{"id":110021,"date":"2022-08-15T14:36:31","date_gmt":"2022-08-15T21:36:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/?p=110021"},"modified":"2022-08-15T16:53:19","modified_gmt":"2022-08-15T23:53:19","slug":"another-effort-to-recall-la-county-da-george-gascon-fails","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/2022\/08\/15\/another-effort-to-recall-la-county-da-george-gascon-fails\/","title":{"rendered":"Another effort to recall LA County DA George Gasc\u00f3n fails"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gasc\u00f3n. [Image via GeorgeGasc\u00f3n.com]<\/figcaption><\/figure>An effort to recall Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gasc\u00f3n<\/strong> was rejected Monday with the county clerk’s office announcing<\/a> that organizers submitted only 520,050 valid petition signatures, well short of the required 566,857.<\/p>\n

Organizers of the recall submitted a total of 715,833 petition signatures to the county Registrar-Recorder\/County Clerk’s office in an effort to force Gasc\u00f3n into a recall election. County officials initially conducted a random sampling of the signatures to verify their validity. Based on that initial sampling, the county undertook an effort to verify all 715,833 signatures individually.<\/p>\n

The county announced Monday, Aug. 15, that 195,783 of the signatures were invalid. In many cases, the person signing the petition was not a registered voter, and there were also more than 45,000 duplicate signatures, according to the county.\u00a0According to the Registrar-Recorder\/County Clerk’s Office, the signature-verification process “was conducted in compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the California Government Code, Elections Code and Code of Regulations.<\/p>\n

Last week, organizers of the recall effort alleged the county was not adhering to current laws for signature verification, saying rules presume that a signature is valid unless there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the signature on the petition differs in “multiple, significant and obvious” respects from the one on file. But organizers alleged that the county was not adhering to that standard.<\/p>\n

“The outdated training materials and procedures provided by the Registrar, along with their denial of observation rights, raise grave concerns about the verification process,” according to a statement by the campaign last week. “It appears the standards being applied to verify recall signatures are different than those mandated under current law and used in other recent elections. We remain confident that once a fair, transparent, and accurate verification process is implemented, it will ultimately determine enough signatures were submitted to qualify the recall.”<\/p>\n

According to the county’s breakdown of invalid signatures, however, only about 9,940 were ruled to be different than the one on file, with the vast majority rejected for other reasons.<\/p>\n

Gasc\u00f3n has been under fire since taking office in December 2020, when he issued a series of directives critics\u00a0\u00a0blasted as being soft on crime. The directives include a rule against seeking the death penalty, a ban on transferring juvenile defendants to adult court and prohibitions on filing sentencing-enhancements in most cases.\u00a0Gasc\u00f3n has repeatedly defended his policies, saying his stances were well-known during his campaign and his election signified public support of his agenda.<\/p>\n

On Monday, Gasc\u00f3n wrote on his Twitter page: “Grateful to move forward from this attempted political power grab. Rest assured LA County, the work hasn’t stopped. My primary focus has been & will always be keeping us safe & creating a more equitable justice system for all. I remain strongly committed to that work & to you.”<\/p>\n

Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Hatami<\/strong>, who vocally backed the recall effort, said he was saddened and disappointed.<\/p>\n

“The residents of L.A. County cannot afford another two years of George Gascon’s dangerous policies,” Hatami said in a statement. “The lives of so many innocent residents are at risk. So, we all must come together to help and stand up for one another until George is gone.”<\/p>\n

“George — a message for you: I’m not going anywhere,” Hatami said. “I will always stand with abused & neglected children, victims & their families & all the residents of L.A. County. Your days are still numbered. Just like today, I’ll be back working and fighting for the people tomorrow.”<\/p>\n

Monday marked the second failure of an effort to recall Gasc\u00f3n. A separate attempt last year was halted, with organizers blaming poor timing and the impact of COVID-19 health lockdowns.<\/p>\n

The latest recall effort appeared to gain steam throughout the signature-gathering effort, bolstered by vocal criticism of Gasc\u00f3n by recall organizers and the leaders of dozens of local cities that took “no confidence” votes in the district attorney.\u00a0But just as the recall-petition signatures were being submitted to the county last month, there were signs of discord that threatened the effort.<\/p>\n

A petition signature-gathering company hired by the recall campaign sued the organizers, saying they were owed nearly $470,000 for unpaid work. The lawsuit by Let the Voters Decide<\/em> also accused recall organizers of a series of missteps in the process, alleging they “made multiple strategic decisions related to the collection of signatures that were directly against LTVD’s recommendations as to how to proceed.”<\/p>\n

“For example, against LTVD’s recommendations, Defendants lowered the price they were willing to pay signature collectors during a time where the market demanded that, to prevent those individuals from leaving, Defendants maintain or increase the prices paid,” the suit alleges.<\/p>\n

Tim Lineberger<\/strong>, spokesman for the recall campaign, called the lawsuit “frivolous.”<\/p>\n

Responding to news of the recall effort’s failure, LTVD spokesman David Leibowitz<\/strong> said in a statement, “This could not have been handled more like amateur hour. These consultants made poor decisions and ignored solid advice at every turn. You name it, they did it, from collecting signatures on the cheap to failing to pay their bills to expensive direct mail that failed to having zero clue how to verify signatures for submission. They have no one to blame but themselves for this disaster.”<\/p>\n

Previous related stories:<\/p>\n

Petition signature collecting company sues Recall Gasc\u00f3n Committee<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

County clerk completes random sampling technique for Gasc\u00f3n recall petition<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Election officials reviewing 715,833 signatures turned in to recall Gasc\u00f3n<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Supervisor Kathryn Barger endorses recall of DA George Gasc\u00f3n<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

George Gasc\u00f3n recall effort being restarted<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An effort to recall Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gasc\u00f3n was rejected Monday with the county clerk’s office announcing that organizers submitted only 520,050 valid petition signatures, well short of the required 566,857. Organizers of the recall submitted a total of 715,833 petition signatures to the county Registrar-Recorder\/County Clerk’s office in an effort to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":103975,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1499,1496,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110021"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110021"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110021\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":110040,"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110021\/revisions\/110040"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/103975"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theavtimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}