Bay Area

Board of Supervisors Recommend Recount in Oakland Mayor’s Race

Passed unanimously Jan. 10 by board members, the resolution was authored by Supervisor Keith Carson, who said he and other board members have received “thousands” of emails and phone calls urging the recount.

Published

3 years ago

January 15, 2023

Oakland Post

Supervisor David Haubert (left) represents Dublin, Livermore, and Fremont. Passed unanimously Jan. 10 by board members, the resolution was authored by Supervisor Keith Carson.

By Ken Epstein

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors this week recommended a manual recount of the Oakland mayoral race and other close ranked-choice election results in the county Nov. 8 elections but fell short of requiring a recount and making clear that the supervisors’ decision was contingent on what is allowable under California election law and regulations.

Passed unanimously Jan. 10 by board members, the resolution who authored by Supervisor Keith Carson, who said he and other board members have received “thousands” of emails and phone calls urging the recount.

“In order to enhance transparency and accountability regarding the ranked-choice voting results, I am recommending consideration of a recount count of the Nov. 8, 2022, ranked choice elections for which the outcome has been called into question, specifically the Oakland Mayoral race, Oakland Unified School Board District 4 race, and the two races in San Leandro that were decided by a very small margin of victory,” Carson’s resolution said.

Ignoring the one race that the Registrar of Voters said was tallied incorrectly, the supervisors said they would pay for recounts in all ranked-choice election that resulted in narrow victories, failing to provide any evidence of errors in the vote count.

The resolution called for the Registrar of Voters to hire a “qualified individual with experience overseeing ranked choice voting from another county” to oversee the manual recount. The county would charge the cost of the recount to the budget of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, a charge that would be borne by taxpayers.

Though they passed the resolution, supervisors were unsure that the actions they were recommending were legal.

“We request the registrar conduct the recount, (but) but we’re not going to order it. We’re not sure we can order it,” said Supervisor David Haubert, who represents Dublin, Livermore, and Fremont.

Supervisors noted that the votes have already been counted and certified, that the deadline for challenging results has passed and that winners have already been sworn in, asked county counsel if their actions could be legally challenged.

“Any action we take can be challenged,” county counsel said.

Alameda County’s election results were certified on Dec. 8.

The county counsel said the resolution includes the following language, which she recommended:

“The recommendations set forth in this letter will be implemented to the extent allowed and consistent with the California Elections Code, state regulations implementing the Elections Code, and all other applicable laws governing California elections, including those governing recounts the authority of the Elections Official (the Registrar of Voters).”

Supervisor Carson acknowledged the unlikelihood of obtaining a recount that would reverse election results.

“The bell has already been rung. We cannot un-ring it. We understand that,” he said.

A manual recount could take a month or longer and cost many thousands of dollars, according to the registrar.

Many of the public speakers at the board meeting, either in person or on Zoom, who supported the recount, were from Fremont, Danville, Hayward, and other cities outside Oakland. Among the supporters of the recount were Republicans who argued the election results could not be trusted, while others advocated getting rid of ranked choice voting, called for ending vote by mail, or recommended requiring people to vote in person with ID.

Some people in Oakland are saying ranked-choice voting is unfair and argue Loren Taylor should have won the election because he had the most votes first-round votes, leading Sheng 33.07% to 31.79% of the vote. However, Oakland requires a candidate to receive over 50% of the vote to win, not just a plurality. When all the ranked-choice instant runoff ballots were counted, Thao won with 50.30% to Taylor’s 49.70% the vote.

Supporters of ranked choice voting, which has been utilized in Oakland since 2010, say that it allows for a more diverse and less well-funded candidates to run for office and that it provides for an instant runoff, rather than a separate run-off election which has a participation rate of about 40% fewer voters and is therefore less democratic.

However, while questioning election results, the supervisors did not speak to or seek to correct the error in the one race that had been identified by the Registrar of Voters as being tabulated incorrectly, which recorded Nick Resnick as the winner of the Oakland District 4 school board race, rather than Mike Hutchinson, who was the real winner.

Seeking to remedy the error, Hutchinson has had to hire a lawyer at his expense. A recount in this race would not address the error, which was not a mistake in the count, but a tabulating error caused by incorrect setting in the ranked choice algorithm. A recount would not benefit Hutchinson, who was the ranked choice winner, but could potentially benefit Resnick, who was the losing candidate but has been seated as the District 4 school board representative.

