...
By Alia Shoaib
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A political standoff in a small California city is escalating into a closely watched legal test of the state's recall system after four elected officials refused to leave office despite voters removing them in an April election.
The dispute intensified this month on multiple fronts. A chaotic June 18 Avenal City Council meeting ended with residents walking out after heated exchanges, while Kings County District Attorney Sarah Hacker and Sheriff Dave Putnam have warned the recalled officials they could face legal consequences if they continue exercising authority and spending public money.
The conflict now heads to Kings County Superior Court, where a quo warranto lawsuit authorized by California Attorney General Rob Bonta is expected to determine whether the officials are unlawfully remaining in office.
Read More on Politics
California's recall process is designed to give voters the power to remove elected officials before their terms expire. The court battle could clarify whether local officials have any legal authority to reject certified recall results based on procedural objections after an election has already been conducted.
The outcome could establish an important precedent for future recall disputes across California.
Newsweek contacted Mayor Alvaro Preciado and council members Leticia Gamez, Pablo Hernandez and David Reynosa by email Friday seeking comment on the lawsuit and the June 18 city council meeting. Newsweek also contacted recall organizer Dalila Barajas via Facebook. None had responded by publication.
What To Know
Voters in Avenal—a Kings County city of roughly 13,000 residents—approved the recall of Mayor Preciado and council members Gamez, Hernandez and Reynosa during an April special election. Each official received more than 73 percent support for removal. Only council member Ricardo Verdugo remained in office.
The recall campaign centered on concerns about government transparency and several controversial council decisions, particularly the city's handling of fire protection.
The controversy intensified after the Kings County Board of Supervisors voted on March 28, 2026, to terminate Avenal's longstanding fire services agreement following a dispute over safety issues at a city-hosted boxing venue. The termination temporarily left Avenal without municipal fire coverage while city officials pursued a replacement department relying heavily on volunteer firefighters, prompting criticism from residents who questioned both the transition plan and public safety implications.
Instead of vacating office after the election was certified, three recalled officials voted on June 11 to reject the election results, arguing the recall election was invalid because it had been administered by Kings County rather than authorized by the City Council. Reynosa was absent from that vote.
Preciado has defended remaining in office, previously telling the San Francisco Chronicle: "If it was a legal election from the beginning, I wouldn't be here right now."
June Meeting Reflects Deepening Community Divide
Tensions boiled over during the council's June 18 meeting, the first since officials voted to reject the recall.
Residents packed council chambers, repeatedly interrupted proceedings and accused the recalled officials of disregarding the will of voters. Numerous attendees ultimately walked out in protest.
Following the meeting, the City of Avenal issued a public statement on its official Facebook page condemning threats, intimidation and racist and disparaging remarks directed at Latino council members and city staff during public comment. The city said while it supports residents' right to express disagreement, harassment, personal attacks and discriminatory language have no place in public meetings and undermine civil discourse.
The statement underscored how the legal dispute has become increasingly personal and divisive within the community.
...
District Attorney Warns Officials They Could Face Criminal Consequences
Recall organizers subsequently sought permission from Attorney General Rob Bonta to file a quo warranto action, a rarely used legal process that allows courts to determine whether someone is lawfully holding public office. Bonta approved the request, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
The court will now decide whether the April recall election legally removed the four officials from office or whether their procedural objections have legal merit.
Whatever the outcome, the ruling is expected to provide important guidance on the limits of local authority once California voters have approved a recall.
For Avenal residents, however, the immediate issue remains simpler: whether the officials they voted to remove can continue governing while that legal question is resolved.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Ben Kelly and James Debens.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines