California Congressman Eric Swalwell has filed a state damages lawsuit against Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price, who faces dismissal over alleged “defamatory statements.”

Joseph Goethals of Goethals & Stone, PC in Burlingame, said Sunday that he filed the damages suit in Alameda County. The filing of a lawsuit is a proper requirement before the initiation of an actual lawsuit. Alameda County now has 30 days to reply, Goethals said. It will either accept the lawsuit and compensate Swalwell or reject the lawsuit and possibly file a defamation lawsuit in state court.

“Pamela Price intentionally made false claims,” Goethals said. “She is retaliating because the congressman supports the recall effort. This is an attempt to distract people from their gross incompetence that is endangering the residents of Alameda County.”

Media representatives for the prosecutor's office didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment on Sunday.

Swalwell, who represents California's 14th Congressional District, has been a vocal critic of Price, whose recall effort goes before voters on Nov. 5. After the congressman held a press conference in early October advocating for the recall, Price published a post on her personal Facebook page That raised the query of whether Swalwell had anything to “hide” from his time as a prosecutor within the DA’s office from 2006 to 2012.

Price's campaign then released an announcement saying, “Voters would be better served if Congressman Swalwell focused less on overturning the will of the voters and more on defending our democracy.”

Price's campaign previously suggested on X.com that the The congressman was just beginning to complain about crime when “Alameda County residents historically elected the first black woman to serve as district attorney.”

“Pamela Price leaves me no choice but to file this lawsuit against her because of her deliberate and untrue statements,” Swalwell’s office said in an email Sunday. “No one is above the law, especially the Alameda County District Attorney. Price may be trying to bide time for her likely recall, but her intimidation tactics and efforts at political retaliation may not hold up. I will not allow her to attempt to tarnish my personal and professional reputation.”

Originally published: November 3, 2024 at 4:52 pm PST

Editor's Note: Below is the total text of a letter Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price sent to East Bay Rep. Eric Swalwell in August. The letter was shared with the Bay Area News Group by Protect The Win, a campaign to support Price and block the recall effort.

August 7, 2024
Congressman Eric Swalwell
Dear Mr. Hon. Representative Swalwell:

I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to personally invite you to fulfill with me and my leadership team as soon as possible. I fear that our relationship as allied representatives of a shared community has been marred by significant misunderstandings. I believe a private note to introduce us will reassure you that we’re working diligently to serve the individuals who live, work and play in Alameda County.

As a former Alameda County prosecutor, I imagine you share our concern for the protection of Alameda County and the necessity to construct trust within the rule of law. I also hope that, based in your previous work with our office, you’ve gotten a shared understanding of the challenges we face and our commitment to our community.

When Alameda County voters elected me to function district attorney starting in 2023, the county was already facing an alarming, pandemic-related spike in violent crime. The root causes of the rise in violence are complex and include the flooding of our community with guns throughout the COVID shutdown; dual housing and mental health crises; and Oakland's status as a hub within the billion-dollar international human slave trade, also generally known as human trafficking.

The district attorney's office also found itself in a crisis in its dealings with the broader public. The backlog in providing compensation and services to crime victims in Alameda County had develop into staggering, with too many victims having to attend a couple of yr to receive help. Many different communities felt disrespected by the office's perceived bias and failure to carry government actors accountable to the population. There was a persistent lack of trust among the many population within the administration of justice within the district.

I walked into an office in shambles. My successes were considerable.

RELATED: Rep. Eric Swalwell supports the recall of Alameda County Prosecutor Pamela Price

With the assistance of my talented leadership team, we now have hired committed, diverse talent at an unprecedented pace; expanded timely and culturally appropriate services for crime victims; We have expanded our collaborative courts to deal with the foundation causes of harm. including mental health crises and systems built to carry government actors – including my very own lawyers – accountable to the general public. But most significantly, I protected the community. I actually have proven that I’ll confront serious criminals. I’m committed to making sure that nobody is above the law and that the law is run fairly.

Recent comments in your personal social media suggest that it’s possible you’ll be unaware or misinformed concerning the progress of my administration. To assist you, I offer the next resources.

1. Annual Report 2023 – The report documents our work to revive the functionality of the Office with an eye fixed on law enforcement, accountability, transparency and justice.

