In a special election held on Tuesday, March 4, voters will decide whether to grant the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors the power to remove Sheriff Christina Corpus from office amid allegations of misconduct.
Approving Measure A, the ballot initiative in question, will amend the county charter to allow supervisors until the end of 2028 — which coincides with the end of the sheriff’s six-year-term — to oust the sheriff with cause by a four-fifths vote. Currently, the board does not have the power to remove elected officials from their positions.
Following the release of a 408-page report by Judge LaDoris Cordell, which detailed corruption, abuse of power, and other violations in Corpus’ administration, the Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed in December to host a special election to amend the county charter and put Measure A on the ballot.
“San Mateo County is what’s called a charter county. There’s 14 of them in California, so we have the ability in this county to kind of make our own rules and then amend them with voter approval,” said San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association (DSA) Secretary Eliot Storch. “What Measure A would do is amend the county charter to allow the Board of Supervisors, with a four-fifths vote, to remove the sheriff if certain criteria are met.”
The measure outlines the reasons for which the board could remove Corpus, including flagrant or repeated neglect of a sheriff’s duties, misappropriation of public funds or property, willful falsification of an official statement or document, or obstruction of any investigation into the Sheriff’s Office, as defined in federal, state, and local laws.
Supporters of Measure A believe the initiative is necessary to hold the sheriff accountable and ensure public trust in law enforcement leadership. Additionally, supporters believe passing Measure A is urgent because it is a swift method to address the sheriff’s misconduct, and without this measure, harmful behavior could persist unchecked.
City councils across the Peninsula — such as Belmont, Redwood City, and San Francisco — have passed resolutions supporting her removal or indicating no confidence in her leadership, while other organizations and leaders have expressed similar sentiments.
“Once the severity of the situation became obvious, it was also clear that this matter needed to be pushed along and that our elected officials needed to get more vocal about it. I wanted Redwood City to be a part of that group saying that this was no longer OK, that it is not the acceptable standard of law enforcement that the community deserves,” said Redwood City Mayor Elmer Martínez Saballos.
However, the sheriff and critics of Measure A argue that the initiative could weaken voter decision-making and create a troubling precedent for the county.
“It’s a power grab and abuse of voters’ rights,” Corpus said, according to Redwood City Pulse. “The measure is based on a report that lacked factual evidence and bypassed the basic principles of due diligence. This report is all based on whistleblower complaints that were given immunity, and no one was placed under oath for statements given.”
Formal arguments both for and against Measure A, including rebuttals, have been distributed to voters via a ballot information pamphlet and are also available for public viewing on the county elections website.
The measure requires a simple majority to pass, and as March 4 approaches, community members are weighing their options to make the decision they believe is best for the community.
Arguments in favor of Measure A
The official arguments in favor of Measure A were submitted and signed by U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, U.S. Rep. Kevin Mullin, Supervisor Noelia Corzo, Sheriff Sgt. Sean Harper, and Deputy Sheriff Matthew Silano.
In the argument, the supporters stated that the measure “provides urgent checks and balances on the Sheriff’s Office,” also arguing that since an amended charter would sunset in 2028, it represents a “time-limited solution to protect the community” rather than a permanent transfer of power to the board.
Supporters of Measure A argue that retaining Corpus in office poses a serious risk to the county. Citing the independent investigation that confirmed findings of retaliation, abuse of power, and the use of racial and homophobic slurs, they argue that the county could face “millions of dollars in liability and lawsuits.”
Additionally, they note that mass resignations and a lack of confidence in the sheriff among sworn personnel pose a threat to public safety.
“Since Corpus has joined the Sheriff’s Office, over 100 personnel have left the Sheriff’s Office,” Martínez Saballos said. “If that’s not a sign that something has gone wrong, I’m not sure what else is.”
Many community leaders stress the urgency of the situation because of how many communities rely on the Sheriff’s Office yet now struggle to trust an institution meant to protect them.
“It’s one thing for it to be a shake-up that happens after a newly elected official joins, like a change in culture. But this is light years beyond that,” Martínez Saballos said. “I think a lot about the Redwood City connection. We border North Fair Oak, so lots of people don’t know if they’re in our town or in unincorporated San Mateo County. We constantly collaborate with the Sheriff’s Office around Sequoia Station.”
While many raise concerns about the democratic integrity of Measure A and argue that a recall — the standard process for removing an elected official — should be used instead, supporters emphasize that the measure still requires approval from the community through a vote.
“This is going before the voters, and that is the definition of democracy — when the community has a chance to inform themselves, learn about the situation, and then make a choice. That’s what the election is,” Martínez Saballos said. “I understand that it’s not the recall process, but this isn’t a ‘first of its kind’ kind of policy. Los Angeles had a similar situation with their sheriff, and the voters approved the measure overwhelmingly. They didn’t end up using that power because the sheriff got booted anyway, but it’s not an unheard of policy.”
Given the severity of the allegations against the sheriff, supporters of Measure A argue that its expedited process is more justified than a recall, which often takes several months to complete. While opponents of the measure are concerned about giving the Board of Supervisors power to remove an elected official, its supporters emphasize the temporary nature of this amendment to the county charter.
