|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to hold a special election in March to ask voters to approve a temporary amendment to the county charter that would give the board the power to remove Sheriff Christina Corpus, who has come under fire in recent months on claims of racism, homophobia and abuse of power.
The decision was made at the board’s Nov. 19 meeting, just one day after federal and state legislators joined the board to ask Corpus to resign. This organization has also asked Corpus to resign.
“It does not benefit our community to have the type of chaos we see happening right now at the Sheriff’s Office,” said District 1 Supervisor Noelia Corzo. “Right now, what’s happening at our Sheriff’s Office is negatively impacting public safety.”
The board has been calling on Corpus to resign following the release of a report from a county-commissioned independent investigation by Judge LaDoris Cordell that details alleged retaliation and abuse of power in her office, an alleged multi-year affair between Corpus and her chief of staff, Victor Aenlle and possible illegal activity.
“Today’s vote by the Board of Supervisors was wrongheaded and anti-democratic,” said Corpus in a press release on Tuesday afternoon. “If you want a sheriff out, you hold a recall. This is a shameful attempt at a takeover of this office so they can pick and choose who will serve as sheriff now and into the future.”
‘Today’s vote by the Board of Supervisors was wrongheaded and anti-democratic.’
Sheriff christina corpus
Corpus has said in multiple press conferences that she will not resign, and as she is an elected official, the board of supervisors currently has no power to remove her from office.
However, the charter amendment proposed by the board of supervisors, if passed by San Mateo County voters, would grant them that power under certain circumstances. As written, the charter amendment would allow the board to remove a sheriff by a four-fifths vote after the sheriff has been provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend themself to the board.
Under this charter amendment, the board could only vote to remove a sheriff under certain circumstances, including violation of any law related to the performance of a sheriff’s duties, “flagrant or repeated neglect” of a sheriff’s duties, misappropriation of public funds or property, willful falsification of a relevant official statement of document or obstruction of any investigation into the conduct of a sheriff as defined by applicable federal, state and local laws.
District 3 Supervisor Ray Mueller said during Tuesday’s board meeting that the grant of power to the board would be specific to “this immediate crisis,” rather than a permanent change to the county charter. If passed by voters on March 4, 2025, the amendment to the county charter would sunset at the time of the next general election in 2028.
“Given the short schedule for debate of this charter amendment — and it’s an incredibly abbreviated schedule — … it seems most reasonable to fashion the amendment in a way best characterized as a temporary grant of power to protect the public safety, rather than a more permanent change to the charter that some would allege was using this instance as a power grab,” said Mueller.
For Corpus to be removed from office, she herself would have to resign or be forced to vacate her position by a voter-initiated recall election, she would need to be indicted and removed by a civil grand jury, or the voters would have to opt to give the board the power to remove her. Corpus’ current term will end in 2028.
Special elections for both a recall or the county’s ballot measure would cost the county a couple of million dollars to stage. Jim Irizarry, San Mateo County’s assistant chief elections officer, said in an email to this news organization that exact cost estimates for special elections like this are challenging to estimate as there is little historical precedent. However, it is important to note that the two types of elections are governed by different sections of the state Elections Code, and costs would likely vary between them.
Irizarry said that the closest example of a similar special election would be the Sept. 14, 2021, California Gubernatorial Recall election, which cost the county $3,722,113 with 440,817 registered voters. This comes out to $8.44 per voter. As of Oct. 21, 2024, San Mateo County has 443,350 registered voters.
Los Angeles County’s Board of Supervisors put a similar ballot measure on the county’s Nov. 8, 2022, ballot to give them the power to remove their sheriff. The sheriff that LA County’s ballot measure was designed to address lost in the same 2022 election, but the county’s supervisors retain the power to remove any sitting sheriff for cause.
The California State Sheriffs’ Association wrote a letter to the board opposing the proposed ballot measure, arguing that giving the board the ability to remove a sheriff would “unnecessarily inject further political considerations into the work done by the sheriff and county supervisors.”
“Placing this power into the hands of the individual board members, coupled with the subjectivity of ’cause’ (for removal), disenfranchised your constituents’ votes and undermines confidence in the electoral process,” the group wrote. “Further lending to the concern about this ordinance is the fact that it only applies to the sheriff, but no other elected county officials.”
Tuesday’s vote was the first reading of the ordinance needed to place the charter amendment on the ballot in March. The board of supervisors will hold a second vote at its regular meeting on Dec. 3. Once the ordinance is approved, it will be up to the San Mateo County Elections Office to organize the special election.
Corzo and Mueller authored the ballot measure to respond to the findings in the 408-page report prepared by Cordell, which sustained 12 of the 15 allegations that were made against the sheriff and Aenlle. Last week, the board of supervisors unanimously voted to call on the sheriff to resign. They also voted to remove Aenlle’s position as chief of staff, but Corpus defiantly appeared at the meeting to announce a surprise promotion of Aenlle, her alleged boyfriend, to assistant sheriff.
“We have a sheriff that does not hesitate to lie to the media, lie to our community, to divide the latino community … so this charter amendment is something that I think the voters should have a right to vote on,” said Corzo. “Our sheriff was elected by the people, and the people will make the ultimate decision here.”
