Lea este artículo en español aquí.
A week after the San Benito County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters rejected signatures to begin a recall of Supervisor Kollin Kosmicki after initially validating them, the office led by Francisco Diaz is facing criticism from both sides: the supervisor himself and the group trying to oust him.
The group filed the signatures on March 23. The following day, Chief Deputy Clerk-Recorder Ana De Castro Maquiz wrote, in an email made public by the group seeking to oust Kosmicki, to county staff and County Counsel saying her office had completed “validation” of the notice of intention and that the signatures met the legal requirements to move the recall forward.
Two days later, on March 26, county elections reversed course, rejecting the notice of intention after determining the group fell short of the minimum threshold: only 34 of the 60 required signatures were deemed valid. The office invalidated 40 signatures because “no residence address was given,” according to the elections report. Some addresses are missing the signatories’ city and zip codes.
On March 27, when BenitoLink reached out, De Castro Maquiz said her office had not previously validated the signatures, but had simply made them public since they were filed. Upon review, she said, staff noticed the address problems and rejected them. BenitoLink reached out to De Castro Maquiz for clarification on the validation issue, but she referred all questions to County Counsel.
Kosmicki said he flagged the missing data on the addresses for elections, and told BenitoLink that elections violated the law by initially advancing a recall that didn’t meet the requirements.
“It was just really alarming to me that our Elections Office would have allowed something so egregious to go forward,” Kosmicki told BenitoLink. “The law is very specific. It’s clear as day that you’re required to include all this information, which they did not include.”
California Elections Code says a notice of intention should contain “the printed name, signature, and residence address, including street and number, city, and zip code, of each of the proponents of the recall.”
Though he didn’t explicitly address the validation, County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters Diaz told BenitoLink the notice to recall supervisor Kosmicki was properly submitted, and his staff reviewed the signatures once a complaint was filed. “In my absence, and following County Counsel advice, staff rejected the petition,” he said. “Voter intent and election laws guide the verification process. By matching petition signatures to voter registration records and addresses, every reasonably verifiable voter is recognized, and their intent is upheld.”
Stacie McGrady, a spokesperson for the group seeking to oust Kosmicki, told BenitoLink the Elections Office had no grounds to reject the nearly 100 signatures collected to initiate the recall. McGrady argues that zip codes are not necessary to file a notice of intention to recall.
“There’s no duplication of addresses between Hollister, San Juan Bautista, Aromas and South County,” McGrady said, “where the zip code would be the identifying information that would help the registrar to differentiate voters.”
The group sent a formal letter on April 2 demanding that elections withdraw the rejection, claiming that the “reversal is legally indefensible.” If it does not, the proponents say they will seek “emergency judicial relief.”
The recall proponents’ main argument is that the purpose of providing a signature is to verify that the signer is a registered voter in the county, and that that can be achieved without a zip code.
“The San Benito County Registrar of Voters has access to the county’s voter registration database and can locate any voter’s record using a street address and city alone,” reads the letter. “The zip codes of Hollister and surrounding communities in San Benito County are well-known and limited in number.”
The letter also claims that, when the Registrar of Voters can locate a voter, the signature must be counted “regardless of what specific piece of address information is missing.”
“The zip code is additional information that could be helpful in identifying who the proponent is, but it’s not necessary information,” McGrady said. “And that’s supported by state law.”
McGrady added that the notice of intention was rejected because County Counsel Gregory Priamos pressured Francisco Diaz and elections to change course. Kosmicki and Priamos, she said, “went to him and inserted their authority, their muscle, their attempt to control; and then Francisco was forced to comply.”
Priamos rejected those claims, saying the recall proponents misunderstand the relationship between County Counsel and the county.
“The proponents may not understand and appreciate the role and responsibilities of the county counsel under state Bar rules of professional conduct and the state Bar act,” Priamos said. “The role of the county counsel is to advise his client on the law and assist them in complying with it.”
Kosmicki said neither he nor the board would respond to the letter, and that the law is clear in saying what has to be included.
Supervisor Ignacio Velazquez, who faces a recall election on the June 2 ballot, told BenitoLink he plans to file a lawsuit early in the week for the same reasons: incomplete addresses missing a city, zip code, or both. He claims that in the notice of intention for his recall, only eight signatures had “everything complete according to law.”
Some of the members pushing to recall Kosmicki are also leading the effort against Velazquez.
Diaz said that the process to recall supervisor Velazquez has been “open and transparent,” and that at least 60 signatures were confirmed and deemed valid under state law.
“I do not have the authority to unilaterally decide contested issues once a measure is filed, certified, and placed on the ballot,” Diaz said. “Such matters must be resolved by the courts.”
He added that, following the supervisors’ criticism, he sought independent legal advice.
“Given that County Counsel advises both the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters,” he said, “I have sought independent legal counsel to ensure impartial guidance that protects the public’s interest and upholds voter intent.”
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.