Court of Appeal allows Avenal recall election ballots to be counted
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno allowed counting of Avenal ballots.
- Registrar reported 532 ballots counted and about 130–150 remain to be processed.
- Court ordered county to process ballots and take steps to certify results timely.
After a court order put the city of Avenal’s recall election ballots under lock for 17 days, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno has granted the Kings County registrar permission to have the ballots counted.
Voters in the small rural city cast their votes April 28 to recall four of their five council members following an unsuccessful attempt by the city to halt the special election. The ballots were sequestered pending an appeal, pausing counts while the court reviewed the election’s legality.
The Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday afternoon for the county registrar to process the ballots and take the necessary steps to certify the results in a timely manner.
The recall ballot included Avenal City Council members Leticia Gamez, David Reynosa, Pablo Hernandez and Mayor Alvaro Preciado. Preciado’s and Hernandez’s terms expire in November. Gamez’s and Reynosa’s terms expire in 2028.
Ricardo Verdugo was the only council member not being recalled, after proponents failed to gather the required 526 signatures. His term expires in November 2028. City Council members are elected at large for four-year terms.
According to the registrar of voters, 2,407 ballots were mailed earlier in April to registered voters.
Semiofficial results of the election as of Thursday showed that 532 ballots have been counted. The county has approximately 130 to 150 ballots that need to be processed and tabulated, according to registrar Lupe Villa.
Villa said those ballots will be counted Monday at 10 a.m., and the public is invited to observe. He expects certification to be done by May 28.
City officials said that while the court ruling is disappointing, the city remains focused on serving its residents. “The Court of Appeal declined to resolve the legality of the recall election at this stage of the proceeding,” officials said in a statement.
The city maintains that the recall process was conducted unlawfully and municipal elections must be conducted only by authorized city officials.
Avenal filed an appeal the day before the special election, requesting its cancellation. The city’s action was taken after the Kings County Superior Court denied Avenal’s request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the election to continue.
On April 27, the Court of Appeal denied Avenal’s request to stop the election and directed the county to refrain from counting the ballots or certifying the results while it considered the city’s arguments that the election is unlawful.
County officials are pleased with the Court of Appeal ruling. “Affirms the County’s position that the recall election process was properly administered under California law,” officials said in a statement.
The city filed a lawsuit against Kings County on March 4 challenging the validity of the recall election, including that the county’s registrar of voters did not have the authority to administer the election.
How the Avenal council recall effort got rolling
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 county received requests in July from Avenal residents for a recall against the City 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.
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 said there is an established practice of the county running recall elections.
Burns’ 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.
In November, the city posted on social media that it was disappointed that the county’s election office validated the recall petitions.
The city cancelled the Dec. 11 council meeting after the four 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.
