Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Andy Vasquez recall, Yuba County, California (2015)
| Yuba County Supervisor recall |
|---|
 |
| Officeholders |
| Recall status |
| See also |
| Recall overview Political recall efforts, 2015 Recalls in California California recall laws County commission recalls Recall reports |
An effort to recall Andy Vasquez from his position as a member of the board of supervisors for Yuba County, California, was proposed in March 2015 and cleared for signature petition circulation on August 6, 2015. Signatures were submitted on October 5, 2015, but the petition was found to be invalid, and the recall did not go to a vote. About 55 percent of submitted signatures were valid signatures from registered voters within Vasquez's district.[1][2][3][4]
Activists launched this effort to recall Andy Vasquez based on allegations of corruption, harm to the community, irresponsible use of power and harassment.[2]
The Yuba Patients Coalition (YPC) also opposed an ordinance enacted by the county supervisors on April 28, 2015, and backed this recall effort as a response. The ordinance imposed restrictions on cultivating marijuana. The group brainstormed how best to battle the new restrictions, considering recall attempts and an initiative. The group also filed a legal challenge against the county for its use of an "urgency ordinance" to preclude the possibility of a referendum.[2]
According to a consultant for the recall effort, many supporters of and volunteers for the recall petition against Vasquez were not motivated by the issue of medical marijuana. Rather, they were concerned over other economic, ethical and governance issues.[5]
The YPC also filed an initiative with the county elections office that was designed to mandate that all water in Yuba County remain within Yuba County, as well as an initiative to establish less restrictive marijuana cultivation laws and an initiative to allow a minimum of one marijuana dispensary per 20,000 residents.[6]
Recall supporters
Recall supporter arguments
Many critics of Vasquez behind the recall effort argued that Vasquez was guilty of corruption, abuse of power, harassing residents and decisions that were harmful to the economy.[5]
The launch of the recall effort was backed by the Yuba Patients Coalition. The group's opposition to the county's ordinance restricting marijuana cultivation largely triggered its involvement in the recall attempt against Andy Vasquez.[2][6]
Brook Hilton, a leader of the Yuba Patients Coalition, was responsible for serving Supervisor Andy Vasquez with recall papers. She said, "You sit there and ignore what people have to say. Maybe you should take your paycheck and go serve your community. You are an embarrassment."[7]
Some proponents of the recall effort pointed to public projects on North Beale Road to argue that Andy Vasquez was not providing competent leadership for the county. Recall supporters also cited instances of alleged harassment.[8]
According to a consultant for the recall campaign, "the proponents (the people of the district who signed on to support the recall's filing) are mostly not members of the Yuba Patients Coalition and for the most part not concerned with the cannabis efforts so much as the damage to businesses on Beale road and personal harassment they have witnessed in their own neighborhoods with Andy's behavior."[5]
Some recall proponents were also concerned about possible corruption with regard to housing situation of Andy Vasquez.[8]
Official grounds for recall
The following statement was submitted and circulated on the recall petition as the grounds for the recall effort against Andy Vasquez:
| “ |
Vasquez's association with corrupt PAC Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods, associated with laundering funds for the Sacramento Arena referendum and running an $11,600 direct-mail smear campaign against Vasquez's 2010 opponent demonstrates corruption and dishonesty. Vasquez's home, _ , is a conflict of interest. On 10-19-2011, Vasquez's home was served default notice for $11,889. Dan Logue benefactors the Slangstrom's ($21,500), and Vasquez radio show station owner Tom Huth purchased Vasquez's home in November 2011. Vasquez still lists this residence on FPPC Form 700. Vasquez's political talk radio show isn't listed on FPPC Statement of Economic Interest or as in-kind campaign contributions. Vasquez embarrassed the county when confronting a motorcyclist with a loaded handgun in violation of the law, jeopardizing public health, safety and welfare. Vasquez's wasteful spending on the North Beale Road project has caused:
More dishonesty: On March lOth, 2015, Vasquez directed County Counsel that ordinance 1538 be adopted as urgency due to drought. Vasquez then agreed the same day to transfer 1,500 acre-feet of water to Dublin San Ramon despite drought and urgency findings, and again on 4/21/2015 to transfer 4,828 acre-feet of water.[9] |
” |
| —Recall petitioners[8] | ||
Criminal complaint
