|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
San Mateo County residents will be heading to the polls next year for a special election to decide the fate of embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus.
The ballot measure that will be put to the vote on March 4 — Measure A — would amend the county charter to grant the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors the power, until Dec. 31, 2028, to remove the sheriff from office for certain reasons with a four-fifths vote.
The board finalized plans for the measure following the release of a 408-page report from an independent investigation commissioned by the board that details corruption, abuse of power and more in Corpus’ administration. The board does not currently have the authority to remove a sheriff or any other elected official from their post.
While supporters of the measure 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.
The formal arguments and rebuttals, in favor of and opposing the charter amendment, are now available for public review on the San Mateo County Elections Division website.
The arguments in favor of the ballot measure were submitted and signed by U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, U.S. Rep. Kevin Mullin, Supervisor Noelia Corzo, Sheriff’s Sgt. Sean Harper (a board member of the San Mateo County Organization of Sheriff’s Sergeants) and Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew Silano (secretary of the Deputy Sheriff’s Association).
Dan Stegink, a rescue diver and resident of Pacifica, who has previously been outspoken at board meetings against the measure, submitted and signed the arguments against the ballot measure.
The proposed charter amendment outlines the reasons for which the board could remove a sheriff. Those reasons include 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 an official statement or document or obstruction of any investigation into the Sheriff’s Office, as defined in federal, state and local laws.
Before any vote for removal would be taken, Corpus, or any other sheriff removed under this charter amendment, would have to be given an opportunity to explain and defend themself. Corpus has previously denied invitations from the board to provide sworn testimony about the findings detailed in the report.
Measure A must be approved by a simple majority of San Mateo County voters to pass.
This proposed charter amendment is not unprecedented in the state of California; several other counties, including Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Francisco counties, have charter provisions that grant their supervisors the authority to remove a sheriff for certain causes.
Voters can begin mailing in their ballots on Feb. 3. Early in-person vote centers will open the same day in Redwood City and San Mateo. Ballot dropoff locations will open between Feb. 4 and March 4. The deadline to register to vote in this election is Feb. 18.
Arguments in favor of the measure
In the arguments submitted to the county, supporters argue that Measure A “provides urgent checks and balances on the Sheriff’s Office.” Supporters also argue that since the charter amendment would sunset in 2028, this action represents a “time-limited solution to protect (the) community,” rather than a permanent transfer of power to the Board of Supervisors.
Supporters of Measure A argue that keeping Corpus in office poses a significant risk to the county. Based on the findings of retaliation, abuse of power and racial and homophobic slurs that were sustained by the independent investigation, supporters of the measure argue that the county is open to “millions of dollars in liability and lawsuits.” They also note that mass resignations and lack of confidence in the sheriff by sworn personnel pose a threat to residents’ safety.
“How can we trust the sheriff to keep our county safe when the sheriff’s own team doesn’t?” wrote those who crafted the arguments in favor.
In a statement on Nov. 27, the two Sheriff’s unions, representing nearly the entire sworn staff in the Sheriff’s Office, urged Corpus to step down from her position, saying that they would no longer work with her.
The county is already facing a claim from a former captain who alleges that he experienced retaliation from the sheriff and her executive team after refusing to serve an internal affairs notice that he believed to be illegal and that he was asked to arrest union president Carlos Tapia without “any factual basis,” in an “improper and illegal” manner.
“Our community deserves better leadership, accountability and integrity,” wrote supporters of the ballot measure. “There must be consequences if a sheriff violates public trust.”
Arguments against the measure
In the arguments against the ballot measure, Stegink writes that it is “a political power grab by a few local supervisors,” and that the measure amounts to voter suppression, as it “strips voters of their power to elect an independent sheriff.”
“Don’t give up your right to vote on who will best protect your family and community,” he wrote.
Stegink lauds Corpus’ record as sheriff, especially because there were no homicides in the sheriff’s jurisdiction in 2024. Data from CrimeGraphics.com supports that, as of Dec. 24, there were no homicides in the county in 2024.
Stegink also wrote that the measure was “buttressed by multiple, intentional violations of state law,” would not survive scrutiny in court and would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. A legal challenge to a similar charter amendment in San Bernardino County ended with the Fourth District Court of Appeals finding that the ordinance was constitutional.
In an interview with this news organization, Stegink clarified that San Bernardino has at-large supervisorial elections, where the entire county votes on every supervisor, whereas San Mateo County has district-based elections, where only a portion of county residents vote on each supervisor.
“When you’ve got five people who have been elected by every single member of the county, it’s a completely different analysis,” he said. “I expect it to be knocked down in court. I don’t think it will ever make the ballot.”
Rebuttals
An official rebuttal to the con arguments was also submitted to the county, signed by former East Palo Alto City Council member and incoming Supervisor Lisa Gauthier, Assembly member Diane Papan, South San Francisco Mayor Eddie Flores, former State Sen. Jerry Hill and Kalimah Salahuddin, who is the chair of the San Mateo County Independent Advisory Commission on the Sheriff’s Office.
The rebuttal doubles down on the findings that surfaced in the independent investigation, such as a “culture of intimidation,” “conflicts of interest,” and “blatant discrimination,” and notes that Corpus had Tapia arrested the morning that the investigative report was released on charges of felony time card fraud.
An investigation by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s office found that there was no basis for the arrest of Tapia and that “he should not have been arrested.”
“These actions are deliberate attacks on the principles of justice and accountability,” supporters wrote in the rebuttal. “The board needs the power to remove a sheriff if it concludes these problems warrant her removal.”
Stegink did not submit a rebuttal, but in an interview with this news organization, he emphasized that the ballot measure is “a power grab.”
Woman arrested at Meta headquarters after demanding to speak with ZuckerbergJanuary 7, 2026 11:58 am
Startup founder jailed in ‘wild scene’ at winery allowed to exercise $1M in stock optionsJanuary 6, 2026 10:53 am
Corpus needs to be removed. This measure will do that. And it doesn’t undermine the voters. If the voters want to keep Corpus they can vote no and they will have spoken. It is only slightly different than a recall.