Kings County joins Avenal voters quo warranto application
Kings County joined proponents of the Avenal City Council recall in the quo warranto application filed with the California Attorney General’s Office.
The county had been evaluating its options after the attorney general declined early this month to step in to handle the recall situation.
County Executive Officer Kyria Martinez told The Bee the county was in the process of preparing an application when the recall proponents filed an application with the AG office.
Instead, on Monday, the county filed a response to the proponents’ application asking to join the current application as plaintiff, said Martinez. She said it was done in coordination with the AG’s Office with consent from the proponents’ counsel.
A quo warranto proceeding is a legal action used to challenge an individual’s right to hold a public or corporate office.
On June 4, the AG’s Office sent a letter to the Kings County DA’s Office and Avenal officials saying it wouldn’t step in and the dispute over the legality of the April 28 recall election “is best resolved by interested local officials or residents through the quo warranto process.”
Under California law, the exclusive way to challenge an official’s legal right to hold public office is ordinarily through a quo warranto lawsuit. Before filing a quo warranto suit against a public official, a party must receive approval from the attorney general.
Voters behind the recall of four council members filed an injunction against them and served them and other city officials with civil restraining orders on Thursday.
“We served them a civil restraint in order for them to vacate their seats. What they are doing is wrong,” Ginger Wallis, a lifelong Avenal resident who worked on the recall, said at that meeting.
The June 11 meeting took place a week after the Kings County District Attorney’s Office notified Avenal to cease and desist from spending any public funds without legal authorization after voters recalled four council members in April.
Only one member lawfully sits on the City Council. Residents on both sides of recall issue packed the meeting. Many felt the meeting was not legitimate.
Thursday’s meeting agenda included an item for the City Council to review the recall results and documents related to the election certification and then to accept or reject the results.
.JPG "FRS_MOB Avenal Recall council meeting 06-11-26 (1).JPG")
The recall ballot included Councilmembers Leticia Gamez, David Reynosa and Pablo Hernandez and Mayor Alvaro Preciado. Gamez, Hernandez and Preciado voted to decline recognizing the recall election results. Reynosa, who also was recalled, was absent from the meeting.
Avenal city officials had until 2 p.m. Monday to appear and respond as defendants to the quo warranto application, which is under review by the Attorney General’s Office.
“We are considering the application on an expedited basis and expect to issue a decision as quickly as possible,” the Attorney General’s Office told The Bee in an email Tuesday afternoon. “If the Attorney General grants leave to sue, the next step would be for the applicants to file a lawsuit in superior court.”
City Manager Antony Lopez told The Bee that the city’s response to the attorney general for the quo warranto petitions was submitted on time.
“We welcome having these legal questions decided by the courts through the quo warranto process,” the city said in a post on its Facebook page. “The city has requested a neutral venue, the avoidance of duplicative litigation, and consideration of the fact that two of the four challenged council seats are already scheduled to appear before voters in November 2026.”
The county addressed the city’s requests to relocate the lawsuit and to shield two of the four recalled City Council members from the quo warranto application with the Attorney General’s Office.
According to quo warranto application documents, the county points out that two courts — Kings County Superior Court in Hanford and the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno — have determined that the four council members were properly recalled from office and both courts already know the situation. The documents says that makes the city’s requests unnecessary and unwarranted conditions for the Attorney General to grant the quo warranto.
Preciado’s and Hernandez’s terms expire in November. Gamez’s and Reynosa’s terms expire in 2028. Ricardo Verdugo, whose term expires in 2028, was the only council member not recalled.
The recall election, which was certified by the county’s registrar of voters on May 28, had more than 73% voter approval. The city has 2,346 registered voters, and voter turnout was 30.43%. City Council members are elected at large for four-year terms.
The city maintains that the recall process was conducted unlawfully; that municipal elections must be conducted only by authorized city officials.
This story was originally published June 17, 2026 at 2:23 PM.