“Measure A gives the Board of Supervisors a very limited and narrow ability to remove this sheriff. This amendment sunsets in 2028, so this power isn’t going to be with the board forever,” Storch said. “It’s so important, given the damage that she is doing, both to this agency and to people’s lives within this agency, that it needs to stop now. A longer recall process could take months and months and months; we don’t have that time.”
If Measure A passes, the Board of Supervisors still wouldn’t be able to remove the sheriff without just cause. A certain standard of evidence would have to be met in order to oust Corpus from her position, along with winning the four-fifths vote.
“The board can’t vote out the sheriff just because they don’t like her; there is a criteria that has to be met, including criminal activity and obstruction of investigations,” Storch said. “But considering the evidence, such as Sheriff Corpus’s refusal to engage with Judge Cordell’s report and answer the board’s questions, the DSA believes that that standard has been more than met.”
As March 4 approaches, supporters of Measure A stress the importance of voters recognizing the urgency of the situation. They argue that a “yes” vote on the measure is a vote to restore stability and safeguard the community amid ongoing turmoil.
“I think the urgency is the most important part of the measure. I went to an event that the DSA had, and you could really feel the distress. It was sort of palpable in the air, and it was heartbreaking,” said Assemblymember Diane Papan. “There are people working very hard every day, and to have that kind of lack of leadership at the top that retaliates and is oppressive is a tough condition. I want people to understand that this is something that is incredibly urgent, and that San Mateo County deserves a sheriff’s office that is not in disarray.”
Similarly, Storch emphasizes the gravity of the situation, sharing how tense and distressing the environment has been at the Sheriff’s Office.
“We, the employees of the Sheriff’s Office, are living in a culture of fear right now. Sheriff Corpus has created a culture of fear and retaliation. We’re concerned for our jobs, our careers, and our livelihoods,” Storch said. “We strongly urge people to vote yes on the measure and not wait for a recall — to not condemn the people who work in this agency to suffer for months over what is ultimately minutia. You are saving us. You are helping out organized labor. You’re helping out the people who work to keep you, your family, and your community safe.”
Arguments against Measure A
Those against Measure A feel it threatens the democratic process and would become a power abused by the Board of Supervisors in the future.
“The way the measure is written right now says that it’s just going to be in place until 2028. Then in 2028, the charter will go back to being recall-only. But if you can name me one instance in American history when anybody in politics gave away power after they’d been given it — I can’t,” said Emerald Hills resident Nancy Mangini. “You give the Board of Supervisors that power, you give up your power to elect. Once you give up that power, in my opinion, it’s unlikely you’ll get it back.”
In the filed and signed arguments in opposition, Pacifica resident Dan Stegink, a critic of the measure at board meetings, describes the measure as “a political power grab by a few local supervisors” that would “strip voters of their right to choose an independent sheriff.”
On the other hand, Stegink stated in the arguments that the Sheriff’s Office “has made great progress” in battling crime, including recording no homicides last year and seeing significant drops in other categories such as assaults and stolen property. The county also experienced a marked decline of 14% in violent crime and 15% in property crime in 2024.
Additionally, part of the argument in opposition to Measure A is that it is still unclear whether the conclusions in Cordell’s report are completely accurate, and many in opposition to Measure A question the investigation’s impartiality.
“The allegations are very serious. Many of us know people in law enforcement and have heard their feedback about the sheriff’s administration. So I think it’s the classic ‘where there is smoke, there must be some fire,’” said Dan Torunian, first vice chair of the San Mateo County Republican Party. “That said, we are also concerned that this investigation was sponsored by the Board of Supervisors and not a court case where both sides can present witnesses and testimony, making it seem a bit one-sided.”
Corpus also comments on the fairness of the report, claiming it was designed with a predetermined narrative intended to undermine her.
“The board never notified me that I was being investigated, and yet, reporters and public relations companies had the report before I even saw it. I saw it when it was released to the rest of the world. So you have to wonder why they did that. Was it by design? Why wasn’t I ever told that I was being investigated?” Corpus said.
While Cordell had reached out to Corpus for an interview, Corpus felt the approach was indicative of an unfair process.
“The judge sent me an email on a Wednesday and said, ‘I can interview you today through Friday between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. If you don’t make any of these times, then I’ll take it as you being uncooperative.’ Who does that?” Corpus said. “I’m the San Mateo County Sheriff — I’m busy, but on top of that, I also have the right to have an attorney with me, and I wasn’t awarded that. I didn’t give her a statement because I didn’t even know that she was doing an investigation on me. So I think that a lot of this was done by design.”
Another concern regarding Measure A is that it may be unbalanced to give the Board of Supervisors — five individuals — the power to remove a sheriff who was elected by over 82,000 voters in the county.
“If you want to remove an elected official, someone who has received 57% of the vote when she was elected as the sheriff, that should go through the normal recall process. So I think this is a case where two things can be true at the same time,” Torunian said. “Are we concerned about the sheriff and all of the allegations being made against her and her administration — yes. But we are equally concerned that the Board of Supervisors may be acting in a way that — although possibly appropriate at this time — may set a bad precedent for the future.”
