|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has finalized plans for a March 2025 special election on a ballot measure that, if passed by voters, would amend the county charter to allow the board to remove Sheriff Christina Corpus, who faces mounting allegations of misconduct, including abuse of power and retaliation.
The board voted 4-0 on Tuesday, Dec. 3 with Supervisor David Canepa absent, to pass the ordinance to initiate the special election, which will take place on March 4, 2025.
While supporters of the measure, including the San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, see it as a necessary step toward accountability, critics argue that it undermines voter choice and sets a troubling precedent. Still, some believe that with Corpus refusing to resign, the measure offers the fastest route to address the growing concerns as calls for her removal intensify.
“For the people working at the Sheriff’s Office, this (March election) is far too late already,” said Supervisor Noelia Corzo, who co-authored the ballot measure. “They have already been harmed over time. … We need to protect them, and we need to do what is right for our community.”
In recent weeks, the board has been calling on Corpus to resign following the release of the 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.
The board also voted 3-0, with Corzo abstaining, to formally invite Corpus to provide sworn testimony and answer questions from the board at its Dec. 10 meeting. Corzo said she would abstain because she is “extremely concerned that even under oath, the sheriff will use (the testimony) as a platform to continue to lie.”
At a previous meeting, Corpus said that she would not provide sworn testimony to the board unless she was provided with legal representation. Thomas Mazzucco, a lawyer representing Corpus, appeared at the Dec. 3 meeting and asked the supervisors to hold off on voting to give her legal team more time to review the allegations made against her.
“The sheriff has not presented her side of the story yet, probably due to a lack of confidence, potential conflicts of interest, but we’re going to have a serious conversation with the sheriff about doing that,” Mazzucco said.
This news organization reached out to the Sheriff’s Office to see whether Corpus intends to appear at the Dec. 10 meeting, but has not yet received a response. As per California’s elections code, the board has until Dec. 11 to vote to take the ballot measure off the ballot and cancel the March 4 election, if testimony by Corpus changes their minds.
In a Nov. 26 letter to Sheriff’s Office staff and the community, Corpus denied the allegations made against her and said that she will not resign. 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 the power to oust the sheriff under certain circumstances, including violation of laws relating to her duties as sheriff, neglect of duties, misappropriation of county funds or property, falsification of official statements and/or obstruction of an official investigation into the conduct of the Sheriff’s Office. It would take a four-fifths vote to remove her from office, and she would have to be given the opportunity to defend herself to the board before they can vote to remove her.
The charter amendment would expire after the 2028 general election.
Following the supervisors’ vote, the San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association issued a statement saying that the union believes the special election is a “necessary, if unprecedented, step toward regaining trust and transparency in the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.” The DSA said that they “stand fully behind” the vote to hold the election.
Estimating the costs for special elections is challenging due to limited historical precedent.
Jim Irizarry, San Mateo County’s assistant chief elections officer, cited the 2021 California Gubernatorial Recall election, which cost the county $3.7 million, or $8.44 per voter, with a similar voter base of 440,817. As of Oct. 21, 2024, the county has 443,350 registered voters.
Opposition to the ballot measure
At the meeting, several commenters expressed their support for Corpus, alleged that the report commissioned by the Board of Supervisors was biased against the sheriff and expressed concerns that the ballot measure process was being rushed. Others expressed concerns that giving the Board of Supervisors the power to remove the sheriff would override the will of the voters.
“I am neither in favor of or against the current sheriff; I’m just concerned about preserving election integrity,” said commenter Anne Pat. “Why not have a recall election of a public official rather than going through this type of process? I’m concerned about setting a precedent for the future and giving the board exclusive power over an elected position.”
Additionally, 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.”
Supervisors addressed concerns about the ballot measure overriding the will of the voters, saying that the public would still ultimately decide whether or not to grant the Board of Supervisors the power to remove the sheriff.
“The public will have the opportunity to assess all the facts and circumstances and consider whether this is a power it wants to grant to us,” said Supervisor Dave Pine.
Supervisor Ray Mueller, co-author of the ballot measure, defended the speed with which the board is moving forward with the charter amendment process, and said that he is worried about the county’s readiness for a public safety emergency given the “dysfunction” in the Sheriff’s Office. He said that the board is moving forward with the special election to protect the employees in the Sheriff’s Office that have complained about toxic working conditions.
“Absent this charter amendment process, they would be in those working conditions, possibly until 2026,” he said.
The Board of Supervisors’ ballot measure, if passed by voters, would be the fastest way to remove Corpus from office, as the earliest a citizen-initiated recall could be organized is likely November 2025 or April 2026, according to County Attorney John Nibbelin. Corpus has four years left in her six-year term.
A separate movement to recall Corpus, which is being led by former SamTrans CEO and former Redwood City Council member Jim Hartnett, has been initiated. To get a recall on the ballot, the recall campaign must gather signatures from approximately 46,000 people, or 10% of the registered voters in San Mateo County.
I read Judge Cordell’s report. I don’t know how anyone could say it is “biased”. If it was, everything would have been sustained and there were things that were not. Overall the report was measured and objective. As to this measure undermining the voters, it doesn’t. If the voters want to keep Corpus all they need do is vote no on the measure and she stays in office. Something tells me that as more people read Judge Cordell’s report fewer and fewer people will want to keep her in office. I know I don’t want her in office, or should I say her boyfriend whom she basically turned over control of the department to, and I voted for her. My hope was she would replace a corrupt Sheriff and make changes. Nope, if anything, she’s worse. The sooner she’s out of office the better.
I supported Christina Corpus when she ran for Sheriff because I supported her platform to address the corruption in the department. No longer.
Judge LaDoris Cordell has an unblemished reputation for excellence, honesty and integrity. If you read Judge Cordell’s report (which is certainly not without its flaws), you cannot reasonably ignore the serious events and conflicts that have occurred. When you have so many senior, highly decorated, well-respected Captains who report directly to the Sheriff expressing their lack of confidence, that is also impossible to ignore.
I’m not sure whether a recall or the Supervisors passing this new law allowing the dismissal of an official is the right way to go. What I do know is that our deputies and citizens are rapidly losing confidence in Sheriff Corpus.