Written by Magali Muñoz
The Alameda Board of Supervisors Tuesday evening unanimously accepted certification of the results of valid signatures submitted for the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price. The board will set the election date at a special meeting on May 14th.
Before the meeting, recall advocates and opponents held separate press conferences to make their case to the board and Alameda County residents.
Mr. Price has so far made little public comment about the recall, but he held a press conference at Jack London in which he announced that the California Fair Political Practices Commission had announced that the finances of the Alameda for Everybody (SAFE) recall campaign would be announced that it had begun an investigation. .
The political action committee (PAC) Restore the Bay Area is said to be the largest donor to the SAFE organization, contributing more than $500,000 to the recall effort.
“Between September 2023 and November 2023, [Revive the Bay Area] “He contributed approximately $578,000 to SAFE without following the laws applicable to all political committees in California,” Price said.
Price said the recall movement used irregular signature collection processes, such as paying collectors for each signature, and used misleading information to get people to sign petitions. he accused.
SAFE held its own press conference outside the Alameda County Courthouse at 1221 Oak St. in Oakland, again urging the board to certify the signatures and set a date for the recall election.
Their press conference quickly became contentious, as Price's “Protect the Win” supporters attempted to yell at SAFE staff and volunteers. During the event, chants of “Stop Scapegoating Price” and “Recall Price” continued for several minutes at a time.
Families of the victims asked the board to consider lives worth far more than the millions of dollars that many recall opponents say is too much to spend on a special election.
The Registrar of Voters (ROV) estimates the special election could cost between $15 million and $20 million, an amount not included in the budget.
The board was presented with several options regarding when and how to conduct a recall election. The date must be set at least 88 days or 125 days after May 14th. That means the date could fall anywhere from late July to September.
However, the county charter also states that if the general election is held within 180 days of the scheduled deadline, the board may elect to use the November vote as a way to combine the two elections. ing.
If Price is recalled, supervisors would have to appoint someone to fill the vacancy, but neither the county nor the state charter specifies how long a replacement must be chosen.
This appointee will serve in the district attorney spot until the next election in 2026. Then, if they run and win, or a newly elected candidate will serve out the remaining six years of Price's term until 2029. Price will serve his only term. District Attorney Wo's term is six years.
The board acknowledged last fall that it knew when Measure B, which would have changed local recall charters to align with California, was first considered, that the recall would come with unique complications.
Supervisors Nate Miley and David Haubert opposed discussion of the measure, saying the public would think the board was trying to influence a recall effort that had already begun months earlier.
“Ultimately, I think it's going to end up in court anyway, depending on who files what,” Haubert said.
Price's legal team told the Post that the district attorney intends to consider all legal options if a recall election is held.
Miley said that while he supports the charter amendment, he does not believe it is appropriate to schedule it for the March vote because it would ultimately cause confusion for all involved.
“It created some legal issues that I think probably could have been avoided,” Miley said.
