Update: Mission Local has learned that 10,700 signatures were ultimately turned into the Department of Elections on Thursday afternoon.
Mission Local has learned that the campaign to recall District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio will turn in some 11,000 signatures on Thursday. The required number of valid signatures to place this recall on the ballot is 9,911.
So, that would be more. But the key word here is “valid.” The campaign says it collected some 14,000 raw signatures but, after internal vetting, is confident in the 11,000-odd it will be depositing with the Department of Elections.
In order to offer a valid signature, a signer must be a registered voter residing in San Francisco’s District 4. Assuming those burdens are met, the signature-gatherer must have correctly filled out the paperwork. And even if everything checks out there, additional difficulties may arise with Chinese names; they may not exactly match the spellings of voters’ names as recorded by the Department of Elections.
These are all issues that may loom large in the next two months in what figures to be a contested, and potentially contentious, qualification process.
Per the city of San Francisco’s “Guide to Recalling Local Elected Officials:”
The Director of Elections shall certify the sufficiency of the petition signatures, or determine the insufficiency of the signatures, no later than 60 business days after the date the petition is received. The Department will complete the signature verification process and notify the proponent whether the proposed measure qualifies for the ballot. If the proposed measure qualifies for the ballot, the Department will certify the results of the examination to the Board of Supervisors.
In the coming days, the Department of Elections will undertake random sampling of the submitted signatures. The city’s rules call for “examination of at least 500 signatures, or 5 percent of the signatures, whichever is greater.” In this case, that would be the latter.
Engardio last year was the principal sponsor of Proposition K, which permanently closed the Upper Great Highway and led to the establishment of a park, now called Sunset Dunes. Nearly two-thirds of Engardio’s constituents voted against Prop. K, but it passed with 55 percent of the vote citywide. In March, Prop. K foes sued over the closure of Great Highway.
On Jan. 21, a group of District 4 constituents submitted the paperwork to initiate a recall. They will turn in their gathered signatures at roughly 1 p.m. on Thursday. While Engardio urged voters not to sign onto what he called a costly, distracting and unwarranted recall, the irony is lost on nobody that Engardio’s political reputation was substantially built by his support of and participation in the recent spate of recalls.
Three possible outcomes could ensue, based on the results of the Department of Elections’ forthcoming random sampling of signatures.
- If the percentage of valid signatures in the sample, when applied to the full total of 11,000-odd submitted signatures, “is greater than 110 percent of the required number,” then the recall will qualify automatically. Of note, 110 percent of the required 9,911 valid signatures is 10,902.
This means that nearly every one of the submitted signatures would have to be valid in order to trigger an automatic qualification.
While pro-recall organizers have been vetting signatures prior to submission, a validity rate of 90 percent or more, let alone perfection, would be challenging to achieve. But there would still a path forward for the recall even with a less gaudy validity rate:
- If the percentage of valid signatures on the sample is lower — and, when applied to the submitted total of 11,000-odd signatures, the estimate of valid signatures is between 90 and 110 percent of the required 9,911 — then the “the Department will verify each signature on the petition.” This would be a burdensome process.
- If the percentage of valid signatures in the sample is low enough that, when applied to the submitted total of some 11,000, the estimate of valid signatures is less than 90 percent of the required 9,911, then the recall will not qualify, full stop.
Both proponents and opponents of the recall think the validation process will be tight, and contested. On Wednesday at the pro-recall campaign’s headquarters near Taraval Street and 27th Avenue, field organizer Otto Pippenger rapidly trained a volunteer signature gatherer.
“You don’t want to be creepy,” Pippenger told the volunteer. He urged the volunteer to emphasize that Wednesday is the last day. And reminded them to tell voters to sign their full, legal name.
Pippenger rummaged through supplies to locate a canvassing script for the newly minted signature-gatherer. “We are running out of everything,” he said. “We are victims of our own success.”
The anti-recall side, which has attempted to dissuade Sunset residents from signing with a well-funded campaign largely underwritten by large donations, touted success of another sort.
“Sunset Dunes receives more visitors each weekend than the recall gathered signatures over the past 120 days,” stated Lucas Lux, the president of Friends of Sunset Dunes Park.