Recall supporters filed a criminal complaint with the secretary of state, the attorney general and the California Fair Political Practices Commission concerning statements made on the Stop the Recall of Andy Vasquez campaign website. The complaint cited California Elections Code 18540, which forbids making "use of or threaten[ing] to make use of any force, violence, or tactic of coercion or intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting." The code establishes any violation of this provision as "a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16 months or two or three years."[10]
As evidence of the violation of this election code provision, the complaint provided a statement made on the recall opposition campaign's website that said, "Don't be fooled by anything they say, if you sign these petitions, you will be identified as a marijuana supporter." A mailer written by a man named Gary Simpson and funded by Andy Vasquez also made the same statement.[11][12]
Concerning the statement, the criminal complaint stated:
| “ |
This comment is a warning to Andy's constituents that they will be "identified as marijuana supporter(s)" who, in the next breath, he calls criminals. Such a threat is designed to make his voters believe that they may become subject to criminal investigation should any County official find out that they signed. In addition, would it not be criminal for Mr. Vasquez to ever see the signatures on the recall petition in the first place as such information is to be kept private by the County Registrar of Voters? I believe that with the above quote, Mr. Vasquez is stating that he intends to break election law by obtaining the names of those who signed the petition so that he can identify them as "criminal marijuana supporters" and use said information to investigate them for possible criminal charges. [...] I request that you immediately investigate this matter as it is time sensitive. This recall has a mere 60 days for circulation and is now under the cloud of criminal threats by a sitting elected officer. The voters of Yuba County should never be left to wonder if they will face criminal charges and harassment for merely engaging in their Constitutional right to vote.[9] |
” |
| —Criminal complaint to secretary of state[5] | ||
Charnel James, an attorney for the Yuba Patients Coalition said, "They're saying, 'If you sign one of those three, you're going to be a marijuana supporter.' They're taking people away from their ability to participate in local politics."[12]
Debbie Tharp, a representative of the YPC, said, "People need to be feeling they're unencumbered by their right to vote. So if they're feeling threatened by somebody who's in a position of power over them, that's going to stop them."[12]
Recall opponents
A campaign called Stop the Recall of Andy Vasquez was formed to oppose the recall petition. The campaign created a website called Continue to Give.[11]
A group called Yuba County Families Against Cannabis Trafficking (FACT) supported the county's marijuana ordinance. The group favored Vasquez's efforts to restrict the marijuana industry and opposed the recall campaign against him.[13]
Response from Andy Vasquez
Concerning the recall effort, Vasquez said, "I'm not worried about it. It's their right as citizens. I spent seven years in the Marine Corps and five years as a road deputy in the sheriff's department defending their right."[7]
Vasquez's official response to the recall effort, which was put on the recall petition form, consisted of just two brief sentences. He said, "Don't be fooled! If you sign this petition, you're supporting large marijuana growers."[14]
In response to those citing reasons besides the issue of marijuana for the recall effort, Vasquez said, "There's nothing else about it. You can dance around it. You can say this and that. But it's the marijuana."[12]
Response from county supervisors
Defending their approval of the marijuana ordinance, supervisors cited a letter received from Gay Todd, the superintendent of Marysville Joint Unified School District, detailing her concerns about the safety of students getting on buses near properties featuring marijuana cultivation. The board also argued that California's drought necessitated tighter regulations of marijuana cultivation due to the high consumption of water at marijuana growing sites. Supervisor Mary Jane Griego contended that the ordinance was not only about marijuana, but about the appropriate use of the county's natural resources. She said, "What we are taking up is a land-use decision. That is what local government does. It's a land-use decision."[2]
Background
The urgency ordinance
On April 28, 2015, the Yuba County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to ban the outdoor cultivation of marijuana plants and limit indoor cultivation to 12 plants grown in accessory structures. Supervisors passed the ban as an "urgency ordinance," meaning the ban went into effect immediately, rather than after the usual 30-day delay for new laws. Passing the law as an emergency ordinance effectively prevented the Yuba Patients Coalition from suspending the law through a veto referendum. The typical period before a law goes into effect would have been used by the group to collect signatures.[2]
Lawsuit
Representatives of the Yuba Patients Coalition filed a lawsuit in Yuba County Superior Court, seeking to force the county to allow a referendum petition against the ordinance. Judge Benjamin Wirtschafter decided to keep the status of the county's "urgency ordinance" intact and ruled against the group. Yuba Patients Coalition appealed the decision to state's Third District Court of Appeal, but this court also denied the suit and sided with the county.[15]