2. Newsroom – We encounter serious crimes with serious consequences. My newsroom presents a weekly choice of probably the most serious crimes prosecuted by my government. Just last week, for instance, I announced the indictment of a person for the attempted murder of an Alameda County sheriff's deputy. This defendant was charged with multiple felonies for allegedly attempting to run over an Alameda County sheriff's deputy, including aggravated assault charges and for being out on bail on the time the alleged crime was committed.

To reassure you that the office is “in good hands,” I invite you to fulfill with me and my leadership team. We meet weekly on Fridays from 1 to three p.m. on the Oakland District Attorney's Office Oakport Branch. In the interest of furthering our shared mission to advance justice for all residents of Alameda County, I encourage you to simply accept our invitation. We value the open exchange of ideas and methods to make sure public safety, and I imagine our interests are higher served through collaboration than through public sparring.

Please contact me directly at pamela.price@acgov.org or ask your staff to contact our DAO Chief of Staff, LaTonia Peoples-Stokes, to rearrange a mutually convenient appointment.

In the meantime, my administration will proceed to approach the administration of justice in Alameda County with the utmost seriousness and determination to realize concrete and lasting ends in the interest of constructing public safety and confidence within the rule of law.

Sincerely,
Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price

Originally published: October 2, 2024 at 6:15 p.m

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans Friday for military prosecutors to work with the California Department of Justice on certain East Bay cases, just weeks after an analogous agreement with Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price's office fell apart amid a rare public spat between the 2 Democrats.

Newsom said attorneys from CalGuard's Counterdrug Task Force would work with Attorney General Rob Bonta's office on Alameda County cases. Among those not involved is the county's top prosecutor, Price, whose dispute with the governor earlier this month resulted in “disappointment” on either side.

In an announcement announcing the move, Newsom portrayed it as a possibility to “help bring justice to the people of the Bay Area.”

“Today, we are strengthening accountability and justice for East Bay communities by quickly reaching an agreement to provide additional resources to prosecute criminal behavior,” Newsom's statement said.

In a separate statement, Price expressed her approval of this move.

“We hope that the swift agreement between the Department of Justice and CalGuard will produce equally swift results, and my office stands ready to support that effort in any way possible,” Price said within the statement.

She also appeared to query the outcomes of Newsom's much-vaunted increase within the variety of California Highway Patrol officers within the East Bay. Price as an alternative suggested that her office had received only a small fraction of the a whole lot of cases Highway Patrol officers have opened as a part of their deployments within the Oakland area this yr.

The reshuffle of state and military prosecutors was the newest twist in a months-long saga that took a bitter turn in mid-July.

In February, Newsom announced plans to send prosecutors and military prosecutors to work directly with the Alameda County District Attorney's Office as part of a bigger effort to curb crime across the East Bay. The effort was modeled on an analogous agreement with the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and got here amid a surge of state troopers within the Oakland area to combat a wide selection of crimes, including shoplifting and automotive break-ins.

However, the move failed as a result of a series of delays, with Newsom and Price blaming one another for failing to agree on the terms of the partnership.

One of Newsom's Cabinet secretaries identified to Price in a letter last month that the Attorney General's Office took too long to conform to a memorandum of understanding that might have paved the way in which for the prosecutors' arrival. The letter claimed the Attorney General's Office had not taken “initial” steps to finalize such an agreement or appoint National Guard lawyers to work in its office, regardless that Newsom's office had complied with Price's team's requests for resumes and interviews, it said.

But Price said the governor's office didn’t begin that process until April. She also said the unique plan to send three prosecutors to Alameda County has been reduced to at least one, and the one remaining prosecutor is not going to be available after mid-August as a result of “another commitment.”

The issue culminated in competing press conferences on July 12, when Newsom publicly withdrew his offer of aid.

“(The governor) has the right to do whatever he deems appropriate,” Price said on the time, adding that her office had received “mixed messages about what (the governor) would do” and that she was “disappointed” the governor's office had not reached out to her on to share its concerns.

Originally published: August 2, 2024 at 12:31 pm

Alameda County voters will determine in November whether to recall District Attorney Pamela Price after county supervisors decided against spending as much as $20 million on a special election this summer, with no vote within the history of the case Counties, if any, would have had a precedent.

Instead of putting the query before voters, the county Board of Supervisors opted Tuesday to position the recall query on the Nov. 5 ballot, together with an expected rematch between the country's last two presidents in addition to a plethora of state races and native level.