Community members have also pointed out that Corpus isn’t the first elected official to face allegations of misconduct and fostering a toxic workplace environment.
In 2022, Sheriff Carlos Bolanos — whom Corpus ran against and won — was accused of practicing favoritism and abusing his power, particularly in the approval of concealed carry weapon permits, where campaign donors had a significantly higher approval rate than non-donors. Public records also suggest a pattern of promotions within the Sheriff’s Office favoring employees who contributed to Bolanos’ campaign, raising concerns about a pay-to-play culture.
Additionally, in July 2022, Bolanos faced scrutiny for sending four deputies to Indiana to raid a garage specializing in Batmobile replicas. An independent investigation concluded that while the raid was not illegal, it was not the best use of taxpayer dollars.
Despite the allegations and the raid, no formal legal consequences were imposed on Bolanos; however, these incidents contributed to public criticism of his leadership and raised concerns about the misuse of law enforcement resources.
Considering the allegations against Corpus bear similarities to those against previously elected officials like Bolanos, many people question the justification for the expedited process the Board of Supervisors is demanding through Measure A, wondering why Corpus’s situation is seen as an exception that warrants a county charter amendment.
“The incident with Bolanos was a big scandal at the time, but still — no consequences. When Corpus filed to run against him in the general election for sheriff, she had a good record and won 57% of the votes,” Mangini said. “Whether or not the allegations are true, I do not know, as I haven’t been personally involved. But I do know that she was legally elected by the voters in San Mateo County.”
Critics of Measure A also note that, according to the investigative report, there were complaints filed against the sheriff early on into her term, wondering why action wasn’t taken sooner.
“Sheriff Corpus is over two years into her term. These allegations, for those of us who travel in these circles, are not new,” Torunian said. “We were hearing them within month one, and they’ve been out there for a while. So if there was the need to remove her, I don’t know why we waited so long.”
While supporters of Measure A argue that a recall would require too much time to put into place, Torunian counters that a recall may not take as long as they suggest, citing the recall efforts against Gov. Gavin Newsom as an example.
“In the last three or four years, there have been two recall efforts put in place for Gavin Newsom. Both failed, but there have been two recalls,” Torunian said. “If in that period of time there can be two recall processes for the governor of California, the sixth or seventh largest entity across the globe, why couldn’t San Mateo County have a recall process for the sheriff?”
As the debate surrounding Measure A continues, many view it as a fundamental issue of democratic rights and voter empowerment. Opponents contend that the measure circumvents the electoral process, ultimately undermining the principles of representation.
“By having a recall election, both sides have to actually have a conversation, a forum, a discussion. What the DSA wants to do is take away that law and say, ‘No, we’re going to give that power to the Board of Supervisors. We’re just going to make the election go away,’” Mangini said. “That’s what the major issue is. Whether or not the sheriff needs to go away is up to the voters — they can make up their own mind. But when you take away the right to vote, that’s our last civil right — you can’t fight against anything.”
Rallying community support
Regardless of their stance on Measure A, community members are making an effort to engage with the community to advocate for what they feel is best for the people of San Mateo County.
“We’ve done a lot of outreach in the community. There’s been several cities who have supported us, San Carlos and Belmont being two of them,” Storch said. “Belmont just voted last week or the week before to support Measure A, and we’ve worked with other law enforcement agencies. We have the backing of the San Mateo Central Labor Council too, so it’s not just law enforcement but organized labor.”
Law Enforcement Against Corruption, a group founded by the DSA, also hosted a fundraiser on Jan. 29 at the DSA Hall in Redwood City to support Measure A and advocate for Corpus’ removal.
“We are making sure that we’re reaching as many voters as possible throughout the county and letting them know of the corruption that’s going on in the Sheriff’s Office, that we have a sheriff that we cannot trust,” said DSA President Carlo Tapia’s daughter Vanessa Lemus Tapia, according to Redwood City Pulse.
As for Sheriff Corpus, she has been hosting multiple community gatherings to address questions and share her perspective. Most recently, she held two informal meetings at One Love Cafe in San Bruno on Feb. 15 and March 1, providing an opportunity for residents to engage directly with her.
As Tuesday’s election approaches, voters in San Mateo County are encouraged to reflect on their values and priorities regarding Measure A. Torunian emphasized that, given the complexity of the issue, it is crucial for voters to evaluate and vote in alignment with their beliefs.
“If you are someone who is concerned about the health of the sheriff’s department and how that translates into the everyday lives of San Mateo residents, you have to take that into consideration. But I would also argue that you have to balance that with what you expect of the Board of Supervisors and what latitude you provide someone who is an elected official,” Torunian said. “At the end of the day, I recognize that this is a very complex issue. I think sometimes voting is a mixture of people being logical and emotional, so I think people just have to vote their conscience.”
Where to vote
Community members can visit any of the Vote Centers in the County to register to vote, vote in person, return a voted ballot, or request a replacement ballot.
Voters may also drop off their ballot at one of the Ballot Drop Box Locations.