The group then went to the California Supreme Court, where the court looked at the group's petition for review and demanded a response from the county. The supreme court was scheduled to decide whether or not to proceed with the case by June 10, 2015. Ultimately, the supreme court dismissed YPC's case.[6]
The Yuba Patients Coalition also filed a lawsuit claiming the marijuana ordinance violated the California Constitution.[16]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Laws governing recall in California
For a recall of board members, petitioners needed to collect signatures equivalent to 25 percent of registered voters in the supervisor's district within 60 days. For Andy Vasquez, this requirement amounted to 1,069 valid signatures from among the 4,274 registered voters in Vasquez's district by 5:00 p.m. on October 5, 2015.[7]
The first recall application failed due to a lack of valid signatures. Initial filings for county supervisor recalls in California must contain 20 signatures from registered voters within the district represented by the targeted official. The initial application filed by petitioners working with the Yuba Patients Coalition fell short of this threshold, requiring proponents to start the process over and serve Vasquez with a second notice of the intent to recall. Recall supporters said on May 6, 2015, that the paper work would be submitted within a couple of days. A document filing deadline, however, was missed on June 1, 2015, and petitioners had to start the process over once again. Proponents of the recall said that missing the deadline was deliberate and that they were trying to time the circulation of their recall petition to coincide with signature gathering for their water-related initiative.[17][18]
The recall petition was authorized for circulation on August 6, 2015, giving petitioners 60 days to collect signatures. On October 5, 2015, just before the 5:00 p.m. deadline, recall petitioners submitted 1,456 signatures to the county elections office. This amounted to 387 more than the minimum threshold of 1,069. County election officials had until November 17, 2015, to verify that enough of the submitted signatures were filled out correctly and were from registered voters in Vasquez's district. County Clerk Terry Hansen announced that 806 of the submitted signatures were valid, which amounted to about 55 percent of the submitted signatures. This left the recall petition well below the required threshold.[1][3][4]
Hansen said, “The nature of recalls is that it is meant to be difficult. I’m not saying it was a frivolous attempt. It was a serious attempt, but it fell short.”[4]
See also
- Recall campaigns in California
- County commission recalls
- Political recall efforts, 2015
- Yuba County Water Retention Initiative (2015)
- Yuba County, California, "Medical Marijuana Cultivation Act of 2015" Initiative, Measure A (June 2016)
- Yuba County, California, "Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2015" Initiative, Measure B (June 2016)
External links
Basic information
Recall support
Recall opposition
Recent news
This section links to a Google news search for the term "Andy + Vasquez + recall"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Appeal-Democrat, "Vasquez recall effort can move to signature phase," August 7, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Appeal-Democrat, "Yuba County pot law: Initiative, lawsuits up next?" March 12, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Appeal-Democrat, "Vasquez recall papers filed before deadline," October 5, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Appeal-Democrat, "Vasquez recall petitioners fall short," October 13, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Ballotpedia staff writer Josh Altic, "Email correspondence with recall campaign consultant," accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Yuba Patient Coalition, "Home," accessed May 8, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Appeal-Democrat, "Pot supporters target Yuba County supervisor for recall," March 26, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Yuba County Elections Office, "Notice of Intent to Recall for Andy Vasquez," accessed August 18, 2015
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ California Legislature, "California Elections Code 18540," accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Continue to Give, Stop the Recall of Andy Vasquez, "Home," accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 KCRA, "Recall supporters claim supervisor mailer intimidates voters," August 28, 2015
- ↑ Yuba County Families Against Cannabis Trafficking, "About FACT," accessed May 8, 2015
- ↑ The Recall Elections Blog, "California: Yuba County Supervisor sends in concise response to recall," May 20, 2015
- ↑ The Union, "Yuba County pot growers' appeal denied," April 10, 2015
- ↑ Appeal-Democrat, "Judge to weigh constitutionality of Yuba County pot rule," August 13, 2015
- ↑ Appeal-Democrat, "Vasquez recall campaign hits early snag," May 6, 2015
- ↑ Appeal-Democrat, "Vasquez recall effort must start over after missed deadline," June 3, 2015