“We’ll wait to hear from the Department of Elections on whether the recall qualified, but neither result will distract us from helping San Franciscans enjoy their beautiful coast at their new park.”
If the validation process comes down to the wire, it’s worth revisiting an obscure but potentially significant detail regarding the timing of this recall campaign.
The mandatory number of signatures is determined based on a percentage of registered voters in a district, with 50,000 voters being an inflection point. When signature-gathering began in January, there were 46,556 registered voters in District 4. By mid-February, that total had swelled to 50,114.
If there are fewer than 50,000 voters in a district, a recall requires 20 percent of their signatures to qualify. If there are more than 50,000 voters, that percentage is lowered to 15 percent.
This means that if the recall campaign had waited until mid-February to submit its paperwork instead of mid-January, it would’ve been required to collect 2,400 fewer signatures.
Should the recall not qualify, or if it qualifies and Engardio beats it, he will be up for re-election in 2026.
After this piece was published, the recall campaign submitted a document to the Department of Elections disclosing 10,700 signatures affixed to the petition. In order to qualify, 9,911 valid signatures are required.
This likely guarantees that, if the recall isn’t thrown out due to a high invalidity rate in the sample, every signature will have to be individually vetted by the Department of Elections. That’s because this number is lower than 110 percent of 9,911 — which is 10,902.
Assuming the recall isnt summarily disqualified by the Department of Elections due to a high error rate in the forthcoming sample, if only 7.4 percent of the 10,700 signatures submitted are found to be invalid, the recall will fail.
How many signatures are usually valid?
They already vetted them. It depends on that being done rigorously.
99.3% = out of 535 sampled, 4 weren’t accepted.
Pretty effing good by any measure – historically best, I’m not sure?
every single recall is a waste of tax payer money absent illegal or incredible unethical conduct.
The money has already been spent, and Engardio wasted millions on millions.
Stop crying, we’re about to stop his wasteful downtown Billionaire dance.
Can we just stop with this nonsense. The supervisors are elected by district to a board that represents the entire city.
I love that SF is a city of neighborhoods, but this idea that “Engardio betrayed the Sunset!” is dysfunctional.
Creating the park is a citywide issue, it’s not the Sunset’s exclusive backyard. And Engardio didn’t vote to create the park, he created a prop that allowed the whole city to vote on it. You might not like it, but don’t pretend otherwise.
Liar Joel was elected by his district and only his district, which he threw under the bus and lied to deliberately. Since then he’s continued to double down on non-facts and hiring PR firms to lie on his behalf, using Billionaire donations from dark money groups that “run” SF politics into the hyper-partisan corrupt political money sewer you see before you. He is not up for a citywide vote, and since 2/3 of the Sunset doesn’t appear to take well to being lied to – and coupled with the fact that Joel came into office calling for Recalls for LESSER offenses than deliberate lying and malpractice, it’s pretty close to 50/50 whether he’ll actually be recalled or just voted out in 2 years time. However, the amount of damage this liar can do in 2 years is already evident, as are the tens to hundreds of millions of wasted dollars for his dishonest proposals that don’t add safety or environmental benefit, but claim both without specifics or credulity. “You might not like it” but he’s a liar and the City doesn’t get a vote – Sunset only. We need a local Representative who actually represents us.
City supervisors are elected to support what the constituents want in their district, not to deliberately go behind their backs to ignore and deceive them. The highway was used extensively by Districts 1 , 4 and many drivers in 7…a lot of people in outward parts of the city who voted for it didn’t even know what the Great Highway was and saw it as just a proposition to fund yet another park. Engardio knew perfectly well what he was doing by carefully wording the ballot measure. He also submitted it at the last possible moment so no one could contest it with a counter proposition. He’s a sleazy excuse for a politician, and the backers funding his Stand With Joel campaign – along with Scott Wiener – who are spreading lies and rumors are showing up to be just more of the same.
this recall is as big of a waste of money as the DA recall or the school board recall and anyone involved in it who disfavored those two is a huge hypocrite.
