Earlier this month, the campaign seeking to recall Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price achieved its goal of putting the question to voters at an upcoming election, according to a tally of petition signatures by the registrar of voters.
Now, recall supporters are trying to put pressure on county officials to schedule an election as soon as possible.
On Tuesday, recall leaders addressed reporters in front of the Alameda County Administration Building, where the Board of Supervisors was meeting. Speaking in front of a group of about 30 supporters holding signs, some of which said “Safety First” or depicted victims of violent crime, Brenda Grisham, a leader of the campaign, demanded the board use their next meeting on April 30 to schedule an election.
“Waiting until November is not an option,” said Grisham, referring to the possibility the supervisors could place the recall question on the Nov. 5 General Election ballot alongside numerous other ballot measures and races. “We need [Price] to go right now,” said Grisham, an advocate for victims of crime who has been critical of Price since the DA took office last year.
On April 15, Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis announced that the recall campaign had collected enough verified signatures—partly by employing paid signature gatherers at a cost of over $2 million—to get a recall on the ballot. It took Dupuis 30 extra days to manually recount the signatures after a sample method failed in mid-March. The Board of Supervisors met the following day on April 16 but did not schedule the election, most likely because the board required more notice to add an item to the agenda.
Chris Moore, a landlord who ran an unsuccessful campaign for a supervisor seat earlier this year, is now serving as the campaign manager for the recall. On Tuesday, Moore claimed the board should have set the date for a special election during their April 16 meeting.
“The board actually failed in their responsibility to set an election date—a special election date—and it should have been within 35-40 days,” Moore said, adding that he wants to see the supervisors take action on April 30.
The Board of Supervisors has not yet published its agenda for next week. If the board does accept the verified signatures at its next meeting, it could potentially schedule an election within 14 days, per state law.
Recall organizers hope to see a special election scheduled in the summer around July or August. But there’s uncertainty around timelines due to Measure B, which aligns Alameda County’s recall procedures with those of the state. Voters approved Measure B in March, but the results were only certified by the Board of Supervisors on April 16. The Secretary of State must still ratify the results for the measure to become law so for now the county still may need to proceed under its old rules.
If Measure B becomes law by April 30, the Board of Supervisors may follow state rules in setting up the next steps for the recall. Significantly, the state allows for 88 to 125 days to schedule a recall election, but a maximum period of 180 days is permitted if it allows a recall to be folded into a general election—which could happen in this case.
According to the Oakland Observer, recall supporters have alternated between supporting county and state rules. Last year, Grisham and her campaign co-principal Carl Chan objected to Measure B, saying the county needed to follow charter procedures. After the election, the recall campaign did not protest when the registrar took an additional 30 days to verify signatures when the charter appears to say that the registrar was only permitted 10 days. And when the registrar said the signature threshold had been met, SAFE initially announced that the Board of Supervisors should follow state rules by scheduling an election within 88-125 days.
More recently, at the April 16 board meeting, Grisham demanded that the county immediately schedule a special election using the shorter timeline set forth by the county charter.
Pamela Price hasn’t spoken publicly about the recall since Dupuis announced the verified signature count last week. But an election attorney who represents Price, Jim Sutton, has argued that the recall “basically violates the law” because the registrar didn’t successfully determine the verified signature count within 10 days, which is the timeline imposed by the county charter. Sutton, who did not respond to a request for comment, has not said whether Price will submit a legal challenge.
