<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A judge ruled on Monday that four Avenal, California officials who remained in power after being recalled by voters in April were “not lawfully” holding office. This ruling addresses a significant local election controversy in the state.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kings County Judge Jennifer Giuliani stated that recalled Mayor Alvaro Preciado and city council members Leticia Gamez, Pablo Hernandez, and David Reynosa had occupied offices that became vacant after Kings County certified the recall results on May 28. The ruling follows months of challenges from the officials regarding the election's legality while they continued participating in city governance.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The ultimate issue is not close,” Giuliani wrote. “The court must uphold the will of the electorate, and Avenal voters have spoken decisively.”</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The special election held on April 28 resulted in the removal of four of the five members of Avenal’s city council, with each recall receiving at least 70% support. The recalls were largely driven by controversy over changes to the city’s fire-protection arrangements.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Avenal has a population of approximately 13,000, with about one-quarter of residents housed at Avenal State Prison, one of the area's largest employers. The city's economy is heavily tied to agriculture, and more than 80% of residents are Latino.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The recalled officials argued that the election should be invalidated because Kings County, rather than the city, conducted it. They sought to stop the recall before Election Day, but California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal declined to intervene.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After the county certified the vote, Preciado, Gamez, and Hernandez continued to attend council meetings and vote on city business. At a meeting on June 11, the three voted to retain their own seats and approved the city budget, even as recall supporters presented a restraining-order request seeking their removal. Reynosa, the fourth recalled council member, was absent from that meeting.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The dispute led recall supporters to pursue a quo warranto action, a legal procedure used to challenge whether someone is lawfully occupying public office. California Attorney General Rob Bonta authorized the action, allowing the court challenge to proceed.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In her ruling, Giuliani acknowledged a procedural irregularity in the election process but determined it did not affect the outcome or justify overriding the vote.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“To hold otherwise,” she wrote, would “thwart the democratic will.”</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Antony Lopez, Avenal’s city manager, stated that the city would comply with the ruling and that the four officials planned to step down immediately.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We respect the court’s decision,” Lopez said in a statement. “We also believe today confirms that the city was right to bring these questions before a court rather than simply surrender its municipal authority.”</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Lopez, who is not elected but has publicly sided with the recalled officials, noted that Avenal would be left with only one sitting council member. Without a quorum, the council will be unable to hold meetings until after the general election on November 3.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The court also ruled that Preciado may run on the November ballot, despite being recalled earlier this year. A city lawyer indicated that the recalled officials may appeal portions of the ruling after the election.</p>