Update: May 15: Good news. The recall election date has been set for November 5. “It’s a win for Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price.”
Last month, the forces behind the movement to recall “Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for an election.”
Before we go any further, let’s make one thing clear: There is no legitimate basis for a recall of DA Price. As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle last year:
“The online misinformation campaign against Pamela Price began shortly after her inauguration on Jan. 3. Price hasn’t been in the job long enough for her policies to have an impact on crime trends in Alameda County. But rather than engaging in thoughtful discussions about what the new district attorney is trying to do, her opponents paint her as a radical bent on destroying public safety. They’ve made her a scapegoat for problems she inherited in an office that, for decades, was led by moderates.”
Back to the present. Despite the dishonest motivations, the signatures were accepted; the next step is to schedule a date for the recall election. And, not surprisingly, another dispute has erupted. According to the rules (I won’t bore you with the details), a special election has to be held no later than September — unless the recall is included as part of the upcoming general election ballot in November.
Opponents of the recall want the measure put on the general election ballot in November. Proponents are pushing for a separate earlier special election — even though this will cost as much as $16 million more than folding the recall into the November election (which the Register of Voters says is not in their budget). So why push for the earlier date?
It doesn’t require much reading of the tea leaves to understand the rationales behind the differing positions. A special election will undoubtedly have a lower turnout than the general election — where the Presidency is on the ballot. The belief is that the smaller pool of voters will tilt heavily towards those who are most enthusiastic about the issue — for or against — with less informed voters skipping the election altogether. In any recall election, the enthusiasm edge is generally expected to be with those who worked to get the measure on the ballot in the first place — which in this case are those who want Price out of office. Hence their desire for the earlier election date.
However, as this KQED article points out, things don’t always work out as the conventional wisdom would suggest — and that DA Price is likely facing an uphill battle whenever the election is held: “The outcome of a Price recall may have more to do with whether enough people pay attention to the issue rather than when an election is held.” This is where money comes into play. Money buys attention. And the forces behind the recall have much more money.
Where does that leave us?
The Alameda Board of Supervisors is scheduled to decide on an election date when they convene for a special meeting on May 14. The added cost of the special election should, by itself, be reason enough to schedule the vote for November. However, whether or not that logic carries the day remains to be seen. Ultimately, according to the Oakland Post, the matter may end up in court before everything gets sorted out.
What you can do
It is our strong belief that mere dissatisfaction with an elected official’s performance, whether justified or not, whether based on misinformation or not, should not lead to a recall election. Such elections should be reserved for extreme cases of malfeasance, unethical behavior and/or illegal actions. The remedy for basic dissatisfaction with an elected official is to vote them out of office the next time they are up for re-election. Recalls should not become a tool designed to undo the results of an election that didn’t go your way.
If you agree and want to fight against the Pamela Price recall, you can start by writing a letter of support. In addition, you can donate to Protect the Win.
