|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Voters in a special election will decide whether to grant the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors the power to remove embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus from office.
Approving Measure A on the March 4 ballot will amend the county charter to allow supervisors until the end of 2028, which coincides with the expiration of Corpus’ six-year term, to oust the sheriff with cause by a four-fifths vote. They currently don’t have the authority to remove elected officials from their positions.
On Monday, Feb. 17, Corpus told the Almanac that the measure circumvents voters and she has no intention of stepping down.
“Measure A is a manipulation of democracy and the existing laws in place to bypass the recall process,” Corpus said in an email to this publication. “I will fight this injustice and not resign.”
Supervisors unanimously approved placing the measure on the ballot in December, following a 408-page report from a county-commissioned independent investigation that detailed corruption, abuse of power and other violations in Corpus’ administration.
The measure outlines the reasons for which the board could remove Corpus, including flagrant or repeated neglect of a sheriff’s duties, misappropriation of public funds or property, or obstruction of any investigation into her office.
Supporters of Measure A believe the initiative is needed to hold the sheriff accountable, especially when she continues to refuse to resign amid increasing calls for her to do so. City councils across the Peninsula have passed resolutions supporting her removal or indicating no confidence in her leadership, while other organizations and leaders have expressed similar sentiments.
The sheriff and Measure A critics, however, counter that the initiative would undermine voter decision-making and set a problematic precedent for the county.
“It’s a power grab and abuse of voters’ rights,” Corpus said. The measure is “based on a report that lacked factual evidence and bypassed the basic principles of due diligence. This report is all based on whistleblower complaints that were given immunity, and no one was placed under oath for statements given.”
Formal arguments supporting and opposing Measure A, including rebuttals, have been mailed to voters in a ballot-information pamphlet and are available for public review on the county elections website.
The measure needs a simple majority to pass.
Supporter arguments
The arguments in favor were submitted and signed by U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, U.S. Rep. Kevin Mullin, Supervisor Noelia Corzo, sheriff’s Sgt. Sean Harper and Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew Silano.
The measure “provides urgent checks and balances on the Sheriff’s Office,” supporters wrote. They argued that since an amended charter would sunset in 2028, it represents a “time-limited solution to protect (the) community” rather than a permanent transfer of power to the board.
Supporters also warned that keeping Corpus in office opens the county to considerable risk. Based on the independent investigation’s findings of retaliation, an abusive workplace and other complaints, they wrote, the county could face “millions of dollars in liability and lawsuits.”
They also noted that such allegations have resulted in mass resignations and a lack of confidence from sheriff’s leadership and other personnel, posing a threat to the county’s safety.
“Our community deserves better leadership, accountability and integrity,” supporters wrote. “There must be consequences if a sheriff violates public trust.”
Opposition arguments
Pacifica resident Dan Stegink, an outspoken critic of the measure at board meetings, filed and signed the arguments in opposition.
Stegink described the measure as “a political power grab by a few local supervisors.”
It amounts to voter suppression and would strip voters of their right to choose an independent sheriff, he wrote.
He also alleged that the measure was “buttressed by multiple, intentional violations of state law.”
The measure “is an illegal maneuver that will not survive a court challenge” but cost taxpayers millions of dollars, he wrote.
On the other hand, Stegink wrote that the Sheriff’s Office “has made great progress” in battling crime, including recording no homicides last year and seeing significant drops in other categories such as assaults and stolen property.
According to crime statistics reported by the Sheriff’s Office for 2024, the county did see one manslaughter case, though no charges were filed. Overall, the county experienced a marked decline in both violent and property crime last year – 14% and 15%, respectively.
Corpus vows to stay and fight on
In her email to the Almanac, Corpus also highlighted the improvements under her watch.
“If you dismiss the rhetoric and look at the facts, I have kept my campaign promises,” the sheriff said, “and under my leadership, the residents of San Mateo County are experiencing the largest reduction of crime across sectors. I am proud to say San Mateo County is one of the safest places to live, work and raise a family.”
In addition, Corpus said she has “brought changes in the way we deliver services, fostering a compassionate, (empathetic) and humanistic approach to how we serve our communities.”
Furthermore, she said, “I have brought accountability and (been) disrupting the status quo to a culture that has been immune to change” during the 169-year history of the Sheriff’s Office.
Corpus told the Almanac that she will continue to fight efforts to force her out of office.
She noted that a hearing for an injunction her attorney filed last month to halt the special election is scheduled for Feb. 26 in San Mateo County Superior Court.
“Over 82,000 San Mateo County residents voted for me to be their sheriff, and I have been doing my job,” she said. “I will finish (my) term and at that time access my future political aspirations.”
Possible recall scenario
Meanwhile, if Measure A doesn’t pass, a recall effort against Corpus could move forward.
“We’re on standby,” Jim Hartnett, an organizer for a recall committee and former Redwood City mayor, said in an interview with the Almanac. “We’re awaiting the results of Measure A before we take any further steps.”
The committee would need to gather more than 44,000 signatures – representing the required 10% of registered voters in the county currently – to put a recall question on a ballot. A recall measure would then need a simple majority to pass.
The recall route is “a monthslong process,” Hartnett said. But if Measure A passes, his group “likely will not proceed.”
Hartnett does expect the measure to succeed. “We fully support Measure A,” he said. “We’re confident Measure A will pass.”
Given the independent investigation’s conclusions and statements by others, he said, “it’s evident we’re in an unprecedented time in which the sheriff has lost control of the office and the respect and trust of people. The proper thing for her to do is to resign. She put the county and its citizens in this position to pursue Measure A.”
In a related matter, the grassroots organization Fixin’ San Mateo County is giving a nonpartisan online presentation explaining the measure on Tuesday, Feb. 18, from 7-8 p.m. Those wishing to participate can register at FixinSMC.org/MeasureA.
Vote yes on A. Corpus needs to go. She showed herself incapable of running the department when she put her totally unqualified boyfriend in charge. He was effectively running the department. Think about that. A person that couldn’t pass a law enforcement background check with no law enforcement experience running the law enforcement agency for the county. That is not what I and most other voters that voted for Corpus wanted nor expected. Corpus needs to go.