Court Puts Ballots in Recall of Avenal Councilmembers Under Lock and Key

Voters in the small farming city of Avenal were asked whether to recall four of five city councilmembers. And, although the election concluded Tuesday night, the results aren’t known.

That’s because in the latest turn in this long and winding story an appeal court ordered the ballots placed under lock and key.

The city, in a lawsuit attempting to block the recall, said it has sole authority to conduct the election, which it never permitted.

To understand how Avenal’s government became mired in political quicksand, let’s go back to August 2025, when disgruntled voters began collecting signatures to recall Alvaro Preciado, Leticia Gamez, Pablo Hernandez, and David Reynosa. An attempt to recall the fifth member, Ricardo Verdugo, failed to gather the required 526 signatures.

Led by resident Dalia Barajas, the petitions listed the same grievance for the four council members subject to the recall: “The citizens of Avenal have decided to revoke their vote due to lack of transparency, unaccountability to the public, and duplicitous behavior leading to the failure of the city councilor to represent the best interests of Avenal’s citizens.”

Recall supporters called Verdugo “duplicitous” saying he “spreads gossip about the city, its employees, and acts against his own votes and the council’s direction.” The petition accused him of being unprepared and prone to foul-language outbursts.

Recall Is Divisive, Blocks Progress: Councilmembers

Naturally, the councilmembers opposed the recall, saying it was divisive and not based on facts.

Preciado, Avenal’s mayor, called the recall “a distraction to real progress.”

Reynosa said he has acted in Avenal’s best interests: “Let’s focus on progress, not politics.”

Hernandez called it a “personal attack” that is dividing the town. Gamez wrote, “This recall doesn’t reflect the truth about my service.”

In addition, all of the councilmembers criticized the cost of the election, about $65,000.

Who Will Lead This City of 14,000 People?

Although voting has ended, counting the votes may take weeks. If the recall tally is allowed to proceed and at least three of the four members are recalled, it could leave Avenal’s government in a stalemate for more than six months.

The Kings County city, located mostly west of Interstate 5, has a population of 14,108 as of July 1, 2024, according to the according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with 2,346 registered voters. The city noted in court documents that about one-third of the population is housed in the state prison.

The town is perhaps best known as the birthplace of former world champion light welterweight and U.S. Olympic boxer Jose Ramirez, a graduate of Avenal High School who famously trained by running the surrounding dusty hills.

City Attempted to Block Recall

The city sued, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the recall. It filed a writ of mandate in Kings County Superior Court on March 4.

It argued that state election law requires the city, not the county, to run an election.

On April 23, Judge Robert Burns ruled in favor of Kings County in a 14-page opinion, finding the city’s arguments disingenuous.

“The current conundrum for the city is entirely self-inflicted,” Burns wrote. “Their arguments are unpersuasive.”

Burns noted that the county has run Avenal’s elections dating back to 2018. There was an informal agreement in 2024 for the county to continue running Avenal’s elections. When Barajas initiated the recall in June 2025, the city clerk referred her to the county elections office.

For six months, Burns wrote, the city and county communicated about the recall election. The city was scheduled to certify that petitioners had collected enough signatures and to set an election date.

City Council Four No-Showed Meeting to Set Recall Election

The four city councilmembers subject to the recall no-showed the Dec. 11, 2025, city council meeting at which calling for a date for the recall election was on the agenda. On Dec. 25 — Christmas Day — the city faxed the county a cease-and-desist letter.

Because the city failed to act, the Kings County Board of Supervisors was allowed to call the election under state law. It approved a resolution Jan. 27 setting the Tuesday, April 28, election date.

“It is difficult to see how the city would succeed on the merits when looking at the entirety of its course of conduct,” Burns wrote. “The city sat on its rights.”

Burns said “the real harm” would be to the voting public if he granted the city’s request for a preliminary injunction. Doing so would lead to trusting a “municipality that misleads you.”

The City Appeals

The city filed an appeal Monday, a day before the end of the recall election. It accused the county of “usurping” the city’s power to conduct the election.

“The legitimacy of elections in our democracy is, unfortunately, now fraught. Allowing the county to commandeer a municipal recall effort without statutory authority amid friction between city and county leaders on the issue motivating the recall cannot engender confidence in the integrity of this election. To Avenal residents, this may look like a hostile takeover of their local government,” the city wrote.

The city is asking the Court of Appeal to grant its injunction and implied that recall proponents can try again. It also claimed the informal election agreement is void because it would need city council approval, which it did not grant.

The Fresno-based 5th District Court of Appeal granted the city’s request Monday for Kings County Registrar of Voters Lupe Villa to sequester ballots from the election, refrain from tallying and canvassing the vote, and refrain from certifying results pending further order from the court. Ordered by Justice Jennifer Detjen, and joined by Rosendo Pena and Arlan Harrell, the court denied the city’s request to cancel the recall election.

The court ordered briefs due by May 4.

Avenal’s writ to the Court of Appeal criticized several Kings County Board of Supervisors decisions, including its decision to pull county fire services provided to the city. It also criticized the April 28 election date, saying the county could have saved money by consolidating the recall with the scheduled June 2 election.

The county clerk usually has 28 days to certify results. If the Court of Appeal orders the recall election to continue, the current city council would have to vote to certify the election results.

What Happens if Recall Succeeds?

If three of the four members are recalled, it would leave the Avenal City Council with only two members, fewer than the quorum of three needed to operate. That means the city council could not make appointments, call an election for the potentially vacant seats, or conduct any business. A majority of at least three members is required to vote on even routine city business.

The next opportunity for voters to select councilmembers is the Nov. 3 election. Preciado and Hernandez would be up for re-election. If the city council does not call an election, the vacancies would be filled at the next scheduled election, Nov. 3, according to Government Code 36512 (d)(3).

A provision in the Government Code cited in Burns’ ruling could give the governor authority to make an appointment.

“When any office becomes vacant and no mode is provided by law for filling the vacancy, the Governor shall fill the vacancy by granting a commission, to expire at the end of the next session of the Legislature or at the next election by the people,” according to Government Code 1772.

Burns also cited a 1939 California Supreme Court case that found even two members of a city council could constitute a quorum to conduct business.

The post Court Puts Ballots in Recall of Avenal Councilmembers Under Lock and Key appeared first on GV Wire.