The software error, which was admitted by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, involved a wrong software setting that affected a small subset of votes in which voters did not vote for a number one candidate but voted for second and third-place candidates. When corrected, this error only changed the winner of one race.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Nancy Pelosi Gavels Out 117th Congress, Takes Oath for 11th District

Don't Miss

Among Less-Educated Young Workers, Women and Black Men Are Paid Far Less

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

3 days ago

December 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Bling It On: Holiday Lights Brighten Dark Nights All Around the Bay

On the block where I grew up in the 1960s, it was an unwritten agreement among the owners of those row homes to put up holiday lights: around the front window and door, along the porch banister, etc. Some put the Christmas tree in the window, and you could see it through the open slats of the blinds.

Published

1 week ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

Christmas lights on a house near the writer’s residence in Oakland. Photo by Joseph Shangosola.

By Wanda Ravernell

I have always liked Christmas lights.

From my desk at my front window, I feel a quiet joy when the lights on the house across the street come on just as night falls.

My father, the renegade of the block, made no effort with lights, so my mother hung a wreath with two bells in the window. Just enough to let you know someone was at home.

Two doors down was a different story. Mr. King, the overachiever of the block, went all out for Christmas: The tree in the window, the lights along the roof and a Santa on his sleigh on the porch roof.

There are a few ‘Mr. Kings’ in my neighborhood.

In particular is the gentleman down the street. For Halloween, they erected a 10-foot skeleton in the yard, placed ‘shrunken heads’ on fence poles, pumpkins on steps and swooping bat wings from the porch roof. They have not held back for Christmas.

The skeleton stayed up this year, this time swathed in lights, as is every other inch of the house front. It is a light show that rivals the one in the old Wanamaker’s department store in Philadelphia.

I would hate to see their light bill…

As the shortest day of the year approaches, make Mr. King’s spirit happy and get out and see the lights in your own neighborhood, shopping plazas and merchant areas.

Here are some places recommended by 510 Families and Johnny FunCheap.

Oakland

Oakland’s Temple Hill Holiday Lights and Gardens is the place to go for a drive-by or a leisurely stroll for a religious holiday experience. Wear a jacket, because it’s chilly outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at 4220 Lincoln Ave., particularly after dark. The gardens are open all day from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. with the lights on from dusk until closing.

Alameda

Just across the High Street Bridge from Oakland, you’ll find Christmas Tree Lane in Alameda.

On Thompson Avenue between High Street and Fernside drive, displays range from classic trees and blow-ups to a comedic response to the film “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” Lights turn on at dusk and can be seen through the first week in January.

Berkeley

The Fourth Street business district from University Avenue to Virginia Street in Berkeley comes alive with lights beginning at 5 p.m. through Jan. 1, 2026.

There’s also a display at one house at 928 Arlington St., and, for children, the Tilden Park Carousel Winter Wonderland runs through Jan. 4, 2026. Closed Christmas Day. For more information and tickets, call (510) 559-1004.

Richmond

The Sundar Shadi Holiday Display, featuring a recreation of the town of Bethlehem with life-size figures, is open through Dec. 26 at 7501 Moeser Lane in El Cerrito.

Marin County

In Marin, the go-to spot for ‘oohs and ahhs’ is the Holiday Light Spectacular from 4-9 p.m. through Jan. 4, 2026, at Marin Center Fairgrounds at 10 Ave of the Flags in San Rafael through Jan. 4. Displays dazzle, with lighted walkways and activities almost daily. For more info, go to: www.marincounty.gov/departments/cultural-services/department-sponsored-events/holiday-light-spectacular

The arches at Marin County Civic Center at 3501 Civic Center Dr. will also be illuminated nightly.

San Francisco

Look for light installations in Golden Gate Park, chocolate and cheer at Ghirardelli Square, and downtown, the ice rink in Union Square and the holiday tree in Civic Center Plaza are enchanting spots day and night. For neighborhoods, you can’t beat the streets in Noe Valley, Pacific Heights, and Bernal Heights. For glee and over-the-top glitz there’s the Castro, particularly at 68 Castro Street.

Livermore

The winner of the 2024 Great Light Flight award, Deacon Dave has set up his display with a group of creative volunteers at 352 Hillcrest Avenue since 1982. See it through Jan. 1, 2026. For more info, go to https://www.casadelpomba.com

Fremont

Crippsmas Place is a community of over 90 decorated homes with candy canes passed out nightly through Dec. 31. A tradition since 1967, the event features visits by Mr. and Mrs. Claus on Dec. 18 and Dec. 23 and entertainment by the Tri-M Honor Society at 6 p.m. on Dec. 22. Chrippsmas Place is located on: Cripps Place, Asquith Place, Nicolet Court, Wellington Place, Perkins Street, and the stretch of Nicolet Avenue between Gibraltar Drive and Perkins Street.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

1 week ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.