As of January 2023, 106 sworn staff members have left the sheriff’s office for various reasons, according to a statement by Corzo at the Nov. 13 special meeting to call on Corpus to resign. Most recently, Acting Assistant Sheriff Matthew Fox left his post just days after the report was released. Corpus also arrested sheriff’s union president Carlos Tapia the morning that the report was released for felony timecard fraud. The union says the timing of the arrest suggests “whistleblower retaliation,” as Tapia was one of the people leading the charge against Corpus and Aenlle.
After the meeting, Corpus said that she “will not be distracted” and that she intends to continue to change the culture of the Sheriff’s Office.
“My priority is public safety and that will not change,” she said in her press release. “I am undeterred. Our work will continue. The ‘Good Ol’ Boy’ system has met its match in me. I will not back down.”
At the Nov. 19 meeting, Mueller said that even since the report was released, the board of supervisors has continued to corroborate the findings made by Cordell.
“Unfortunately, the case against the sheriff continues to get stronger,” he said. “I don’t know if I am supposed to share this, but … the homophobic slurs text that she went to great lengths to deny … we have the phone now and we verified she sent that text.”
Previously, Corpus had expressly denied sending that text at a press conference on the day that the report was released, calling the screenshot “fabricated.” She has called the entire report a “hatchet job,” “biased,” and a “witch hunt,” and alleges that the investigation into her office was a “politically motivated coup.”
Corzo said that based on the allegations made and sustained in the report, it is important that the county remove Corpus from office quickly to prevent the county from being on the hook for more retaliation lawsuits.
“It is this county and this board of supervisors who will have to clean her mess,” said Corzo. “Whoever steps in after she is removed, they will have to clean her mess, and it will take millions of dollars. … Because when you actually have people being harmed, and it will eventually be proven in a court of law, the county is on the hook to pay out for all of those lawsuits.”
Support for the sheriff
At the meeting, several commenters expressed their support for Corpus and urged the board of supervisors to vote against holding the special election to give themselves the power to oust her. Several commenters also alleged that the report was biased against Corpus.
Joaquin Jimenez, mayor of Half Moon Bay, said that Corpus has improved community relations with police on the coast and alleged that the investigation into her was motivated by white supremacy.
“I want to congratulate you for using the smoke and mirrors; I want to congratulate you for using Supervisor Corzo, a woman of color, to remove the highest elected official in the Sheriff’s Department,” said Jimenez. “Yes, I am saying this. I am claiming (it is) white supremacy.”
Around 10 commenters from the North Fair Oaks community described how much their community had improved since Corpus took office and expressed their desire for her to remain in office.
Corzo and Mueller urged those who support her to read the full report and to “look at the facts.”
“You may have a good history with her in the past, I did too,” said Corzo. “I supported her. I believed her. I believed in her. She also, at one point, restored my faith in law enforcement, but when you are given new information and new facts you have to analyze that.”
Commenters also mentioned that the board of supervisors did not vote to remove former sheriffs Carlos Bolanos and Greg Munks when they were detained in a raid of a brothel in Las Vegas or when Bolanos sent San Mateo County sheriff’s deputies to raid a business that makes batmobiles in Indiana.
However, both Corzo and Mueller said that past board decisions were not up to them and have no bearing on any alleged wrongdoings being done in the present day.
“I have been in office on this board, and so has Supervisor Mueller, for almost two years — exactly the same amount of time as Sheriff Corpus,” said Corzo. “Ray Mueller and I were not there for (Bolanos or Munks), we don’t know all of the facts that led to the board at those times making those decisions. I was one of Sheriff Bolanos’ biggest critics, and I would have stood against him as I have to stand against Sheriff Corpus.”
Could she be recalled?
Some commenters at the meeting said that a citizen-initiated recall election would be a more appropriate way to remove the elected sheriff and that the board should let the county residents have a voice instead of interfering in the process of removing an elected official.
“The recall is your mechanism to take out an elected official — by the voters, not by you guys,” Kris Perez, a San Bruno resident, told the board.
‘The recall is your mechanism to take out an elected official — by the voters, not by you guys (Board of Supervisors).’
san bruno resident Kris Perez
Other voters expressed concern that even with the sunset clause, the board seeking the power to remove this sheriff would set a worrying precedent for future sheriffs and could impact how they go about their jobs for fear of removal by the board.
In response, Corzo said that the board of supervisors is doing this to give the voters a voice. Corzo said that a recall would take too long, and that the county’s ballot measure is a more expedient way to remove her from office that “meets the urgency of the facts that we are presented with right now.” A voter-initiated recall likely wouldn’t make it on the ballot until at least November 2025.
“A recall effort by the community, by our voters, would take nearly 45,000 signatures just to place on the ballot,” said Corzo. “If that is what has to happen, then I would support that, but right now, I see it clearly as it being our duty as a board of supervisors to offer solutions to our community.
“And honestly, March is not soon enough for what’s happening right now,” she added.
Developer Proposals for Downtown Affordable Housing Confirm This Project Is Doomed.February 9, 2026 9:01 am
Historic Woodside restaurant reopens as flower shop and cafe with Michelin cred chefJanuary 28, 2026 2:46 pm
What is the deal with the San Mateo Sheriff’s department? There was that whole crazy thing with the Batmobile a couple years ago with the previous sheriff – and now this? I thought we were fixing things when she was voted in.