The move is consistent with the suggestion of Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis, who provided a protracted list of reasons for postponing the query for six months. The most vital factor was the expected price tag of holding a special election in August or September: estimates ranged from $15 million to $20 million.

That's a very difficult query, some supervisors said, considering the county faces a looming $68 million budget deficit in the subsequent fiscal yr, which begins July 1. And the county could have to funnel tens of thousands and thousands of additional dollars to the Alameda Health System, which is facing its own yawning deficit.

“The bottom line is the fact that I cannot in good conscience support a special election that will cost the county nearly $20 million,” said Nate Miley, the board’s president, adding that such a move “would be for “I'm irresponsible.”

Elections director Elisa Márquez also said she wanted the recall question to be asked in a general election, similar to what Price was elected in 2022, because more voters typically cast ballots in such contests.

But Supervisor Keith Carson went further, questioning the wisdom of removing a district attorney so soon after his election – especially when that one person is just a cog in a complicated legal system with so many moving parts.

“Holding a single individual completely responsible for all aspects of the system and respecting their beliefs or feelings is not the way our system works,” Carson said. Referring to the incontrovertible fact that he first heard calls for Price's removal barely three months after she took office, he added: “Whether I support her or not, whoever that prosecutor is, whoever that person is, who was duly elected, I think. “They deserve at least a reasonable amount of time to figure out what their job entails.”

The vote was 3-0. Supervisors David Haubert and Lena Tam were not present at the vote.

After the board vote, recall organizers expressed confidence that voters would remove Price from office in November. For weeks, recall supporters had implored county supervisors to put the question before voters as quickly as possible, arguing the potential $20 million price tag paled in comparison to the impact of Price's policies.

“As long as there's an election, that's an important thing,” said Carl Chan, a campaign organizer and Oakland Chinatown leader, who promised the Nov. 5 campaign would be “very successful.”

The district attorney's campaign said it would host a news conference Wednesday about the panel's vote. It described the panel's decision as “a victory” because it “allows more voters to forged their votes and provides voters more time to tell themselves concerning the facts.”

Moments after the panel's vote, supporters of the district attorney again condemned the very prospect of overturning the election, calling it “illegitimate.” They repeated allegations from Price's campaign that the county did not properly follow election laws when verifying recall petition signatures.

Ahead of the board's decision, Price's supporters used the public comment area to denounce the expected costs of a special election and lamented the idea that fewer people might vote in the summer than in a general election that would decide the White House goes . They called the idea of ​​a recall so soon in Price's first term a “travesty” and stressed that she needed more time to implement her policies and make an impact on crime rates across the East Bay.

“Essentially, District Attorney Price is being scapegoated,” said a caller named Ginny Madsen. “I am outraged that an expensive special election is even being considered. A special election is designed to distort voter turnout… and will do the county a disservice. Please don’t set a dangerous precedent that I think everyone will eventually regret.”

But supporters of the recall effort, who also spoke out during public comment, railed against Price's efforts to overhaul the East Bay's criminal justice system, calling her approach too soft on crime.

“How much does a life cost? “Is there really a price?” asked Oakland resident Elizabeth Kenney. “Please honor the lives of victims and victims of violent crime and give us a special election now.”

The price of a special election was a recurring theme Tuesday.

Ahead of the board vote, Dupuis said calling the special election would cost the county $19 to $21 per voter in postage costs. In addition, up to 400 new employees and 1,700 poll workers would have to be hired to help mail ballots and staff voting centers. That compares to the cost of a general election, which can be as low as $4 to $6 per person, Dupuis said, especially because the county can share that cost with other municipalities and governments.

Dupius also warned that holding a special election in August or September could put the county at risk of not having its voting equipment ready in time for the November election. That's because the equipment would have to be decommissioned and recertified within a few months. And if someone decides to file a lawsuit challenging the results, the equipment could become completely unavailable.

“We have just enough equipment to hold a statewide election one time,” Dupuis said. “We don’t have enough equipment to hold two national elections.”

Recall organizers appear to be entering the six-month recall race with a significant fundraising advantage. Donations to the two leading political organizations pushing the recall effort have dwarfed those made directly to Price's Protect the Win campaign since last summer, campaign finance filings show.

