Bruce Gibson recall, San Luis Obispo County, California (2023-2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors recall
Ballotpedia Election Coverage Badge.png
Officeholders
Bruce Gibson
Recall status
Did not go to a vote
Signature requirement
7,374[1]
See also
Recall overview
Political recall efforts, 2023-2024
Recalls in California
California recall laws
County commission recalls
Recall reports

An effort to recall San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Bruce Gibson in California was initiated in 2023. This recall attempt was terminated on November 15 by the county clerk after the petitioner did not meet the deadline for submission of blank copies for circulation and proof of publication.[2] After the failure of the first attempt, a second recall attempt was launched on November 28 when a notice of intent to recall was submitted.[3] Recall supporters had until May 2, 2024, to collect signatures.[4]

The recall effort failed on May 2, 2024, after recall supporters failed to submit a sufficient number of signatures to get the recall on the ballot.[5]

Recall supporters

First recall effort

Recall supporters outlined the following reasons for recalling Gibson in the first notice of intention to circulate a recall petition received on October 27:[6]

TO THE HONORABLE BRUCE GIBSON: Pursuant to Section 11020 of the California Elections code, the undersigned registered qualified voters of District 2 San Luis Obispo County, in the State of California, hereby give notice that we are the proponents of a recall petition and that we intend to seek your recall and removal from the office of District 2 Supervisor in San Luis Obispo County, California.

The grounds for the recall are as follows:

(1) BRUCE GIBSON has abused his powers as supervisor, by (a) getting rid of effective County Administrative Officer, Wade Horton, and replacing him with a crony and political contributor, and (b) turning his back on the District 2 voters who elected him in 2022 by spearheading repeal of the 2022 supervisorial districts to return to 2011 boundaries that ensure his safe future re-election.

(2) GIBSON has exhibited contempt for property owners who live on fixed incomes and have relied on the protection of Proposition 13; and (b) by favoring the interests of Northern California and Los Angeles over San Luis Obispo County.

(3) GIBSON, on multiple occasions, has violated the California Brown provisions, ensuring Supervisors' decisions receive public notice of proposed governmental action.

(4) GIBSON was silent about (a) the bribery, extortion, and corruption of deceased Supervisor and political ally, Adam Hill, as well (b) the County's mushrooming county employee pension debt, totaling nearly $1 billion.

(5) GIBSON has worked to hand special interests control over water rights and gravely harmed the County's small farmers. [7]

Second recall effort

In the second notice of intention to circulate a recall petition received on November 28, recall supporters stated the following reasons for Gibson's recall:[8]

TO THE HONORABLE BRUCE GIBSON: Pursuant to Section 11020 of the California Elections code, the undersigned registered qualified voters of District 2 San Luis Obispo County, in the State of California, hereby give notice that we are the proponents of a recall petition and that we intend to seek your recall and removal from the office of District 2 Supervisor in San Luis Obispo County, California.

The grounds for the recall are as follows: (1) BRUCE GIBSON has abused his authority as Supervisor by (a) getting rid of effective County Administrative Officer, Wade Horton, and replacing him with a crony and political contributor who subsequently left office amid allegations of improper conduct towards women, and (b) turning his back on the District 2 voters by spearheading repeal of the 2021 redistricted maps to return to 2011 boundaries that do not comply with the 2019 Fair Maps Act but ensure his safe re-election. (2) GIBSON has (a) exhibited contempt for property owners who live on fixed incomes and rely on the protections of Proposition 13; and (b) favored the interests of Sacramento over San Luis Obispo County voters. (3) GIBSON has violated the Ralph M. Brown Act on multiple occasions obfuscating transparency and suppressing public comment. (4) GIBSON was silent about (a) the bribery, extortion, and corruption of deceased Supervisor and political ally, Adam Hill, as well as (b) the County's mushrooming county employee pension debt, totaling nearly $1 billion. (5) GIBSON has worked to hand special interests control over water rights harming the County's small farmers. [7]

Recall opponents

First recall effort

Gibson responded to the first recall petition with the following statement:[9]

I'm not surprised these highly-partisan activists would try this, given their track record:

• They gerrymandered the district and lost anyway.
• They demanded a recount when I won, then refused to pay our Elections Office what they owed.
• They continue to peddle election fraud conspiracy theories.

This petition notice is full of distortions and lies - exactly like the losing campaign they ran against me just last year. Note that two of the candidates I defeated last year are lead proponents of this recall.

They're MAGA fanatics and this is just what they do. San Luis Obispo County voters are smart and they'll see through this vain attempt to nullify last year's election. Voters are also tired of these constant attacks on our democracy. I expect this stunt will fail. [7]

Second recall effort

Gibson responded to the second recall petition with the following statement:[10]

This is an illegitimate use of a lawful public process, but I'm not surprised these highly-partisan, election-denying activists would try this, given their track record:

• They gerrymandered the district and lost anyway.
• After I won they demanded a recount and failed.
• They then refused to fully pay the county Elections Office for that failure, and still haven't paid.
• They failed again at their first ill-considered recall attempt.
• They continue to peddle debunked election fraud conspiracy theories.

Two of the candidates I defeated in 2022 are fronting this effort. Their spokesman in that election promised a dirty campaign against me, and these allegations are more of the same. This petition notice is full of distortions and lies, exactly like the losing campaign they ran against me in 2022.

We have here a small group of MAGA fanatics who peddle falsehoods and are abusing this constitutional process. It's just what they do.

Fortunately, San Luis Obispo County voters are smart and they'll see through this vain attempt to nullify a legitimate, certified election. Voters are tired of these constant attacks on our democracy. I expect this stunt will fail. [7]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing recall in California

No specific grounds are required for recall in California. The recall process starts with a notice of intention to recall. The notice must be served to the officer whose recall is being sought as well as published in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice must then be filed with the relevant election office. Once the notice has been deemed sufficient by the election office, a petition must also be filed and approved by the election office. Once the petition is approved, it can be circulated. To get a recall on the ballot, supporters must collect signatures from registered voters in the jurisdiction. The number of signatures required is between 10% and 30% of registered voters in the jurisdiction, depending on the size of the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with 1,000 registered voters or fewer require 30%, and jurisdictions with 100,000 or more registered voters require 10%. Charter cities can also set their own signature threshold. The amount of time allowed for the circulation of recall petitions also varies by the number of registered voters in a jurisdiction, between 40 and 160 days. Jurisdictions with fewer than 1,000 registered voters allow 40 days, and jurisdictions with more than 50,000 registered voters allow 160 days.[11]

Recall context

See also: Ballotpedia's Recall Report

Ballotpedia covers recall efforts across the country for all state and local elected offices. A recall effort is considered official if the petitioning party has filed an official form, such as a notice of intent to recall, with the relevant election agency.

The chart below shows how many officials were included in recall efforts from 2012 to 2024 as well as how many of them defeated recall elections to stay in office and how many were removed from office in recall elections.

See also

External links

Footnotes