 

Proposition K passed with 56% of the vote, but in Engardio's district, the vote was 63.7% opposed, so real risk. 

The article notes that the Bay Area has had a boomlet of recalls.

California: Emeryville Councilmember facing recall threats

Recall threats are out against Emeryville Councilmember Kalimah Priforce over claims of ethics law violations. Priforce has recently been censured by the council.

Texas: Killeen Mayor and three Councilmembers facing petitions

There is another attempt to recall Killeen elected officials, with new threats to take out petitions against Mayor Debbie Nash-King and Councilmembers Jose Segarra, Riakos Adams and Ramon Alvarez. 

The recall is over development issues, specifically a rezoning of a road that could add 300 new homes. 

The lead petitions is former councilmember Melissa Brown. Brown previously ran against Nash-King for the mayor, but lost. It sounds like they need about 1200 signatures. 

Killeen Councilmember Michael Boyd is already facing a recall vote on May 5, 2025. Note that the recall would take place on the same day as the regularly scheduled election, which could result in Boyd facing a recall and reelection at the same time. 

The recall seems to be part of an ongoing fight, though the petitioner mentions (among many other things) a vote in favor of a new City Hall and a meeting with developers for which a disclosure form was not filed as well as violations of the First and Second Amendment. The petition itself seems to be a vague kitchen sink, with claims of failing to "listen to the citizens"; Violations of the "code of conduct" and "failure to meet primary standards and "abusing tax dollars."

The recall effort against Councilmember Jessica Gonzalez failed. They handed in 270 and needed 246 (50% of registereds). No word on how many were rejected. 

Pennsylvania: House Representative proposing recall law for local officials

House Representative Joe D'Orsie (R) is proposing a law to allow for recalls against county or municipal officials. Like a recent proposal in Oklahoma, this plan requires the House of Representatives to propose the recall, rather than a signature gathering effort.

The bill is being backed by the hard-right PA Freedom Caucus and seems to be precipitated by the vote counting battle in Bucks County following the Senate election. 

Note that Pennsylvania is probably the only state that has had the courts specifically bar recall laws. 

California: Montebello Councilmember ousted in Election Day recall vote

Montebello Councilmember Angie Jimenez was ousted in the election day recall, 2018-1155 and there is now discussion about how to fill the seat.  The recall effort cites Jimenez's absences from meetings, her vote in favor of a waste transfer station and opposition to the Traffic and Safety Commission reinstatement. Jimenez blames land developers. This article discusses out of town funding of the recall.

They can either call a special election within 88-125 days or appoint a replacement. 

Taiwan: Proposed "Queen of the Hill" recall provision still facing opposition in legislature

The recent push to change Taiwan's recall law has led to complaints about the  "queen of the hill"  which requires the pro-recall vote to top the amount of votes received in the official's original election. The Central Election Commission notes that Taiwan would be the only county with such a law. While I can't say about countries, Idaho has this law. 

The current law which currently has a "absentee veto" requirement (25% must turnout for the recall to count), 

The new proposal is backed by the opposition Kuomintang Party and opposed by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, so unclear how it would pass.

Illinois: Sangamon County proposes potential recall law against Sheriff

There is now a proposal to allow a recall law against the Sangamon County Sheriff. The county's Massey Commission has made this proposal, following an investigation in the wake of the Sondra Massey by a sheriff's deputy.

Oklahoma: Senator proposing bill to add recall for state officials

Unfortunately, I can't open this at all, but hopefully we'll have more info soon. The bill seems to be in reaction to School Superintendent Ryan Waters, who is calling for the election of district superintendents and has run into trouble on both sides of the aisle. 

Update: Some more info -- Senator Bill Coleman (R) is proposing the new law, though the provisions have not been submitted. He seems to want a version that would have lawmakers start the process rather than have the signature gathering effort. 

California: Los Banos Councilmembers lose recall votes in blowout

The recall elections against Los Banos Councilmembers Brett Jones and Douglas Begonia have succeeded, Jones down 2594-840  and Begonia losing 2699-608. 

Petitioners claim that the recall is over a decision to rehire a fired city manager, raise the base pay and settle a $1.8 million lawsuit filed by the manager. There's also questions of the departure of staffers. Jones and Begonia blame a developer for leading the effort. 

2006 signatures were handed in for Begonia (1706 were verified and 1404 were approved). 2252 were handed in for Jones, and 1650 were approved.

Ohio: University Heights Mayor facing new petition

A new petition has been taken out University Heights Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan. The first  recall effort failed to hand in any signatures. 

In that effort, petitioners claim it is over inappropriate behavior and defamation as well as a host of other complaints. Brennan argues that it is over the celebration of Juneteenth, which he claims are pushing to turn it into "Diversity Day" while Brennan notes that Juneteenth is a federal holiday, though petitioners deny this.

Petitioners need 1177 signatures in 100 days. 

Michigan: More Petitions filed against Flint officials

Back on the Flint recall case -- six petitions were filed against Flint Council President Ladel Lewis and 9 against Judy Priestly.

There have been numerous recall attempts that have failed including four against Lewis. The recalls seem to be about community grant program, approval of Brownfield Plans and how revenue is allocated and a power struggle.

There is a current recall just filed against Councilmember Tonya Burns.

The recall of recall of Flint Councilmember Quincy Murphy did make the ballot, but Murphy died before the election.

 making him the third Flint Councilmember to have active petitions outstanding. There are also attempts many other officials in Flint. The claim against Pfeiffer is "conduct unbecoming a councilmember."

A recall against Flint Councilmember Eva Worthing got on the ballot, but she did not run in the May 7th vote.  

Worthing called out four other councilmembers, led by Eric Mays, against whom there were recall efforts. The four were Councilmember Dennis Pfeiffer, Mays, Jerri Winfrey-Carter and Tonya Burns.

The anti-Mays forces claim that Mays and another councilmember called a meeting that they others did not attend over the question of applying for a community grant program funding. Mays has also been charged with disorderly conduct for conduct at the council meetings that has apparently gone viral.

Recalls were also filed against councilmember Priestley (with two filed against Priestly). Former Council President Allie Herkenroder already announced that she was resigning her seat last year. 

North Dakota: Dickinson Commissioner recall set for March 11

The recall election against Dickinson Commissioner Jason Fridrich has been set for March 11. The ones against Mayor Scott Decker and Commissioner John Odermann failed. There is a question on how many signatures were needed due to whether to follow the ND Code or the Home Rule Charter. Dickinson's Home Rule Charter required 15% of voters versus 25% in the state Code. The recall is over a claim that he did not properly take the oath of office.

Petitioners needed 724 for Decker and Odermann and 424 for Fridrich.

Here's an op-ed denouncing the recall effort:

What will we have achieved as a city? Nothing. What will we have gained in the process? A waste of taxpayer dollars, a black eye for the city and a dangerous precedent that personal grievances and procedural nitpicking can unseat anyone who dares to lead.

Recalls are a vital safeguard in our republic. But, like any tool, they must be used responsibly and for their intended purpose. A recall’s purpose is to protect citizens from officials who abuse their office or blatantly violate their responsibilities — not to settle petty disagreements or advance personal agendas. This recall reeks of the latter and should dishearten all of us.

Washington: Seattle School Board President recall tossed out under malfeasance standard

A Judge has tossed out the recall effort against Seattle School Board President Liza Rankin. The recall was over school closures. Washington is a malfeasance standard state, so petitioners needed to show cause. The Judge rejected the reasoning here.