The recall effort, called “Save Alameda For Everyone,” raised nearly $569,000 in donations in the first three months of 2024, according to campaign finance forms filed May 1. This is in addition to the approximately $1.1 million raised in 2023.

Much of that money came from a single political action committee, Supporters Of Recall Pamela Price, which contributed $545,330 from January to March, along with about $694,000 in 2023. The group has since been suspended following allegations from the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating Price's campaign for failing to properly disclose its contributors.

In comparison, Price's “Protect the Win” campaign raised just over $36,000 in the primary three months of 2024. This is along with the $82,000 in donations raised in 2023.

OAKLAND — The Alameda County Board of Supervisors opened the door Wednesday to the recall bid against District Attorney Pamela Price failing on the November ballot.

Unfortunately for Price's opponents, the board decided to attend until May 14 to set a recall date. That gave the board the flexibleness to either call a special election for sometime between Aug. 10 and Sept. 16 or postpone it until the Nov. 5 general election.

The move raises the likelihood that a recall query with little – if any – precedent in Alameda County will appear on a ballot that features the whole lot from a rematch between the country's last two presidents to an untold variety of ballot measures and a one-off Generational race for U.S. Senate.

Several supervisors expressed a desire to take the method slowly, given the rarity of recalls in Alameda County and the way complicated the method has change into with the passage of recall election reforms in March. At least one even looked as if it would welcome legal motion to present county leaders guidance on which laws they need to apply and when.

“I would like to take this step by step,” said supervisor Lena Tam, waiting until May 14 to set a date.

“I will support this motion in the hopes that litigation will be filed so we can get clearer direction,” Supervisor Elisa Márquez added. “Because we can’t do it ourselves.”

After the meeting, Carl Chan, certainly one of the recall organizers and Oakland Chinatown leader, expressed frustration that the board had raised the likelihood that a call on the recall couldn’t be made for six months. The group he co-founded, Save Alameda For Everyone, submitted greater than 123,000 signatures to place the query on a ballot in early March and had to attend greater than a month while the voter registry counted each signature to make sure they were was valid.

In the tip, the registrar counted 74,757 valid signatures – ensuring the group would exceed the required threshold by about 1,560 after 48,617 signatures were found to be invalid.

“It is a disappointment that they are afraid to hold a special election starting today,” Chan said.

Price's campaign attorney also expressed frustration, but more with Marquez's testimony and the way the county has handled the transition between old and latest recall election laws.

“They expect Pamela to raise several hundred thousand dollars in a lawsuit,” said attorney Jim Sutton. “So why don’t (supervisors) file a lawsuit? And why doesn't anyone push her? Isn’t it the county’s duty to resolve these legal issues?”

Tim Dupuis, the county's voter registrar, cited a protracted list of budgetary and logistical concerns in expressing his preference for delaying the recall query until November. Special elections in Alameda County typically cost $15 million to $20 million, he said. And holding a special election so near a general election could force the agency to acquire latest voting equipment, since decommissioning and repairing voting machines in only a number of months is a challenge.

“We have resource needs for both elections that will be emphasized,” Dupuis told the board. “It would jeopardize our availability of resources and equipment for the consolidated election” in November.

Before the meeting, supporters and opponents of the recall shouted over one another with megaphones outside the County Administration Building in downtown Oakland, dueling chants of “Recall Price” and “We love Price.”

“Let’s make some noise for Pamela Price,” one supporter shouted right into a microphone while surrounded by signs saying, “Stop wasting our money!” and “Protect our budget!”

“The citizens have spoken,” shouted Brenda Grisham, a recall organizer. “We want Pamela Price removed sooner than later to ensure the safety of our citizens, our families and the safety of Alameda County.”

For greater than a yr, Price's opponents have been fighting the district attorney's try to overhaul the East Bay's justice system. In particular, they’ve railed against Price's decision to not impose longer prison sentences on defendants.

On Wednesday, recall supporters held signs reading “Special Election Now!” and “Your security is FREE,” while complaining to regulators that any delay in setting an election date would ignore the desires of tens of 1000’s of people that have signed on to the recall effort.

Some of the individuals who spoke to supervisors were relatives of individuals killed within the East Bay, and others felt Price had not been tough enough on crime during her 16 months in office.

