Jeannine Pearce recall, Long Beach, California (2018)

• 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

Long Beach City Council recall
Officeholders
Jeannine Pearce
Recall status
Did not go to a vote
See also
Recall overview Political recall efforts, 2018 Recalls in California California recall laws City council recalls Recall reports

An effort in Long Beach, California, to recall City Councilwoman Jeannine Pearce from her position was launched in August 2017. The Committee to Recall Councilmember Jeannine Pearce issued a press release on August 25, 2017, announcing its intention to seek Pearce's recall over an issue involving Pearce's former chief of staff, Devin Cotter. The group accused Pearce of domestic violence and sexual harassment against Cotter. Proponents also claimed that Pearce kept Cotter on the payroll after he left his position.

Pearce was served with a notice of intention to seek a recall at the city council meeting on December 12, 2017. Recall committee member Ian Patton said the group would begin collecting signatures in January 2018. Pearce responded after receiving the notice of intent: "I went through a difficult time in my personal life earlier this year, and some of my political rivals have decided to use that as the basis of a recall campaign. I’m confident that voters in my district will reject the embellished and exaggerated claims that are made in this recall petition."

Recall petitioners submitted 9,462 signatures on May 9, 2018. The city clerk found 4,815 signatures valid; 6,363 signatures were required to trigger a recall election.

Recall supporters

The August 25 press release from the recall committee included the following accusations against Pearce:

“	Specifically, due to the total absence of explanation or transparency, despite numerous demands from 2nd District residents directly to Councilmember Pearce at City Council meetings, as well as on facebook and Nextdoor.com, the charges based on widespread public reporting which we are forced to conclude Councilmember Pearce is guilty of, are as follows: Physical assault and domestic violence - perpetrated by Councilmember Pearce against Devin Cotter on June 3rd, 2017. Evidenced by initial CHP call back to dispatch from scene at roughly 2:40 a.m., and by confirmation by his attorney that Cotter suffered injuries to face and arm (provable or disprovable by release of Cotter’s mug shot, which the City has withheld without substantive justification and despite multiple Cal. Public Records Act requests). Sexual harassment - perpetrated by Councilmember Pearce against Devin Cotter starting at an unspecified date and ending in December 2016 with the City Attorney-arranged “separation agreement”, leading to his apparent departure from City Hall employment while remaining on the City payroll and agreeing not to sue the City. Given that a sexual relationship between a superior and a subordinate is inherently unequal and coercive, we must presume, with no transparency on this matter either from the City or Pearce, that Cotter intended to sue the City for sexual harassment suffered at the hands of Pearce and was bought off with an informal severance in the form of receipt of his salary, from mid Dec. 2016 through Feb. 2017, while no longer working at City Hall nor being able to function in his role as 2nd District Chief of Staff. Conspiracy to commit fraud for purposes of a cover-up – Councilmember Pearce’s role in the above mentioned “separation agreement” begs the question whether she insisted on buying off Cotter’s silence with a severance in the form of employment fraud against the City. It is widely known that Cotter was not seen working at City Hall after mid-December, while continuing to draw his substantial salary. We must conclude, with no light shed on this matter either by Pearce or the City, that Councilmember Pearce encouraged and facilitated this apparent employment fraud on the part of her immediate subordinate staff member. Unethical conduct relating to officeholder account and outside consulting – Further evidence that Cotter immediately ceased his work at City Hall while remaining on the city taxpayers’ employment rolls can be found in the California Secretary of State’s business registration filings which show that Devin Cotter incorporated a brand new firm, Bullhorn Consulting, on Dec. 21, 2016. Very oddly, he subsequently filed papers showing the CEO of Bullhorn Consulting to be none other than his replacement, Pearce’s current chief of staff, Christian Kropff. Was the plan to use the power of the council office to direct City or City-influenceable business toward Bullhorn, facilitated by Kropff, in order to maintain Cotter’s continued silence? No explanation for Kropff’s role as CEO of an outside consulting firm while simultaneously serving as 2nd District Chief of Staff has been provided. Furthermore, Cotter was directly paid $2,250 for “strategic policy consulting, February-April” out of the 2nd District Officeholder account. What was that cash really for? More hush money? No explanation whatsoever has been provided by Pearce.	”
—The Committee to Recall Councilmember Jeannine Pearce (2017)

The following document includes the entirety of the press release:

You can navigate the following document by zooming in or out with the + and - buttons and using the vertical scrollbar.

