City of Avenal recall ballots ‘sequestered.’ What does it mean for voters
While a court order allowed a recall election in the City of Avenal to proceed, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno ordered the Kings County registrar to “sequester the ballots,” putting them under lock until further notice.
Voters in the small rural city cast their votes on April 28 to recall four of their five council members following an unsuccessful attempt by the city to halt the special election.
The city filed an appeal, the day before the special election, requesting the “immediate cancellation” of the election after the Kings County Superior Court denied Avenal’s request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the recall election to continue as scheduled.
The court of appeal also denied Avenal’s request to stop the election but directed the county to refrain from counting the ballots or certifying the results while it considers the city’s arguments that the election is unlawful.
The county submitted a brief to the court of appeals on Monday responding to the issues of the validity of the election and potential remedies.
County officials said the county does not take a position on the outcome of the recall election but it wants to ensure the process is conducted lawfully and fairly for Avenal voters.
The city filed a lawsuit against Kings County in March challenging the validity of the recall election, including that the county’s registrar of voters did not have the authority to administer the election.
The recall ballot included city council members Leticia Gamez, David Reynosa, Pablo Hernandez, and Mayor Alvaro Preciado. Preciado and Hernandez’s terms expire in November. Gamez and Reynosa’s terms expire in 2028.
Avenal residents Dalila Barajas and Kelly Guzman initiated the recall last summer, citing perceived disrespect toward constituents, lack of transparency and Brown Act violations. The only council member who is not being recalled is Ricardo Verdugo, after residents failed to gather the required 526 signatures. His term expires in November 2028. City Council are elected at large for a four-year term.
According to the registrar of voters, 2,407 ballots were mailed earlier in April to registered voters.
Judge Robert Burns said recall elections are rare, and having four out of five city council members recalled is extremely rare.
In his April 23 ruling, Burns said granting the preliminary injunction to stop the recall election would undermine the democratic process and harm “the voting public who would have their votes invalidated.”
The city had argued that the county has been conducting a recall election without lawful authority to do so. The county says that there is an established practice of the county running recall elections.
The county received requests in July 2025 from Avenal residents for a recall against the city’s council members. Four out of the five recall petitions were certified in January.
According to the Superior Court’s rulings, Avenal directed recall proponents to the county twice to initiate the recall process and remained in communication with the county for approximately six months regarding the recall election.
The ruling also indicates that there was a prior informal agreement between Avenal and the county to administer elections and that the city has used the county to administer city elections since 2008.
Last November, the city posted on social media that they were disappointed that the county’s election office validated the recall petitions.
The city cancelled its Dec. 11 council meeting after the four council members facing recall did not attend, leaving the city without a quorum. At that meeting, the county’s registrar of voters was going to present the “certificates of sufficiency” for the recall to the council. The certificate would require the city to select a date for a recall election within 14 days.
On Christmas Day, the city faxed a cease-and-desist letter to the county, saying for the first time that the county didn’t have authority to administer the recall election. The city’s refusal to act triggered a mandatory duty for the county in January to set an election date. The city filed a lawsuit in March.
The estimated cost of the recall election is about $56,707, according to court documents.
