Nevada County Board of Supervisors recall, California (2021-2022)
| Nevada County Board of Supervisors recall |
|---|
 |
| Officeholders |
Ed Scofield Dan Miller Susan Hoek Hardy Bullock |
| Recall status |
| Signature requirement |
Scofield: 3,155 Miller: 2,829 Hoek: 3,101 Bullock: 2,776 |
| See also |
| Recall overview Political recall efforts, 2022 Recalls in California California recall laws County commission recalls Recall reports |
An effort to recall all five members of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in California began in December 2021. District 1 representative Heidi Hall, District 2 representative Ed Scofield, District 3 representative Dan Miller, District 4 representative Susan Hoek, and District 5 representative Hardy Bullock were named in the notices of intent to recall.[1][2][3] To get the recalls on the ballot, supporters had to file petitions by May 31, 2022.[4] Recall supporters ultimately decided not to submit any signatures and the recall did not go to a vote.[5]
Recall supporters cited "mask mandates, lockdown periods, not reopening fast enough, not firing staff, vaccine requirements, voting to have Code Compliance use drones to inspect properties otherwise inaccessible" as reasons for the recall, according to YubaNet.com.[1] In their responses to the recall, supervisors said the recall supporters' claims were false and unfounded. They also said that a recall election would use county funds that could better be spent elsewhere.[6]
To read about other recall efforts related to the coronavirus and government responses to the pandemic, click here.
Recall supporters
Recall supporters cited "mask mandates, lockdown periods, not reopening fast enough, not firing staff, vaccine requirements, voting to have Code Compliance use drones to inspect properties otherwise inaccessible" as reasons for the recall, according to YubaNet.com.[1]
Recall supporters released a letter on January 28, 2022, that was written by their attorney. The letter includes the following statement about the recall effort:[4][7]
| “ | By way of their recall petition, Proponents seek to recall all five supervisors in Nevada County for the reasons specified in their intents to recall which allege, inter alia, that the supervisors failed to re-open Nevada County by promoting lawless lockdowns directly violating religious freedoms and individual liberty.[8] | ” |
Recall opponents
Response by Hall
Hall filed the following response to the recall:[6]
| “ | This recall petition for Supervisor Heidi Hall makes claims that are demonstrably false and misleading, and has a misguided understanding about how the County works. The County has a duty to follow the rule of law in its implementation of public health mandates, and to support our health professionals who are following the best medical advice available. We have done so while simultaneously using State and Federal funding to provide an unprecedented level of support (approximately $5.8 million ARPA; $3 million CARES Act) to our local businesses, non-profits, and cultural institutions to help them weather the economic fallout of the pandemic. In addition, this particular Board has succeeded in: building more low-income housing, providing services and homes for our homeless population, expanding broadband, doubling our wildfire vegetation management, prevention, and response efforts; ensuring fiscal stability while expanding our mental health services, upgrading our roads, coordinating with our town and cities, supporting legal cannabis while increasing enforcement against illegal grows, and providing comprehensive constituent assistance. This recall will cost $95,000 – $250,000 of your taxes per Supervisor. None of your rights have been violated and our public health actions exist to protect the community.[8] | ” |
Response by Scofield
Scofield filed the following response to the recall:[6]
| “ | COVID has caused governments of all sizes to make difficult decisions. The County, through your Board of Supervisors has followed the rule of law in its implementation of public health mandates, and support of our health professionals who are following the best medical advice available. We have done so while using Local, State and Federal Funding to provide an unprecedented level of support to our local businesses, non-profits, and cultural institutions to help them weather the economic fallout of the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, your Board of Supervisors has continued the work of County government. The Board has succeeded in building more low-income housing, providing services and homes for homeless, expanding broadband, doubling our wildfire vegetation management, prevention and response efforts; ensuring fiscal stability while expanding our mental health services, upgrading our roads, supporting legal cannabis while increasing enforcement against illegal grows, and providing comprehensive constituent assistance. This recall petition is unwarranted, is a waste of your government’s time and a waste of your taxpayer dollars.[8] | ” |
Response by Miller
Miller filed the following response to the recall:[6]
| “ | I have spent 31 years in public service, making decisions based on facts in order to best serve the people I represent.
