Recall election set: Voters to decide on Nov. 5 whether to oust Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price from office
Alameda County voters will decide in November whether to recall District Attorney Pamela Price, after the county’s supervisors opted against spending up to $20 million this summer on special election with little — if any — precedent in the county’s history.
Rather than rush the question before voters, the county’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday opted to place the recall question on the Nov. 5 ballot alongside an expected rematch between the nation’s last two presidents as well as a wealth of state and local races.
The move falls in line with the recommendation by Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis, who offered a laundry list of reasons for pushing the question out six months. Chief among those was the expected price tag to hold a special election in August or September: estimates ranged from $15 million to $20 million.
That’s a particularly difficult ask, some supervisors said, given how the county faces a looming $68 million budget deficit over the next fiscal year, which begins July 1. And the county may have to funnel tens of millions of additional dollars to the Alameda Health System, which faces its own yawning deficit.
“The bottom line is the fact that I can’t, in good conscience, support a special election that’s going to cost the county nearly $20 million,” said Nate Miley, the board’s president, adding such a move “would be irresponsible on my part.”
Supervisor Elisa Márquez also said she wanted the recall question to be posed in a general election, similarly to how Price was elected in 2022, given how more voters typically cast ballots in such contests.
Yet Supervisor Keith Carson went farther, questioning the wisdom of booting a district attorney from office so soon after having been elected — particularly when that one person is just one cog in a complicated legal system with so many moving parts.
“To hold one individual completely responsible for all aspects of the system, respecting your belief or your feelings, that’s not how our system operates,” Carson said. He referenced how he first heard calls for Price’s recall barely three months after she was sworn into office, adding that “regardless as to whether I support her or not, whoever that DA is, whoever that person is who has been duly elected, I think they deserve at least a reasonable period of time in order to figure out what their job entails.”
The vote was 3-0. Supervisors David Haubert and Lena Tam were not present for the vote.
After the board’s vote, organizers of the recall effort expressed confidence that voters would boot Price from office in November. For weeks, the recall’s supporters had implored the county’s supervisors to get the question before voters as soon as possible, arguing the potential $20 million price tag paled in comparison to the impact of Price’s policies.
“As long as there’s an election, that’s most important,” said Carl Chan, a recall organizer and Oakland Chinatown leader who vowed that the campaign would be “very successful” come Nov. 5.
The district attorney’s campaign announced it would host a press conference Wednesday concerning the board’s vote. In doing so, it framed the board’s decision as “a win,” because it “will see more voters casting ballots and provide more time for the electorate to be informed with the facts.”
Moments after the board’s vote, supporters of the district attorney again decried the sheer prospect of a recall election, calling it “illegitimate.” They repeated claims from Price’s campaign that the county did not properly follow election laws in verifying recall petition signatures.
Ahead of the board’s decision, Price’s supporters used the public comment section to decry the expected cost of a special election, and bemoaned the notion that less people might turn out to vote over the summer than during a general election featuring a race for the White House. They called the notion of a recall election so soon into Price’s first term a “travesty,” and stressed that she needed more time to implement her policies and make an impact on crime rates across the East Bay.
“It is basically scapegoating DA Price,” said a caller identified as Ginny Madsen. “I’m incensed that an expensive special election is even being considered. A special election is intended to skew the turnout … and will be a disservice to the county. Please don’t set a dangerous precedent, which I believe everyone will eventually regret.”
Yet backers of the recall effort, also speaking during public comment, railed against Price’s efforts to reimagine the East Bay’s criminal justice system, calling her approach too lenient on crime.
“What’s the cost of a life? Is there really a price?” asked Elizabeth Kenney, an Oakland resident. “Please honor the lives of the victims, and the victims of violent crime, and give us a special election now.”
Over and over, the price tag of a special election was a constant theme Tuesday.
Ahead of the board’s vote, Dupuis said calling the special election would cost the county $19 to $21 a voter to pay for postage costs, as well as hire up to 400 new staff and 1,700 election workers to help mail ballots and staff voting centers. That compares to the price tag of a general election: which can be as low as $4 to $6 per person, Dupuis said, largely because the county is able to split those costs with other municipalities and governments.
Dupius also warned that conducting a special election in August or September could leave the county at risk of not having its election equipment ready in time for the November election. That’s because the equipment would need to be decommissioned and re-certified in the span of just a couple months. And if anyone chooses to file a lawsuit contesting the results, the equipment could become completely unavailable.
“We have just enough equipment to hold a countywide election once,” Dupuis said. “We don’t have enough equipment to hold two county-wide elections.”
The recall’s organizers appear to be heading into the six-month recall race with a significant fundraising edge. Donations to the two leading political organizations fueling the recall effort have dwarfed those going directly to Price’s “Protect the Win” campaign since last summer, campaign finance filings show.
The recall campaign, known as Save Alameda For Everyone, brought in nearly $569,000 in contributions during the first three months of 2024, according to campaign finance forms filed May 1. That’s in addition to the roughly $1.1 million that it raised in 2023.
Much of that money has come from a single political action committee, Supporters Of Recall Pamela Price, which contributed $545,330 from January through March, along with about $694,000 in 2023. The group has since come under investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission amid allegations by Price’s campaign that it failed to properly disclose its contributors.
That compares with Price’s “Protect the Win” campaign, which brought in slightly more than $36,000 over the first three months of 2024. That’s in addition to the $82,000 in contributions it raised in 2023.