Cupertino Union School District recall, California (2021-2022)

• Recall efforts
  • Recall efforts by state
  • Recall efforts by office
  • Recall efforts by year
  • Upcoming recall elections
• Local recalls
  • City council recalls
  • Mayoral recalls
  • County commission recalls
  • County official recalls
  • School board recalls
  • Sheriff recalls
  • Special district recalls
• State and federal recalls
  • State executive recalls
  • State legislator recalls
  • U.S. Congress recalls
• Laws governing recall
  • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls
  • States that require grounds for recalls
• Analysis
  • What are recalls?
  • Recall terms
  • Analysis (2010-present)
  • 2025 mid-year analysis
  • 2024 year-end analysis
  • 2024 mid-year analysis
  • 2023 year-end analysis
  • 2023 mid-year analysis
  • 2022 year-end analysis
  • 2022 mid-year analysis
  • 2021 year-end analysis
  • 2021 mid-year analysis
  • 2020 year-end analysis
  • 2020 mid-year analysis
  • 2019 year-end analysis
  • 2019 mid-year analysis
  • 2018 year-end analysis
  • 2018 mid-year analysis
  • 2017 year-end analysis
  • 2017 mid-year analysis
  • 2016 year-end analysis
  • 2016 mid-year analysis

Cupertino Union School District recall
Officeholders
Lori Cunningham Sylvia Leong Phyllis Vogel
Recall status
Did not go to a vote
Signature requirement
11,542 signatures per board member
See also
Recall overview Political recall efforts, 2022 Recalls in California California recall laws School board recalls Recall reports

An effort to recall three of the five members of the Cupertino Union School District Board of Education in California began in November 2021. Lori Cunningham, Sylvia Leong, and Phyllis Vogel were named in the recall petitions. To get the recall on the ballot, supporters had to collect 11,542 signatures per board member. Recall supporters failed to submit the requisite number of signatures to get the recalls on the ballot by the deadline.

The recall effort started after the board voted in October 2021 to close two schools and consolidate a third. Board members listed declining enrollment, underfunding, and a failed parcel tax as the reasons behind the school closures.

An earlier effort to recall Cunningham began in February 2021 but did not go to a vote. Supporters did not submit petitions by the deadline on October 4, 2021. Recall supporters said Cunningham failed to represent all children in the district by "solely prioritizing distance learning at the expense of providing a timely option for in-person learning, in lieu of the recommendations of multiple health organizations such as the CDC and AAP." Cunningham said that she shared parents' frustrations and that the district was on the cusp of reaching the COVID-19 metrics it needed for the board to reopen schools.

Cunningham was elected to a four-year term on the five-member board on November 6, 2018. Both Leong and Vogel were re-elected to the board on November 3, 2020.

To read about other recall efforts related to the coronavirus and government responses to the pandemic, click here.

Recall supporters

Second effort

The Recall CUSD Board website published the following statement on the recall effort:

