AMAC Exclusive – By Andrew Abbott
Two months ago, more than half a million frustrated Los Angeles residents were shocked to hear that their attempt to recall radical Soros-backed district attorney George Gascon had failed. Though the recall effort had collected and submitted more than 715,000 signatures, far more than the 566,857 required to advance to a full recall vote on the November ballot, the Los Angeles County Registrar ruled that a staggering 195,000 of them were invalid. But now, a new lawsuit has raised questions about potential obstruction, tampering, and deep politicization of California’s signature verification process.
Earlier this month, the Recall George Gascon Committee announced that it had filed suit against the Los Angeles County Registrar for improperly rejecting valid signatures. After conducting an internal audit of all invalidated signatures, the recall campaign says that it believes about 80,000 signatures were wrongfully rejected – enough to reverse the outcome and put the recall measure on the ballot in November. These findings raise troubling questions about the integrity of the process used by the California state government to verify the signatures.
According to the recall campaign, thousands of signatures were “incorrectly invalidated as ‘non-matching’ despite showing substantial similarities to the signatures on file.” In addition, also according to the campaign, “many of the decisions to invalidate for this reason appear not to have been signed off on by multiple reviewers, as required by law.” The campaign asserts that a large number of signatures were invalidated for being “not registered” voters who were clearly registered and “could easily be identified in the voter database.”
However, the recall campaign thus far has been unable to conduct a full review of the invalidated signatures due to what they call arbitrary and capricious limitations on the review process that substantially limit review hours, workstations, number of reviewers, access to information necessary to determine the legitimacy of a signature invalidation, and more.” According to the campaign, it would take “more than a year” to review every invalidated signature. That’s why the recall campaign has now asked a court to step in and conduct a full audit.
This latest recall effort is the second against George Gascon, who has been a figure of controversy since taking office in December 2020. As one of a growing number of public prosecutors backed by liberal billionaire George Soros, Gascon has pushed for policies such as ending cash bail and charging anyone under the age of 25 as a minor, no matter what crime they have committed.
Violent crime has skyrocketed in LA under Gascon’s watch, and a number of high-profile cases have involved prior offenders who should have been in jail. In August, for example, an LA police officer was killed by repeat offenders who were let out of jail early thanks to Gascon’s policies.
Should the recall campaign win its suit, a vote to recall Gascon will be included on the November ballot. Yet, if accurate, the revelations in the suit raise major concerns far beyond one recall election. Invalidating so many signatures while disregarding and breaking clearly defined rules and regulations suggests a political motive to interfere with the recall effort that should have California residents and every American alarmed at the integrity of the election process.
Those concerns are heightened given a number of other scandals currently plaguing LA’s city government. Last year, for example, LA City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas was indicted on federal charges of bribery and corruption when emails revealed he had orchestrated lucrative city contracts for the University of Southern California in order to get his son a full scholarship at the school.
Last week, another LA City Council member, Nury Martinez, was also forced to resign after leaked tapes revealed racist comments made by her and several other members of the council. Martinez and her colleagues also made a number of political comments in the audio which were equally troubling. Specifically, Martinez discussed how she intended to redistrict the city along racial lines in order to protect incumbent members of the council.
These scandals paint a picture of a deeply corrupt and politicized city government. Given this and the findings by the recall campaign, it would seem that, at the very least, more time and greater access to review the city’s signature verification effort is absolutely warranted.
Andrew Abbott is the pen name of a writer and public affairs consultant with over a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture.