Image 01 Image 03

Recall Effort for L.A County DA George Gascón Fails to Clear Signature Hurdle

Recall Effort for L.A County DA George Gascón Fails to Clear Signature Hurdle

Nearly 200,000 signatures out of more than 715,000 invalidated.

In early July, I reported that the organizers of the recall effort for Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón, who is backed by George Soros, gathered enough signatures. The process of getting the measure on the ballot went to the signature review phase.

It appears that the organizers did not clear the second hurdle, and the effort has failed.

A second effort to force Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón into a recall election fizzled out Monday after officials determined that the campaign to boot him from office failed to gain enough valid signatures.

To put Gascón’s job on the ballot, the campaign seeking his ouster needed to gather 566,857 valid signatures by mid-July, a figure reflecting 10% of the people eligible to vote in the election cycle when Gascón won office in November 2020. The L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office said Monday that about 520,000 of the signatures submitted were valid.

While the campaign submitted roughly 715,000 signatures, some were inevitably going to be disqualified if they were signed by people who were not properly registered to vote in L.A. County or if a registered voter’s signature didn’t match the one on file with the registrar.

The review invalidated nearly 200,000 of the signatures gathered.

Summary breakdown of the invalid signatures (Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk):

  • Not Registered: 88,464
  • Max Number of Times Signed (Duplicate): 43,593
  • Different Address: 32,187
  • Mismatch Signature: 9,490
  • Canceled: 7,344
  • Out of County Address: 5,374
  • Other: 9,331

Gascon was pleased with the result, as it allowed him to continue his criminal-first policies unabated.

Recall organizers still have time to review the findings.

The recall’s backers have a three-week window to review the registrar’s findings. Recall backers have told Fox News in recent weeks that this process would be more useful to them in gathering evidence for possible litigation.

Of course, many Californians now have questions about the state of the voter rolls…so there is that.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It is my understanding that the process of verifying voter integrity falls under Gascon’s purview. Is that correct? His office was overseeing the recount?

The expansion of corruption never ends around here. Last week, the LA County Board of Supervisors voted themselves the power to reject any County Sheriff the voters elect. This is their plan to remove Alex Villanueva after he wins his re-election. So they reject the election and appoint their own replacement?

The LA County Board of Supervisors is made up of crazy old women who are too crazy to be on “The View”. Insane.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 16, 2022 at 7:44 am

    I have no idea so I may be talking nonsense, but, doesn’t the state constitution address the issue of sheriffs and how they are placed in office? I just cannot see a way the county supervisors can get away with this.

      There is no one enforcing the law anymore. Sheriff Villanueva is very popular and generally considered the last honest politician around here. The AG is not going to step in so it is up to the feds. This is a constitutional issue. Someone has to sue. Around here, you have to sue yourself into office. That is why so few people vote anymore.

        Here’s the scam: the leftist psychos on the LA County Board of Supervisors vote to “allow” a recall of Villanueva on the “ballot”.

        Who controls LA’s ballots? The same maggots who just sabotaged the recall of Gascon.

      doesn’t the state constitution address the issue of sheriffs and how they are placed in office?

      No, that’s a matter for the county charter. The constitution says that “county charters shall provide for […] An elected sheriff, an elected district attorney, an elected assessor, other officers, their election or appointment, compensation, terms and removal.

      Phil is not telling the truth here. The supervisors can’t and didn’t “vote themselves” any power. The county charter can only be amended by the voters. The supervisors voted to put an amendment on the ballot to allow for a sheriff’s removal upon the vote of four of the five supervisors. The voters will decide in November whether to approve this — the same voters who will also decide whether to reelect Villanueva. So if a majority want him to remain sheriff and don’t want him to be fired, all they have to do is vote for him and against the proposed amendment. If a majority supports the amendment then it is right and proper for it to pass.

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 16, 2022 at 8:54 am

    No, that has nothing to do with the DA. As the cited article says, it’s the The L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, a gentleman by the name of Dean C. Logan.