“

Recall CUSD Board started with the recall of Lori Cunningham for being the primary blocker of school reopening. With the first recall of Lori officially over, we are now assisting parents in the recalls of Sylvia Leong, Phyllis Vogel and Lori Cunningham (again). Even if you support school closures, these Board members have been toxic for CUSD. They have sowed division, knowingly wasted $2M in two failed parcel tax attempts, fought to prevent your schools from reopening, prioritized their union donors before kids and more. Read about Lori Cunningham’s first recall here. We hope you will support our efforts to gather 11,542 signatures by April 6, 2022. If you wish to volunteer, please email recallcusdboard@gmail.com or sign-up here. Read below on how these three Board members closed your schools. Sylvia is closing our neighborhood schools but expanding CLIP (Chinese Language Immersion Program, one of the CUSD’s Alternative programs), where she was the former PTA President. Sylvia used her influence to cut a backroom deal with CUSD to prioritize CLIP. She has damaged her credibility and has sowed massive division among the community. (Read more here.) Phyllis, too, is closing our schools. She said that closing three schools is not enough and asked for more. When building the school closure rubric, she skipped the meeting. She has abandoned equity and pushed lottery schools. (Read more here.) Lori, too, voted to close our schools. When Lori disagrees, she reminds you that she knows better. When in a corner, she says she is being harassed. She says the community doesn’t stand up for her. Lori does not prioritize kids. She can’t because she is largest recipient of teacher union money. (Read more here.) With them in office, CUSD has witnessed the steepest enrollment decline in its history, more than 2X the county in just the past 2 years. They failed to pass the parcel tax, twice, in less than 15 months, spending $2M of CUSD dollars. They failed to stop the flight to private which has only accelerated. They failed our underprivileged, who are performing in the bottom 10% of the state. They believe students have not experienced learning loss per the Superintendent’s own comments. They voted to close schools and will vote to close more in a year with record COVID relief dollars. They have simply failed to deliver as board members. We need honesty and transparency, not hidden agendas and politicians. Vote YES to save neighborhood schools. Vote YES for equity. Vote YES for community. Vote YES for decency. Vote YES to recall Sylvia, Phyllis and Lori!

”

First effort

The notice of intent to recall Cunningham said:

“

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE LORI CUNNINGHAM Pursuant to Section 11020 of the California Elections Code, the undersigned, registered qualified voters of Cupertino Union School District, in Santa Clara 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 Board of Trustees, in Cupertino Union School District, Santa Clara County, California, and to demand election of a successor in that office. The ground for the proposal recall are as follows: Lorien (Lori) Cunningham, who has led CUSD as President of the Board through much of the pandemic, has failed to represent all children of CUSD and uphold CUSD’s value of 'choice' by solely prioritizing distance learning at the expense of providing a timely option for in-person learning, in lieu of the recommendations of multiple health organizations such as the CDC and AAP. Her failure in leadership, inability to act decisively and articulate clear objectives, and unwillingness to challenge union demands resulted in a pattern of poor decisions as it relates to reopening schools. CUSD, a renowned district, significantly underperformed compared to most of its neighbors, causing massive inequity, social and emotional damage among children, and deep frustration, anxiety, and stress amongst parents and its community. CUSD parents deserve a Board member who can push back on the unions, follow health guidelines, force the hard discussions, make decisions, challenge the Superintendent and Board when necessary, and always fight for ALL children first. Vote YES on the recall.

”

Recall opponents

Second effort

Leong said that declining enrollment has left some district schools at half capacity. “(The choice to close schools) was not an easy decision, because we know how much each of our schools is beloved,” Leong said. “Without adequate funding, our children will not have the resources they need, and we cannot achieve the educational excellence for which we’ve been known for decades.”

Vogel said the decision to close schools has been discussed for over two years with significant community input. “The community urged us to try one more time to pass a parcel tax with the promise that if it passed, there would be no school closures,” Vogel said. “The parcel tax failed in spite of all of the work of the board, staff and community members.”

Cunningham said that the district is one of the lowest-funded districts in the state. She said underfunding by the state and an enrollment decline of nearly 5,000 students led to cuts in every department for six years straight. “We have stretched our dollars for as long as we could, in order to meet our students’ needs,” Cunningham said. “We have done our best to engage with the community extensively over the past two years through countless listening sessions, town halls, board office hours, board meetings and a citizens’ advisory, as well as placing a supplemental parcel tax measure on the ballot in spring of 2021 in response to feedback from our parent community to leave no stone unturned. While nearly 60% of our community supported Measure A to try to stabilize and support our wonderful school district, we failed to reach the full 2/3s supermajority required.”

First effort

In response to the recall effort, Cunningham said she shared district parents' frustrations. She said the district was on the cusp of reaching the COVID-19 metrics they needed to reopen schools.

"I sympathize with and I empathize with everyone looking for control in a situation that felt out of control from the beginning of the pandemic for all of us," Cunningham said. "I think [a recall] is one area where parents feel like they can be in control. I understand and I empathize with it, but by the same token, I don't think it helps kids, and more specifically, I don't think it helps our kids."

