Rate	Price	Duration
1 Year	$99.00	for 365 days
1 Month	$20.00	for 30 days
1 Week	$8.25	for 7 days

Rate	Price	Duration
1 Year	$60.00	for 365 days
1 Month	$12.00	for 30 days
1 Week	$5.00	for 7 days

Rate	Price	Duration
Home Delivery - Year	$120.00	for 365 days
Mail Delivery - Year	$480.00	for 365 days

Protect your vote: No on Measure A

Feb 7, 2025
Feb 7, 2025
4

Editor,

At a time when our American democracy is under constant attack from those who are trying to take power by suppressing and devaluing our vote, our San Mateo County supervisors are trying to do the same thing with Measure A in the upcoming special election.

(4) comments

Terence Y Feb 7, 2025 9:04am

Thanks for your letter, Ms. Mangini. I plan on protecting San Mateo County by voting YES on Measure A. BTW, if the vote was truly out of our hands, supervisors would have already axed Corpus and would be dealing with the consequences now, if any.

Ray Fowler Feb 7, 2025 8:45am

Good morning, Nancy

You wrote, "Christina Corpus was democratically elected to be the San Mateo County Sheriff in 2022..." That is true, and what is equally true is that voter approval of Measure A next month now means Christina Corpus can be democratically removed from her position as San Mateo County Sheriff.

It's interesting you make mention of former Sheriff Carolos Bolanos and what you describe as a "good-ol-boy system." However, we see no comment in your letter regarding the corruption and dysfunction in today's Sheriff's Office led by Christina Corpus. Corruption and dysfunction clearly documented in Judge LaDoris Cordell's 400-page investigation into the chaos created by Christina Corpus. Corruption and dysfunction that put San Mateo County's safety in peril.

Take a look at the Daily Journal's editorial, "Yes on Measure A to remove sheriff" in today's paper. What can you offer as a rebuttal to the Daily Journal's position supporting the removal of Christina Corpus from office?

NM Feb 7, 2025 11:43pm

Hi Ray: Whether I support her removal or not, the San Mateo County Charter clearly states that all legally elected officials can only be removed from office by a recall election of registered voters. Measure A is not a recall. It is an Amendment to the County Charter that has not been proposed and debated in the public forum - just in the media. As for Judge Cordell's investigation, I question both the payment of $400,000 she received from the Supervisors who are now trying to take control and the 29 missing pages of interview transcript that has been reported to be supporting her actions. These are all questions that could and should be discussed before a legitimate recall election if 45,000 signatures of registered voters can be obtained. In the Daily Journal editorial, the writer admits the process being employed to remove Sherrif Corpus is "questionable". One that is NOT questionable is to refrain from nullifying the votes of 57% of citizens who voted to put her into office in 2022 and employ the only legitimate path to correct whatever problems may exist with the office by mounting a recall election.

Ray Fowler Feb 8, 2025 11:43am

Good morning, Nancy

I could not find anything in the county’s charter that said elected officers can ONLY be removed from office by recall. What I did find in Section 102 is this, “The electors of the County may by majority vote and pursuant to general law… Recall an elected officer who has held office for six months…” AND those same electors may, “Amend, revise or repeal this Charter.” You can make the argument that recall may be the preferred method of removal by some voters, but those same voters also have the authority to change the Charter and grant the legal means for the Board of Supervisors to remove the sheriff. That’s what Measure A is about.

More than two decades ago, California’s AG agreed that California’s charter counties could adopt a measure that permitted the removal of a sheriff or other elected official with a four-fifths vote by a Board of Supervisors. The Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of such measures. A few years ago, the California Constitution Center at UC Berkeley found that a four-fifths board vote and removal from office were legal.

Legal counsel for the sheriff claimed that 29 pages of interview material not included in Judge Cordell’s final report could be exculpatory and support the sheriff’s claim that the report was just all lies. Those pages have been provided… nothing in the report has changed. While you question the county’s payment to Judge Cordell for her 400 page report, I see no rebuttal in your letter to Judge Cordell’s sustained findings that the sheriff used racial and homophobic slurs, retaliated against Sheriff’s Office employees and intimidated others, and that the sheriff’s personal relationship with the former reserve deputy she hired to join the Sheriff’s Office command staff created a conflict of interest. That’s what Measure A is about.

Whoa! Measure A will nullify “the votes of 57% of citizens who voted to put her into office in 2022”? If the voters who elected her in 2022 believe she should remain in office, they can cast their ballots in favor of the sheriff next month. That being said, polling in the Daily Journal suggests a lot more than 57% will vote this time to reject the sheriff.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!