A California judge has ruled that four Avenal City Council members who resisted their recall were occupying their seats illegally, ordering them to step down. The ruling, reported by the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, ends a months-long political standoff in the small Central California city.
The controversy began with an April 28 special election in which voters removed four of the five council members. According to the Washington Examiner, each recall received at least 70% support, and the effort was driven largely by controversy over changes to the city’s fire-protection arrangements. The New York Post reported that each of the four officials received more than 76% of the vote in favor of their removal, citing previous reports.
Despite the results, Mayor Alvaro Preciado and councilmembers Leticia Gamez, David Reynosa, and Pablo Hernandez refused to leave office. They argued that the election should be invalid because Kings County, rather than the city, had conducted it. That argument previously failed when the Fifth District Court of Appeal declined to intervene before Election Day, as reported by the Washington Examiner.
At a June 11 meeting, three of the recalled officials—Preciado, Gamez, and Hernandez—voted to retain their own seats and approved the city budget, while Reynosa was absent. The council later voted to reject the recall results, according to the New York Post. That led recall supporters to pursue a quo warranto action, an uncommon legal procedure to challenge occupancy of a public office. California Attorney General Rob Bonta authorized the action, allowing the court challenge to proceed.
In her ruling, Judge Giuliani acknowledged a procedural irregularity in the election process but found it did not affect the outcome and did not justify overriding the vote. As reported, she wrote that a contrary holding would “thwart the democratic will.” The court’s decision effectively confirms that the recall results must stand, and that the four officials—who had been serving after removal—must now step down, as ruled by the court.
Avenal, home to roughly 13,000 people about 60 miles southwest of Fresno, rose to prominence during California’s oil boom in the 1930s, and by 1940 had a reputation for strong schools, said the New York Post. The city’s economy is heavily tied to agriculture, and more than 80% of residents are Latino. Additionally, about one-quarter of the population is housed at Avenal State Prison, one of the area’s largest employers, according to the Washington Examiner.
The city manager, Antony V. López, said the city would comply with the ruling and that the four officials planned to step down immediately. “We respect the Court’s decision,” he said in a statement. López also said the city is justified in bringing its legal questions to court, though he is not elected and has publicly sided with the recalled officials as reported.
County supervisors have placed the four disputed seats on the November ballot, but the court ruled Preciado remains eligible to seed office again, ordering that his nomination papers must be accepted. Meanwhile, Ricardo Verdugo is the sole remaining council member, meaning no quorum exists, so the council cannot take official action until enough new members are elected and seated.
A city lawyer said the recalled officials may appeal portions of the ruling after the election, though no notice of appeal has been reported. For now, the ruling requires them to vacate their seats once it takes effect, and Kings County has confirmed they can no longer serve.
Perspectives
Judge: The court’s ruling in this case acknowledged a procedural irregularity but found that in this instance it did not affect the outcome, and therefore the recall results were upheld. The judge wrote that a different ruling would “thwart the democratic will.” This reasoning is specific to the circumstances and does not establish a broader rule beyond the case.
Recalled officials: The recalled officials, through the city manager's statement, maintain that bringing legal questions to court was justified, and that they were not simply surrendering municipal authority. The city manager has sided with the officials, though he is not elected.
Recall supporters: The recall supporters, with the Attorney General authorizing the quo warranto action, viewed the officials' continued holding of office as illegitimate and sought the court to enforce the voters' March decision. The court's ruling validated the recall outcome, reinforcing that the officials' tenure was unlawful once the election was certified.