I helped lead the effort to disburse more than $1 million in Covid-19 federal, state and local funding to Third District businesses and nonprofits. I supported the County’s Environmental Health Department on strategies that allowed businesses to stay open despite over-reaching shut-down orders from the state. I lobbied the County’s Public Health Officer, in person and in writing, to lift shut-down and quarantine mandates when facts showed they were ineffective. This recall is an emotional response and desperate effort by a fringe minority who did not get their way. Their allegations lack credibility and do not withstand the test of truth. For example, drones do not conduct 'warrantless searches,' they are a tool in the County’s efforts to identify and eliminate illegal cannabis grows. I did not enable 'crimes against humanity,' I sought to protect citizens’ health in the face of a deadly virus. I have fully supported the use of therapeutics as a medical response for those who have contracted the virus. Partisan politics never influenced my decisions. I ask Third District voters to reject the recall.[8] |
” |
Response by Hoek
Hoek filed the following response to the recall:[6]
| “ | This recall is divisive, expensive and unnecessary. It will cost District 4 taxpayers up to $250,000, money better spent on fire safety, schools and supporting local businesses. This seat is up for election in June of 2022 where voters will have the opportunity to vote in a regular election for the candidate of their choice.
The petition makes claims that are false and misleading. The County has a duty to follow the rule of law in its implementation of public health mandates. We have done so while providing unprecedented support to local businesses, non-profits, and cultural institutions to help them survive this pandemic. This BOS has succeeded in building low-income housing, expanding broadband, doubling wildfire vegetation management; ensuring fiscal stability while expanding mental health services, upgrading roads, coordinating with our town and cities, supporting legal cannabis while increasing enforcement against illegal grows, and providing comprehensive constituent assistance. This recall attempt divides the community at a time when we need more cooperation and unity. We are stronger together.[8] |
” |
Response by Bullock
Bullock filed the following response to the recall:[6]
| “ | This recall petition makes claims that are false, unfounded, misleading, and entirely fabricated and baseless. This recall will cost taxpayers $492,000-$685,000.
The petitioners do not understand how local government works. The County has a duty to follow the rule of law in its implementation of public health mandates, and to support our health professionals who are following the best medical advice available. We have done so while simultaneously using State and Federal CARES/ARPA funding to provide an unprecedented level of support, $8,800,000, to our local businesses, non-profits, and cultural and educational institutions to help them weather the economic fallout of the pandemic. This Board of Supervisors has succeeded in building low-income housing, provided services to the homeless, expanded broadband, doubled wildfire mitigation efforts, ensured fiscal stability, expanded mental health services, upgraded roads, supported legal cannabis, increased enforcement of illegal grows, coordinated with our towns and cities, and delivered constituent assistance. This petition is an assault on the community and the people of Nevada County, predicated on conspiracy theories and myth. Do not be fooled. Knowledge is power-Visit NevadaCountyFacts.org to learn the truth. I remain laser focused on serving Nevada County.[8] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Laws governing recall in California
The notices of intent to recall and the petitions were approved for circulation by the Nevada County Registrar of Voters on January 31, 2022. To get the recalls on the ballot, supporters had to file petitions by May 31, 2022.[4] The number of signatures was equal to 20% of registered voters in the district the officials represent.[1][9] The number of signatures required in each district is as follows:[4]
- District 1: 3,254
- District 2: 3,155
- District 3: 2,829
- District 4: 3,101
- District 5: 2,776
Recall supporters ultimately decided to drop the recall effort.[5]
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.
See also
- Nevada County, California
- Recall campaigns in California
- Political recall efforts, 2021
- Political recall efforts, 2022
- County commission recalls
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- Nevada County Board of Supervisors
- Nevada County Registrar of Voters
- Recall Nevada County website
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 YubaNet.com, "Last BOS meeting of 2021: recall vs record," December 15, 2021
- ↑ Nevada County, California, "Board of Supervisors," accessed December 16, 2021
- ↑ The Union, "Recall moves forward: Supporters of recall leap 1st hurdle," December 20, 2021
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 The Union, "The clock starts now: Circulation period begins for county supervisor recall petitions," January 31, 2022
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 YubaNet.com, "“Total Recall” fails in Nevada County," May 31, 2022
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Yubanet.com, "Nevada County Supervisors answers to notice of intention to recall," December 31, 2021
- ↑ Recall Nevada County, "Recall Nevada County – Issues with Nevada County Election Office," January 28, 2022
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Union, "Supervisor recall petitions must pass muster before filing," December 16, 2021
