Recall signatures submitted in move to recall Livingston mayor, most of City Council
The campaign to recall all but one member of Livingston’s four-person City Council reached a critical stage this week, as the deadline to submit signatures arrived Wednesday.
Recall proponents filed signed petitions with the City of Livingston on Wednesday. The Merced County Elections Office received copies of the petitions from the city Thursday afternoon, Registrar of Voters Darlene Ingersoll confirmed to the Sun-Star.
The effort to remove a majority of council members mid-term was first initiated in May, following turmoil in Livingston that has continued to unravel throughout the year.
The city’s first-term mayor, Juan Aguilar, plus council members Raul Garcia, Maria Soto and Gagandeep Kang each face the possibility of losing their elected seats early, if enough petition signatures have been gathered to warrant a recall election.
Only Councilmember Jose Moran, himself a proponent of the campaign, is excluded from the recall effort.
A minimum of 1,483 verified signatures is required to move the recall process to the election stage, Livingston resident and recall proponent Leticia Vasquez told the Sun-Star.
Vasquez was present at City Hall on Wednesday and Thursday as city officials counted signatures.
Signatures tallies sent by the city to the Merced County Elections Office counted 1,834 for Aguilar, 1,832 for Soto, 1,828 for Kang and 1,809 for Garcia, Vasquez said. Ingersoll told the Sun-Star she could not confirm verified or unverified signature counts at this time.
Aguilar told the Sun-Star that although he wasn’t sure whether the recall will come to an election, he was certain that if it does, he’ll “absolutely” have enough community support to maintain his seat.
“I have support from, I would say, a majority of the town,” Aguilar said.
Despite the community contention, Aguilar said its still business as usual in Livingston and that government duties haven’t been disrupted.
“I have nothing but the best interest in mind when it comes to the community,” he said. “Some of these allegations of corruption, I’m an open book. Anybody who’s anybody can reach out to me.”
Recall backers like Vasquez disagree. “I think that he’s incorrect when it comes to a minority of people (supporting the recall), based on the signatures we’ve collected,” she said.
“He and the rest of the council members being recalled have not attempted to regain any of the trust that’s been lost, or be transparent . . . at the end of the day, the residents decided to put him there and the residents can decide to remove him if that’s what they want.”
What’s next?
Unlike hired staff, government officials elected by the people cannot simply be fired or dismissed. A recall gives voters the power to remove an elected official before their official term expires.
Under California law, the number of signatures collected must exceed or equal a minimum percentage of registered voters. Livingston’s more than 5,900 registered voters falls between the 1,000 to 10,000 category, meaning at least 25% of voters must sign the recall petition for an election to occur.
With the period to collect signatures closed, whether the recall effort results in an election is now in the hands of the Merced County Elections Office. The department has 30 business days to verify each signature, determine whether the petition is signed by the required number of voters, certify the results and notify recall proponents.
If the recall petition is found to have sufficient signatures, the county elections office must certify the results to the City of Livingston during its next regular meeting. Then, the city has 14 days to issue an order stating that an election will be held.
The election would be held no less than 88 nor more than 125 days after that.
A year of discord in Livingston
The recall effort is just one of many recent examples of obvious political discord in Livingston.
Protests recently broke out at City Hall after the news that Livingston’s police chief, just six months into the job, was abruptly put on administrative leave just a month before his retirement.
A Merced County Sheriff’s lieutenant is acting as chief in the interim.
Some community members said the chief’s unexplained exit mirrored the termination of former Livingston City Manager Jose Ramirez in July.
Ramirez was let go by the City Council via a 4-1 vote without explanation, despite lengthy testimonies of support from dozens of Livingston residents — including some high-ranking Merced County officials.
Livingston residents later gathered outside City Hall to protest Ramirez’s termination and demand answers, which were never formally received.
The next month, Moran posted a YouTube video with information that he believes gives context to many of the recent incidents in Livingston. Moran accused Councilmember Kang and his brother, Livingston Police Sgt. Wapinder Kang, of encouraging him in June 2020 to run for city clerk during the November 2020 election — with the promise of over 1,000 votes guaranteed.
One month earlier, Sgt. Kang was arrested and put on leave due to his alleged involvement in filing a false police report to cover for another law enforcement officer.
The Merced County District Attorney’s Office confirmed that it was investigating potential Livingston voting fraud in conjunction with the Secretary of State’s Office.
This story was originally published December 4, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