Recall opponents

Pearce responded to the recall effort in the following Facebook post:

“	Let me be clear. I am determined to ensure the 2nd District residents have a voice at the table. I will not stop working for them. I will never stop fighting for worker safety, affordable housing, and a fair and transparent government that works for every resident, small business and major corporation. I strongly support the democratic process, and still feel confident that residents feel I have worked hard to represent them. I support the process, but it cannot go without being said that the core group moving this recall are the same group who have opposed the very ideals that the people voted for in the last election.	”
—Jeannine Pearce (2017)

Zoe Nicholson, a member of the Long Beach Human Relations Commission, wrote an opinion article supporting Pearce that is excerpted below:

“	Recently, I asked Pearce why she ran for the City Council. She said she wanted to see her values represented in local government. She said she has big ideas and wants to see them in action. I asked if she had considered resigning. She said no. She doesn’t want her daughter to see her mother give up. She wants her to see her mom as a strong, determined public servant. If you are an advocate for women in the United States, you know that the only way women will have equality, equity, constitutional rights and cultural parity is for women to be in leadership. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tells us that educating a girl changes the world. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, in her book, “Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated,” explains that everything changes when one-third of those in leadership are women. When that occurs, the entire agenda moves from militarization and consumerism to health, education and well-being. Astoundingly, the fact remains that women have never broken the barrier of 20 percent leadership in Congress, and the United States continues to rank in the lower half of countries worldwide when it comes to women in leadership. As a feminist, social justice advocate and dedicated activist, I know the importance of electing women. The No. 1 reason women do not run for office is not a lack of funds or family concerns. It is concerns about surviving the scrutiny of a sexist society. See a recent column by Hadley Freemanf in The Guardian: “America’s vitriol towards [Hillary] Clinton reveals a nation mired in misogyny.” Every woman who has mustered the courage to run knows that her gender will be targeted in the campaign, in the election and while she’s in office. Sexism is baked in the cake. It discourages most women from entering elected service. It is hard to believe, unless you are a mother who has the calling to be in public service, that often it is women who are the non-supportive ones. Maybe Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg can “lean in,” ask for more money and build a nursery adjacent to her office. But women in most elected offices make complicated arrangements for their children. No one would ask a father where the kids are, but women face never-ending criticism about whether they’re good parents. Bringing kids to meetings is met with the side-eye and snide remarks. Recently, a woman at a meeting in Long Beach City Council District 2 said she could not believe Pearce’s audacity to bring her daughter — when, in fact, the girl had been entertaining herself quietly as the meeting proceeded. Enough already. Jeannine Pearce was democratically elected. She has pushed through 29 agenda items, more than anyone else has in their first year. From potholes to graffiti, parks and human rights, she has been precisely the council member District 2 elected. We are so proud of her. It is time for this small handful of people, who want their politics seated at the table, to respect the democratic progress, stop paying expensive consultants to write their newspaper commentaries, and get to work making Long Beach an equitable community.	”
—Zoe Nicholson (2017)

The Long Beach Press-Telegram published the following opinion article opposing the recall effort on August 31, 2017:

“	A better use of money and energy would be to focus on the central issue of transparency in government and finding out the truth of what happened in this messy situation. Frustration has grown since an incident June 3 in which CHP officers found Pearce and Devin Cotter, her former staffer, arguing in a car parked on a center painted median of the 710 Freeway at about 2:40 a.m. Long Beach police got involved when the CHP asked them to respond because Pearce or Cotter — police wouldn’t say who — made accusations about domestic violence. Pearce, who admitted she had been driving the vehicle, registered a 0.06 blood-alcohol level when officers gave her a breath test on the side of the road. She “successfully completed” a field sobriety test, according to police. Later that morning, police arrested Cotter outside Pearce’s home. He has been charged with public intoxication and has pleaded not guilty. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has opened a public-integrity case based on allegations of “inappropriate behavior and potential conflicts of interest.” The group seeking a recall election would need to collect signatures from 20 percent of registered voters in Pearce’s 2nd District. That would be an estimated 6,400 signatures. Recalls are costly, time-consuming and rare. City Clerk Monique DeLaGarza said two elections would be needed if enough signatures were obtained — one for the recall and, if that succeeded, one to fill Pearce’s spot. That could cost taxpayers as much as $500,000, she said. The last recall election was in 1970 when citizens tried to recall four council members who voted for daily jet flights out of Long Beach Airport. It failed. What’s really needed in the sorry episode involving Pearce and Cotter is a comprehensive report from the city detailing what happened and answering all questions surrounding the situation. The sooner that happens, the better for all concerned.	”
—Long Beach Press-Telegram, (2017)

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing recall in California

Recalls of local officials in California start with notices of intent to targeted officials. Each notice requires signatures from 10 city residents, the name of the targeted official, and reasoning for the recall that cannot exceed 200 words. A copy of the notice is delivered to the city clerk, who publishes the notice in at least three public places. Targeted officials have seven days following receipt of their notices to issue statements of defense.

Pearce was served with a notice of intent to seek a recall on December 12, 2017. Two days later, City Clerk Monique DeLaGarza confirmed that the notice contained enough valid signatures for the recall to move forward. Recall organizers in Long Beach needed valid signatures from approximately 6,400 registered voters to require an election. Recall petitioners submitted 9,462 signatures on May 9, 2018. The city clerk found 4,815 signatures valid; 6,363 signatures were required to trigger a recall election.

See also

• Recall campaigns in California
• Political recall efforts, 2018
• City council recalls

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• Long Beach, California
• The Committee to Recall City Councilmember Jeannine Pearce website

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