      27% error rate with recall petition, <1% error rate for mail-in voting.

      How is that evenpossible without massive fraud with one or both of these numbers? Same voter rolls.

        Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 16, 2022 at 10:53 am

        As cited above, only 9,490 signatures were ruled out for not matching, which is an error rate of 1.32%. The other rejections were for other reasons; just look above in the article and you’ll see them. It’s obviously easier to give an invalid signature on a petition than it is to cast an invalid vote. For one thing, to vote you have to actually have been mailed a ballot. Yes, some people got multiple ballots, but not many did, and most normal people who got multiple ballots would only use one of them. People not registered didn’t get ballots at all, whereas many of them did sign the petition. And voters who made a mistake on their ballots could come in and cure the mistake, e.g. by signing again; you can’t do that on a petition. So you should expect the rejection rate for petitions to be many times that for elections.

          What a nutcase. What is the point of this latest adventure in pedantry? Playing “king of the hill” with another dot while we are busy connecting the dots?

          alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 11:57 am

          You may want to take a look at the recall petitions…. they make it difficult to put all of the data into the intentionally small spaces. I have a hunch that many of the rejects were from exceeding the space allowed… hence incorrect signatures and addresses.

          All we need to know is that they prohibited neutral observers from watching the vote count. That’s de facto fraud.

The Gentle Grizzly | August 16, 2022 at 7:16 am

That was predictable.

But, this brings up a question someone here may be able to answer. My own signature is a bit inconsistent. My penmanship has always been hopeless, and with age has become worse. My signature is not exactly consistent. How do the checkers – the honest ones – determine if a signature is genuine?

    As a poll worker, I have to check people’s signatures when they vote. People’s signatures do vary, so we have to be reasonably generous in deciding whether it’s close enough. And if it isn’t, I offer the voter a chance to sign again. Often that will be enough for the voter to realize that when they registered to vote they used a different style of signature, e.g. their full name, and they’ll get it right on the second try.

    It’s actually slightly more secure than it used to be, because it used to be that there was a physical book with all the registered voters in the district and their signatures, and the voter would have to sign directly under their reproduced signature, and the poll worker would then have to see whether they matched. So someone who’s good at forging signatures would know what they had to match. Now it’s all electronic, and the voter can’t see the recorded signature before signing, so they don’t know what they’re supposed to match. Only after they’ve signed do we bring up the recorded signature and see whether they match. And even then, the voter can’t see it, so if we give them a second chance they still don’t know what they should be matching, unless it’s really them and they remember how they used to sign.

      I was an election judge in Missouri for 11 years, but we had no such ‘signature verification’ at the polls. A valid ID that matched voter registration was all that was required to obtain a ballot.

      That said, ballot initiative signatures obtain on the street begs the question, “Once these petitions were cataloged back at the registar’s office, what example was used for signature comparison, and what caused a suspicion to be raised in the 1st place?”

      As Grizzly stated, our signatures change over time n place.

        Milhouse in reply to LB1901. | August 16, 2022 at 10:55 am

        Signature comparison is common. In states where no ID is required at the polls, it’s the only security measure, and a piss poor one at that. The comparison is to the way you signed on your voter registration form.

          One of the reasons I’m glad Kansas has Real ID driver’s licences that are tied into the voting system. Show my ID, sign the electronic pad, pick up my ballot from the appropriate line, fill it in with the free pen they give us, put it through the scanner which saves the paper copy in a sealed bin, and out the door in five minutes or less.

          States that care about accurate balloting have the same system.

What are the odds that they’ll be sticklers about who gets to vote in November? It also strikes me that even 520,000 signatures is hardly a vote of confidence in the Soros selected prosecutor. I guess ensuring that only duly authorized voters are permitted to vote only matters when it hurts the socialist cause.

    Milhouse in reply to Disgusted. | August 16, 2022 at 9:43 am

    520,000 signatures is not a vote of confidence, but it’s less than 10% of the eligible voters. That 9.9% of voters hate an elected official’s guts is a given; you could find that many for almost any official the day after they were elected! That’s why to put someone through a recall you need at least 10% of voters who are so motivated to get rid of him that they’ll bother to find and sign a petition. Then there’s a chance that another 40% will support them at the polls.

