On Tuesday, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors once again took on the issue of whether the county should revise its rules around recalling elected and appointed officials—but the question has yet to be resolved.
It’s unlikely County Counsel Donna Ziegler expected this level of controversy when she first raised questions about the county’s rules last month, presenting a report highlighting problems with the county’s current recall procedures. But it soon escalated, as the report became part of the debate around the recall of Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price.
Here are five things to know about the situation:
1. The county counsel said the current recall rules are out of date.
Ziegler said the amendment to language governing recalls in the county charter was necessary to modernize impractical, outdated language.
In the initial report, the county charter’s current rules were said to include unconstitutional provisions, missing procedures, and unfeasible election laws. Ziegler recommended replacing the county’s language with the state recall procedures.
2. Amending the charter soon faced blowback.
The amendment initially faced criticisms from groups involved in a high-profile recall effort targeting Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price, who accused the county of changing the rules midstream.
The furor deepened when the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, a watchdog group, alleged that the amendment was a thinly veiled power grab, rather than an earnest attempt to improve the charter.
According to the Association, the charter amendment would have the unintended effect of shielding unelected county officials, such as the county counsel or registrar, from being recalled. A number of groups are currently asking for the county registrar to be dismissed over voting integrity concerns.
Protestors gathered outside the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, protesting the potential changes to the charter.
3. Even the Board of Supervisors is divided.
In a board meeting on November 14, supervisors disagreed about the timing of the amendment, and how voters might view it. Supervisor Nate Miley called it “confusing,” and said he didn’t believe the county should consider changing procedures in the middle of a recall effort. Supervisor Elisa Marquez said she was in favor of the amendment because it was clear the charter was outdated. Supervisor Tam noted that, if the board didn’t act now, other pressing issues could table the amendment permanently.
The board ultimately voted 3-2, with Supervisors Haubert and Miley dissenting, to advance a revised amendment to a second reading.
4. Supervisors will hold a final vote on the revised recall amendment at the end of November.
The revised amendment removed the word “appointed,” in an attempt to make it clear the new rules pertain only to elected officials. Supervisor Miley called that “bad government and bad public policy,” and said he was not in favor of an amendment that allowed voters to recall appointed officials in potentially expensive elections.
5. Regardless of what the Board of Supervisors decides, voters will have the final say.
Should the board pass the charter amendment on a second reading, a special election will be held on March 5, 2024, putting the question to voters. The public will then decide if they believe the charter should be updated, or left alone.
