Measure B, to Change Alameda County Recall Rules, Leads by Wide Margin in Early Returns

Primary Election 2024 Live Updates: Follow KQED reporters as we cover election results from across California and the Bay Area.

Updated 12 p.m. Wednesday

Alameda County voters appeared likely to adopt California’s guidelines for recalling elected officials, replacing county rules, a move that would raise the number of signatures required to get a recall on the ballot and give local election officials additional time to schedule a vote.

Measure B was leading by a wide margin in early returns Tuesday night, a victory for the county’s chief legal adviser, who requested the change, arguing that the county’s rules, written in 1926, were outdated and contained legally questionable requirements that other jurisdictions had already rejected.

The rather technical measure drew little attention from the general public during the election, and no official spending for or against it was registered with the county.

Nonetheless, it could have far-reaching implications. This year, voters in Alameda County may have the chance to weigh in on several recalls of elected county and local officials, including efforts to oust District Attorney Pamela Price.

The campaign to recall Price submitted petition signatures to the registrar on Monday.

Donna Ziegler, the county counsel, who advises the Board of Supervisors, argued that adopting the state’s guidelines was an easy way to update the county’s antiquated rules and help it avoid lawsuits stemming from its registrar failing to comply with “likely unattainable” timelines.

Ziegler said Measure B, if adopted, would likely not change the number of signatures required to get the recall of Price on the ballot, but could change when the election would be scheduled.

Nonetheless, some supervisors have raised concerns that updating the rules amid multiple ongoing recall efforts in the county could create confusion and prompt more lawsuits.

Supervisor David Haubert and Board President Nate Miley opposed putting the measure on the ballot, arguing that while a change to the county’s recall rules was necessary, doing so amid several recall efforts was ill advised.

But Miley said that he ultimately decided to vote for the measure, despite his initial opposition to it.

“I thought there would be a lot of confusion among the electorate and they’d be campaigning against it,” he told KQED on Wednesday. “I also stated that I could be wrong and the way it worked out, it seems like the electorate didn’t get confused and there wasn’t a significant campaign against it.”

Miley called the measure’s likely passage “a good thing.”

Both the campaigns for and against Price’s recall have said they are prepared to sue the county should the recall procedures change in any way that negatively impacts their efforts.

Some opponents of the measure have also called it a power grab by the Board of Supervisors, as the new rules would prevent the recall of appointed officials, including those selected by the Board.

The cost of such contests is prompting a growing number of local and state officials in California to rethink how recalls should qualify for the ballot.

The unsuccessful effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 cost the state more than $200 million. And Alameda County’s Registrar of Voters estimates a special election to recall Price could cost the county about $20 million.

Last year, the state Legislature passed two recall reform bills. The first increases the number of signatures needed to qualify a recall and mandates that the estimated cost of the effort be listed on the ballot. The second bill requires that recall ballots only ask voters whether or not to approve the effort, but not additionally select a replacement candidate.

Those changes came ahead of conservative activists last week launching yet another attempt to recall Newsom.