Editorial: Pamela Price backers and critics should back recall reform plan
Measure B would fix Alameda County’s outdated rules exposed by current effort to unseat district attorney.
Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.
The effort to recall District Attorney Pamela Price has unmasked Alameda County’s broken rules for removing an official from office.
Of California’s 58 counties, 14 have their own charters rather than relying on state law to guide them. And Alameda County has the only charter provisions for recalls that are at odds with state law and current constitutional law, according to County Counsel Donna Ziegler.
That’s why a majority of the Board of Supervisors decided to ask voters in the March 5 election whether the county should instead follow state recall rules. The answer should be a resounding yes.
Measure B would not affect whether the ongoing Price recall ends up on a future ballot. Supporters and opponents of the embattled district attorney should unite to approve Measure B — to bring Alameda County’s recall process into the 21st century and into conformance with the rest of the state.
What Measure B does
Alameda County currently relies on nearly century-old charter provisions, some of which are unconstitutional under subsequent court rulings. Other provisions are simply not practical given the current size of the county.
For example, the charter allows election officials only 10 days to verify recall petition signatures to determine if there are enough to force an election. That might have made sense when the county population was less than one-third of today’s, and the recall signature requirement was commensurately less. But it’s ridiculous now, when a recall campaign could submit 100,000 signatures or more for verification.
If there are enough signatures, the charter requires that the election occur within 30-45 days of when the county Board of Supervisors calls for it. With more than 900,000 registered voters today, that’s too little time to prepare ballots and set up polling locations.
If Measure B passes, state law would provide election officials 30 days to verify recall petition signatures and, in most cases, for the Board of Supervisors to call an election within 88 to 125 days. That’s much more reasonable.
Measure B would also increase the number of valid signatures needed to qualify a future recall for the ballot — but it would not affect the ongoing Price recall effort.
For a future recall effort, the threshold to qualify would increase from 15% of votes cast within the county for governor at the last election to 10% of all registered voters. That works out today to an increase from about 73,000 valid signatures to 92,000 for a recall involving a countywide office.
That’s reasonable. Recalls should be reserved for truly egregious behavior, not merely political unhappiness with an elected official.
Under Measure B, if a recall succeeds, the Board of Supervisors would appoint a temporary successor who would have to then stand for election to keep the job. Under the current county charter, the replacement is chosen by voters in the same recall election — a recipe for political mischief as we’ve seen with statewide gubernatorial recalls, which include replacement candidates on the ballot.
Finally, Measure B would eliminate the ridiculous county charter provision enabling recall of appointed county officials, such as the county administrator, public works director, elections chief or county counsel.
Those officials should only be accountable to the Board of Supervisors. They’re not elected by voters. They should operate professionally without fear of having to fend off recalls, without having to mount political campaigns to keep their nonpolitical jobs.
Effect on Price recall
If Measure B passes, it would not impact whether a Price recall effort reaches the ballot. But, if there is a recall election, Measure B might improve when and how its conducted.
No matter the outcome of Measure B, Price recall backers need only meet the current lower signature requirement and election officials will have to operate under current county charter rules for verifying signatures within 10 days.
That’s because the votes in the March 5 election, including those for Measure B, will probably not be certified until April 2. Meanwhile, Price recall backers must submit their signatures to county election officials by, coincidentally, Election Day. So the signature verification must be completed before Measure B could take effect.
If the signature validation shows that the Price recall submitted enough valid signatures for an election, legal battles would likely ensue.
The possibly biggest legal issue would not be affected by the outcome of Measure B. Price’s attorney has signaled that he will challenge signatures because they have been collected under current county charter rules, which restrict recall petition circulators to registered voters living in Alameda County. That might be a tough legal hurdle because the U.S. Supreme Court has found similar requirements for circulating petitions unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, Measure B could have two positive effects on the procedures for a Price recall election if one were held. First, it might alter the date of the election. It’s uncertain whether it would be held on the county charter’s rushed schedule or Measure B’s more reasonable state timeline.
Second, it’s unclear whether a Price recall election would also include balloting for a replacement, as called for under the current county charter, or county supervisors would select the replacement under the changes of Measure B.
In both cases, Measure B would be an improvement. But it’s unclear whether the measure would affect those procedures for a Price recall election because it’s uncertain when the measure would take effect. Measure B does not contain a specific date it would take effect, only that it would be after approval by a majority of voters.
To be clear, neither procedural issue would affect whether the Price recall, if it has enough signatures, would go to the ballot. It would only affect the process that follows — and only potentially for the better.
The bottom line is that Measure B is a vast improvement over the status quo, ensuring a more reasonable recall process for the future. Voters should approve it.