Cunningham also said she and her family were harassed in 2020 while she served as board president. She said she had been held personally responsible for the district's handling of the pandemic in a way that other board members had not been. She said she did not expect to worry about her safety when she ran for school board. “I wasn’t running for a state office. I wasn’t running for even a county office. I was running for the school board. That’s not supposed to be an unsafe place,” Cunningham said. “Schools … and things related to schools are not ever supposed to be unsafe places.”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing recall in California

The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters approved the recall petitions against Cunningham, Leong, and Vogel for circulation on November 4, 2021. To get the recall on the ballot, supporters had to collect 11,542 signatures per board member by April 6, 2022. The number of signatures was equal to 15% of registered voters in the school district.

Recall supporters filed the first notice of intent to recall Cunningham in February 2021. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters approved the recall petition for circulation in April 2021. To get the recall on the ballot, recall supporters would have had to collect signatures equal to 15% of registered voters in the school district, a total of 11,658 signatures, by October 4, 2021.

About the district

The Cupertino Union School District is located in Santa Clara County, California.

The Cupertino Union School District is located in Santa Clara County, California. The county seat is San Jose. Santa Clara County was home to an estimated 1,927,852 residents in 2019, according to the United States Census Bureau.

Demographics

Santa Clara County outperformed the rest of California in terms of higher education achievement between 2015 and 2019. The United States Census Bureau found that 52.4% of Santa Clara County residents aged 25 years and older had attained a bachelor's degree compared to 33.9% for California as a whole. During the same time period, the median household income for Santa Clara County was $124,055 compared to $75,235 for the state of California. The percentage of people in poverty in Santa Clara County was 6.1%, and it was 11.8% for the state of California.

Racial Demographics, 2019
Race	Santa Clara County (%)	California (%)
White	52.4	71.9
Black or African American	2.8	6.5
American Indian and Alaska Native	1.2	1.6
Asian	39.0	15.5
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.5	0.5
Two or more races	4.2	4.0
Hispanic or Latino	25.0	39.4

Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Recalls related to the coronavirus

See also: Recalls related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) and government responses to the pandemic

Ballotpedia covered 35 coronavirus-related recall efforts against 94 officials in 2022, accounting for 13% of recalls that year. This is a decrease from both 2020 and 2021. COVID-related recalls accounted for 37% of all recall efforts in both 2020 and 2021. In 2020, there were 87 COVID-related recalls against 89 officials, and in 2021, there were 131 against 214 officials.

The chart below compares coronavirus-related recalls to recalls for all other reasons in 2020, 2021, and 2022.

2022 recall efforts

See also: School board recalls

Ballotpedia tracked 54 school board recall efforts against 123 board members in 2022. Recall elections against school board members were held on January 11, 2022, January 18, 2022, January 24, 2022, February 15, 2022, March 29, 2022, April 4, 2022, and November 8, 2022. The school board recall success rate was 7.3%.

The chart below details the status of 2022 recall efforts by individual school board member.

2021 recall efforts

See also: School board recalls

Ballotpedia tracked 92 school board recall efforts against 237 board members in 2021. Recall elections against 17 board members were held in 2021. The school board recall success rate was 0.42%.

The chart below details the status of 2021 recall efforts by individual school board member.

See also

• Cupertino Union School District, California
• Cupertino Union School District, California, elections (2020)
• Cupertino Union School District elections (2018)
• Recall campaigns in California
• Political recall efforts, 2022
• Political recall efforts, 2021
• School board recalls

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Cupertino Union School District
• Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters

Footnotes

Political recall elections

Recalls
by year

Upcoming recalls • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • Historical recalls • Recall statistics and analysis

Recalls
by office

Governors • State legislators • County officials • County commission • Sheriffs • Mayors • City officials • City council • School board • Special district

Recalls
by state

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Recall
laws

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Kansas • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming • States that require grounds for recalls • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls