|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As election night came to a close, initial results to many key Alameda County races took shape.
Just after 11:01 p.m. Tuesday, results indicated that Alameda County District 4 Supervisor Nate Miley is poised to secure another term. The incumbent holds a strong lead with 62.88% of the vote (7,985) while his sole challenger, registered psychiatric nurse Jennifer Esteen, trails with 37.12% (4,714 votes).
Having first been elected to represent District 4 in 2000, a win for Miley would usher in his seventh term on the board.
The board’s work includes adopting a yearly budget, appointing county officials, awarding public works contracts, and various other leadership tasks. The District 4 Supervisor represents portions of Pleasanton, Oakland, Castro Valley and unincorporated areas of the county.
In the race for Alameda County Superior Court Judge Seat 12, Mark Fickes took the lead on election night with 57.07% of the vote (31,502) as of 11:01 p.m.
His opponent, Michael Johnson, follows with 42.93% (23,699).
The seat was wide open this year as incumbent, Judge Evelio Grillo, did not seek reelection.
County Measures
Measure A:
Measure A, which aims to reduce the time period for the county to announce job openings, is just above the threshold of votes it needs to pass, according to the latest election results.
As of 11:01 p.m. 56.92% (36,516 votes) of the county’s voters have voted Yes on passing the measure, according to the registrar’s office. In order to pass, it requires a simple majority of over 50%.
Those who oppose the measure and have voted No make up 43.08% of the vote (27,639).
If approved by voters, Measure A would amend a section of the county’s charter — which governs certain county governmental functions — to change the county’s job announcement posting requirement from 25 calendar days to 14.
The measure was placed on the ballot by the county’s Board of Supervisors.
Supporters of the measure, which includes Supervisor Miley, have said that the 25-day posting period puts the county at a disadvantage in the competitive job market as it leads to the loss of potential candidates who are sought after by other jurisdictions.
However, those who are against Measure A — which includes the Alameda County Taxpayers Association — have said that reducing the time period unjustly works in favor of internal candidates and actually excludes external candidates from hearing about the jobs.
Measure B:
Alameda County’s Measure B, which aims to change a section of the county’s charter that governs the recall of elected and appointed county officers, currently has more than the number of votes needed for the ballot measure to pass, according to the most recent election results.
On election night, Yes votes sat at 62.88% (40,074). In order to pass, it requires a simple majority of over 50%.
The opposing votes to the ballot measure trailed at 37.12% (23,660).
Measure B was also placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors after a 3-2 vote in November. It aims to update Section 62 of the county’s charter by replacing current language with new language that will make it so the county aligns with state law that governs the recalls of county elected officers.
Supporters of the measure, which include Supervisors Lena Tam, Elisa Márquez and Keith Carson, have said that supporting the measure would make recall election rules clearer, more transparent and would help avoid expensive legal battles that would be at the expense of the taxpayers due to the recall provisions being outdated and likely illegal as written.
However, those who oppose the measure — including Supervisors Miley and David Haubert — have said some of the major issues with Measure B are that county officers who are appointed could not be recalled, it would be more difficult to recall bad public officials and it would eliminate people’s rights to elect a replacement for recalled politicians and instead make county supervisors appoint a replacement.