No, it’s a big saving of money Engardio has already tried to waste.
And that money is spent – so it’s only a waste if they vote not to recall him.
That would truly be a wasted opportunity for Sunset representation.
Not to mention, his illegal gambit of skipping CEQA is flawed on a basic level and he’s going to waste millions in court defending his charade of a process. It’s millions wasted upon more millions wasted, all to claim credit for a Beach and Path we always had! He’s a joke, and the Sunset is wise to his lies. It’s exclusively downtown interests and recent transplants who fecklessly support his shameless baldfaced lies and PR attempts. He came into office on a wave of recalls, it would be only fitting.
Show the road now that the tidying up for the opening of the ‘park’ is done. Show the sand buildup impeding cyclists and/or causing accidents.
Recall Joel and get Chan rolling on the ballot measure to reopen the highway.
She ain’t gonna do it. Not with the low level of recall support. Definitely not if the recall doesn’t make the ballot.
In her district 1 support for recalling Engardio is off the charts. Either way the lawsuit(s) will determine what happens.
the road is fine, the sand is much less of an issue for pedestrians or cyclists than it is for cars.
Wrong and wrong. Engardio claimed the road would be washed away by rising tides, claimed the sand removal cost 5x more than it actually does and claimed the road was closed 6x more than it actually was.
He’s a liar. Stop supporting a liar unless you have a payment to disclose.
Your first scenario is inaccurate. Automatic qualification doesn’t require 10,902 valid signatures. If they submit 11,000 signatures that is 110% of the 9.911 necessary, so proportionally the sample represents 110%. To exceed the 110% threshold for automatic qualification every one of the 500 sample signatures would have to be valid.
Likewise, to avoid automatic disqualification, there would need to be a minimum of 90% valid signatures in the 500. Proportionally, 90% of 500 is 409 so they can only afford 91 invalid signatures in the sample.
Also, this doc (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/20200427_RecallGuide.pdf) says the sample is 3%, not 5%, so the sample will need to be 500 signatures.
Hi Bobby —
Thanks for reaching out, but you appear to have misread the article and the rules. Automatic qualification will come if the percentage of valid signatures in the sample, multiplied by the overall total of submissions, equals 110 percent of 9,911. As the recall campaign submitted too few signatures for even 100 percent success to reach 110 percent of 9,911, this is not a possibility.
Likewise, if the accuracy is low enough that the percentage in the sample, multiplied by the total number of overall submissions, is less than 90 percent of 9,911 — then the recall fails on the spot.
The link to the recall guidelines you posted is outdated. The May 2025 version which is linked in our story was provided this week by the Dept. of Elections.
Best,
JE
But as they are apparently pre-vetted, how long should we expect the “non-automatic” count and verification to take?
K —
The operative expression is “trust but verify.” The sample of 535 signatures shouldn’t take all that long. If it continues to a vetting of all 10,700 signatures, that might require some time. The city has 60 days, starting from today
JE
60 days seems reasonable to verify such a small sample even if one person did it solo. Given they’ve trimmed -3000~odd of the less verifiable x’s down to the minimum legal requirement that to me implies a strength more than a weak guesswork, but as all who have been wrong in politics or law before have been forced to admit, we’ll see.
my wife wants to run for dist 4 supervisor, she’s only been out here 11 years, but she can do a better job than NoJoel.
Lies, gaslighting and selling out to Billionaires has consequences finally!
GO SUNSET! Time for an ACTUAL representative!
Pretty funny to say that about a recall effort that looks unlikely to reach the needed signatures.
Again, they were already vetted. They had more than enough and still do. What’s funny is that it says that right in the article you didn’t read carefully.
The only “vetting” that’s definitive is the one performed by the Dept. of Elections — not the one (supposedly) performed by the recall sponsors.
They trimmed 3000 of their total to whittle it down to the legal requirement ostensibly. All of those submitted are at least found to be the most easily/completely verifiable, but if not and it goes to a full recount, AFAIK those 3000+ are back in the tally too for analysis.
It’s reading into the #’s to say they don’t have exactly what they need already, but we’ll see.
Someone is upset with the facts. Pity them.