A measure that Alameda County officials have argued is necessary to overhaul outdated recall rules for elected and appointed officials is on the ballot next week. But, oddly, none of the board members or county officers who chose to put Measure B before voters are publicly advocating for it — likely dimming its chances of passing.
“There are great arguments to be made” for the changes, said Joshua Spivak, a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center. “It would just be great if they actually made them.”
The origin of Measure B dates back to last October, when County Counsel Donna Ziegler submitted a memo to the board of supervisors stating that Alameda County’s recall procedures were archaic, outdated, and unconstitutional. At the time, board president Nate Miley said the county had been reviewing its procedures because of the high profile effort to replace District Attorney Pamela Price.
According to Ziegler, the county’s laws contained decades-old rules that were “a detriment to ensuring lawful, competent, and timely recalls.” Her report recommended that the county adopt the state’s recall language instead. That language would raise the number of signatures needed to initiate a recall election in the future by about 20,000. In addition, the state’s recall rules would strip Alameda County voters of their ability to recall appointed officers, which has not been previously attempted since residents of Long Beach tried to oust their city manager in 1922.
But that seemingly innocuous push to update outdated language was soon muddied by allegations of impropriety by those on both sides of the Price recall effort, as well as county watchdog groups who described the effort as a “power grab.”
After weeks of delays and accusations, the board in November ultimately voted 3-2 to advance the measure to the ballot box. Certainly a majority of supervisors think Measure B is important–and that its failure would have serious consequences for the county.
“Our board is saddled with a set of charter provisions from 97 years ago that are just not workable,” said Supervisor Lena Tam in November. “We’re basically trying to clean it up.”
But the question is whether voters understand the issue, and why the measure’s supporters are not making a bigger push as Tuesday’s election approaches.
Under the state’s election officials would have 30 days to verify recall petition signatures, rather than 10 days under the current charter, which Ziegler’s memo argued is far too short.
In a fascinating turn of events, that concern could get a real-life test in the coming weeks. Advocates for the recall of Pamela Price, who say she has taken criminal justice reform too far, are required to turn in the signatures they’ve gathered on March 5, the same day as the election. The county registrar will have just 10 days to tally the signatures in addition to presiding over an entire county election.
Although the measure’s success or failure won’t affect the signature gathering effort involving Price, it could affect how her replacement is chosen, if it comes to that.
Under current rules, her potential replacement would be chosen by voters in the same recall election. Should Measure B pass, the Board of Supervisors would instead appoint the new district attorney.
Still, there is some ambiguity, and Ziegler’s original memo does not lay out how a replacement race would play out.
In recent weeks, the Board of Supervisors has done nothing to clear up that confusion. Neither Ziegler, nor supervisors Tam or Elisa Marquez – both of whom voted to push the recall amendment forward – replied to requests for comment on the issue.
“That is the challenge here, you need to say ‘here’s what we gain, and here’s what we lose,’” said Spivak, the author of a book on recall elections. “They just haven’t done that work.”