Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price is facing a recall election, marking the first in the county’s history a DA’s tenure could be cut short by voters.
On Monday, the county Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis said the campaign had collected 74,757 valid signatures. Price’s opponents needed a minimum of 73,195 to trigger a recall election.
The campaign turned in over 123,000 signatures in early March that the registrar attempted to verify through a random sampling method. This failed to yield clear results, so the registrar launched a month-long manual recount. As the Oakland Observer noted, the county charter only allows for 10 days to verify signatures, raising questions about whether the registrar violated local law.
Leaders of Save Alameda For Everyone, or SAFE, the organization that launched the recall last summer, celebrated the news in a press release that was published several minutes before the registrar confirmed the results.
“Today marks a historic moment for our community,” said Brenda Grisham, SAFE’s principal officer. “The resounding support for this recall petition sends a clear message that the people of Alameda County demand accountability and ethical leadership from their elected officials.”
SAFE is calling for the county Board of Supervisors to accept the certified results at their meeting on April 30, after which the Board will schedule an election to take place between 88 and 125 days. Depending on the timing, the board could choose to hold a special election or put the recall question on the November general election ballot.
Dupuis has previously estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for $15 million-$20 million if the county is forced to schedule a special election.
A former spokesperson for the campaign supporting Pamela Price directed comments to attorney Jim Sutton, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The news marks a major milestone for the recall campaign, which was initiated by Grisham and longtime Chinatown advocate Carl Chan. Recall supporters deployed volunteers and spent millions of dollars—the majority raised by a handful of wealthy people in real estate, tech, and the financial industry—on a professional signature gathering company. The campaign is continuing to fundraise in anticipation of the election.
The campaign’s supporters have objected to Price’s prosecutorial philosophy, which is opposed to using enhancements to increase jail time for defendants, and pursuing stiff penalties for youth offenders. The campaign has also attacked Price for allegedly engaging in nepotism and mismanaging the DA’s office, leading to the departure of some prosecutors.
SAFE’s leader, Grisham, has also made unsubstantiated claims about being threatened by Price and her supporters. Citing those claims, Grisham has paid for private security, which the campaign has partially reimbursed through a private security company Grisham established in January.
Supporters of Price argue the recall was organized before Price had a chance to establish a record, and that her policies and cases have been misrepresented by opponents and the media. Price has had trouble defending herself in part because she has refused to release records that would allow journalists and residents to evaluate her comprehensive record as a prosecutor.
Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College who specializes in recall elections, said it’s generally difficult to get recall elections on the ballot. But once they qualify, recall elections usually succeed in ousting elected officials.
“The success rate is quite high,” Spivak said. “Nationwide, it’s like 61% result in removals, and another 6% or so result in resignations. So you’re talking about a 6/10 or 2/3 removal.”
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors will vote to approve the certification of the March election results, after which Measure B will become law. That means that going forward, the recall rules locally will be the same as the state’s. The county registrar has already used elements of state law, creating confusion and speculation about whether officials are acting appropriately.
“Somebody could sue,” Spivak said, adding that it’s unclear how this would benefit Price.
