In the weeks since the Alameda County Board of Supervisors proposed changes to the county’s recall rules, nearly everyone appears to have come to the conclusion that the amendment is a bad idea. Except, that is, the supervisors themselves.
The proposal seems to have been sparked by the contentious effort to recall Pamela Price, the county’s district attorney. But in an ironic development, neither side of that battle is happy with it. Supporters of the Price recall effort say the new rules create confusion and complicate their campaign. Price’s anti-recall campaign says the changes allow people from out of the county to collect the signatures necessary to trigger a recall election, which they oppose.
Meanwhile, government accountability advocates are unhappy with the charter changes because they believe they will prevent recall efforts against unelected county officials — under the county’s current rules, both elected and unelected officials can be recalled. And third-party observers say the timing and sweeping nature of the changes mean voters likely will shoot it down.
But even in the face of wide-ranging opposition, the board voted 3-2 on Tuesday to pass the proposed changes and initiate a special election that will put that question to voters in a March election — whether that would be the primary or a special election has not been decided.
“I just want to state for the record that I view this as a parallel process, I don’t view this as an interference with the (Price) recall election,” said Supervisor Elisa Marquez prior to the vote. “What we’re doing today is putting the question on the ballot. It is up to the voters to decide if they agree with this, or that they don’t.”
The issue was first raised to the board in October, when county counsel Donna Ziegler presented a report contending that amendments to language governing recalls in the county charter were necessary to modernize impractical, outdated language.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’s recall procedures.
That prompted outrage from groups in the midst of pursuing a recall effort against Price, the reform-minded district attorney who has been criticized for ethical concerns and her approach to sentencing.
Next, critics of the recall changes raised the concern that a proposed amendment would protect appointed county officials, such as the county counsel, from a recall campaign. That cudgel, although infrequently used, would disappear under the revised language.
In the hours leading up to the vote, groups for and against the Price recall effort put out competing statements. Notably, they both disagreed with the amendment efforts.
Price’s campaign attorney said the recall change would eliminate the requirement that those circulating recall petitions must be registered voters in the county. SAFE, a coalition of residents intent on recalling Price, said that the board must “respect the democratic process” and commit to sticking with the current rules.
Even independent observers who see the need to revise certain aspects of the county charter’s recall language say the move is a poor plan. Joshua Spivak, a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center and the author of a book on recall elections, said the amendment process should have been more precise, rather than a complete replacement of the current language with state procedures, to address outdated or problematic language.
“This is not the moment to be playing around, when you have your first actual serious recall campaign going on,” Spivak said. “You’re definitely setting yourself up to fail.”
In Spivak’s view, voters are unafraid to oppose ballot measures such as these, especially ones that have faced so much blowback. At the meeting on Tuesday, Supervisor Nate Miley raised a similar concern in opposing the recall changes, arguing that the criticism the amendment has faced, valid or invalid, will make voters wary of the ballot measure.
If that happens, the county will soon be back at square one.
“I could be wrong, and if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But if I’m right, the public is going to vote down the charter amendment,” Miley said. “I don’t think that’s in the public good.”
Source: www.mercurynews.com