“I don't understand why we have to delay this,” said one caller, John Guerrero, who added that crime “has a huge, huge impact on the community – in life, in property and certainly in business.” People want that. “

But Price's supporters questioned the recall effort coming so early in an elected official's term — particularly a measure that would cost taxpayers tens of thousands and thousands of dollars. They suggested that Price didn’t have time to completely implement her reforms.

Removing Price from office will only end in the DA's office continuing “the same arrest, re-arrest and re-incarceration cycle that we have had for 30 years, primarily affecting Black and brown communities,” one caller said , Mickey Duxbury.

Sutton went further, suggesting that supervisors had no legal authority to call an election due to concerns about how recall organizers collected signatures and the way the county's voter registry counted them.

“We believe you have a legal obligation not to move forward with the planning of this election at all,” Sutton said.

The specter of the recall falling on the November election was partly a results of newly reformed election laws that Alameda County voters approved just two months ago.

Before March 5, recall elections in Alameda County were governed by laws dating back to at the least the Nineteen Twenties that required quick scheduling of election dates. In most cases, supervisors have needed to schedule elections as early as 35 to 40 days after receiving validated signatures calling for recall.

But that each one modified through the March primary when county voters approved Measure B, opting to align the county's recall ordinances with California's recently rewritten laws. These state laws give counties two to 4 months to conduct such elections.

Importantly, the brand new laws also aim to limit the likelihood that multimillion-dollar special elections will conflict with long-scheduled general elections. Specifically, the laws open the door to a consolidation of the 2 if the recall is scheduled inside six months of a general election.

It stays unclear which election date might prove more advantageous for Price or her opponents.

“Special election voters tend to be less diverse, wealthier and far more attuned to the specific issue being voted on in a special election,” said Jason McDaniel, an associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University.

“It will be people who are primarily motivated to vote,” McDaniel said. “It’s harder to generate enthusiasm to block a recall.”

But Joshua Spivak, a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law's California Constitution Center, said his review of nearly 1,200 recall elections from 2011 to 2023 shows that in 61 percent of cases, the official facing a recall is faraway from office . The number is barely higher, at about 67%, when recall questions find yourself on the overall election ballot, while special election recalls are successful about 57% of the time, he said.

Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price appears to be facing recall this 12 months after her opponents cleared the ultimate major hurdle in putting the query before voters on Monday.

Nearly 15 months after taking office, Price must now work to maintain her job after county officials said Monday that the Save Alameda For Everyone recall campaign had submitted valid signatures to force an election. According to Tim Dupuis, the county's registrar of voters, the group submitted 74,757 valid signatures, just barely greater than the 73,195 needed to get the query on a ballot. Another 48,617 signatures were found to be invalid, meaning they may not be considered within the group's try to unseat Price.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors must now settle on a date for the election.

On Monday, recall organizers hailed the announcement as a pointy rejection of the district attorney's try to overhaul the East Bay's justice system. For greater than a 12 months, they’ve railed against Price's decisions to not impose long prison sentences on defendants – calling such measures too lenient on crime.

Since a recall was nearly as good as possible, they vowed to perform their try to remove Price from office.

“The successful collection of signatures demonstrates the overwhelming support of residents throughout Alameda County for a change in leadership and a renewed commitment to the principles of integrity and public service,” the group’s announcement said.

Messages left as a part of Price's “Protect the Win” campaign weren’t immediately returned.

The move marks the second time in recent times that a recall effort has been made against a Bay Area district attorney. In June 2022, San Francisco voters removed their very own progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin from office in a nationally watched campaign.

Price has faced vocal opposition for the reason that first months of her term, with opponents first holding a rally in April 2023 to call for her impeachment on the identical courthouse steps where Monday's rally took place. She filed formal paperwork to form a recall committee over the summer and worked from September through early March to gather enough signatures to force an election.

Recall leaders say Price has been too soft on crime since taking office and criticized her efforts to shorten prison sentences and reduce the variety of sentencing enhancements given to defendants. They identified that her handling of several high-profile murder charges – including a plea deal for a person once accused in three murders as an adolescent – was an indication that Price was not tough enough on crime.

However, Price calls the long prison sentences a remnant of the country's racist overreaction to crime – a response that has devastated communities of color and led to the unnecessary mass incarceration of criminals. A vocal critic of law enforcement, she has also taken steps to reopen misconduct cases against police and sheriff's deputies.