    And to get 10% valid signatures everyone knows that you need to submit at least twice as many, because it’s inevitable that a large percentage of your gathered signatures will be junk.

Alternative headline: Leftists concerned with signature verification. Unexpectedly!

Californians up really early.

2smartforlibs | August 16, 2022 at 7:53 am

When everyone gets a say even people with no interest in Liberalfonia how can you say you didn’t get the required signatures?

Times posted are EDT. Time in California is 4:54 a.m.

There is no way to gently remove a communist from power.

E Howard Hunt | August 16, 2022 at 8:42 am

It would be interesting to see what would happen to some gang banger who sucker punched Gascon right in the chops and then stomped on his designer eyeglasses. Would he be released within hours or would an exception be made?

So they put more effort into these verifications than actual votes…makes perfect sense.

    Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | August 16, 2022 at 9:45 am

    Nope. Actual votes are put through exactly the same verification.

      That would be nice, but I suspect these were given the Gold Standard inspection as opposed to actual ballots of the mail-in variety from 2020, which were rusty copper at best. Admittedly a rejection rate of slightly under two percent seems low, until you compare it to the miniscule ballot signature rejection rate of the election, but if I were to be a Dem counting these sigs with malicious intent, I’d be extremely picky on spelling and sloppy on verifying against registered voters, because signature rejection is where most of the attention would be. So Julia Childs might get entered into the database checker as Julia Child and rejected, or 1407 James Parkway might get entered as 1406 James St. for the same rejection, etc…

      No, I’m not paranoid. I’m justifiably cautious due to experience.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 6:38 pm

      Yeah, right.
      This is the face of DEMOCRAT VOTER SUPPRESSION.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 6:57 pm

      So, California mailed out recall ballots to everyone in the county whether they asked for it or not?

        Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | August 17, 2022 at 1:22 am

        Um, no, of course not, because there will be no recall vote! That’s the whole point of this story! So what ballots could they mail?

        If there had been enough petitioners to get the recall going, then I suppose yes, they would mail out ballots.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 7:00 pm

      Milly, a large portion were disqualified for not being registered voters….that alone is a more rigorous verification than the “motor voter” maneuver by Newsom

casualobserver | August 16, 2022 at 9:00 am

It wouldn’t take much to sabotage it, which wouldn’t surprise me. Not sure why the campaign couldn’t have found some or most of the 88k unregistered voters as it’s public info. But maybe there is room for deceit – e.g. some may have “just expired”. The duplicates seem like the should have been easy to find unless deliberately falsified. I’ve signed a petition and used my name with middle initial. If I were devious, I could sign again using just my first-last names, e.g.

    Dimsdale in reply to casualobserver. | August 16, 2022 at 9:23 am

    “While the campaign submitted roughly 715,000 signatures, some were inevitably going to be disqualified if they were signed by people who were not properly registered to vote in L.A. County or if a registered voter’s signature didn’t match the one on file with the registrar.”

    Maybe they should have set up “signature drop boxes.” That seems to remediate all those pesky qualification issues with the actual vote…

      yerheinous in reply to Dimsdale. | August 16, 2022 at 1:16 pm

      Funny how such scrutiny to make sure the signatures/votes are valid are nowhere to be found when it comes to presidential elections.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to casualobserver. | August 16, 2022 at 9:49 am

    Duplicate signatures would also be a method of sabotage: a cadre of signers, registered or not, going around and signing every petition they could get access to. Does the group collecting signatures constantly review the new signatures for duplication or do they just count the signatures? By engaging in multiple signings the opponents will increase the gross signature count knowing that most of them will be disallowed later, the higher gross number to cause the proponents to stop collecting too soon, or to not push hard as the deadline approaches, them thinking they will meet the required number.

    As Griz points out, our signatures change as we age and yield to deterioration of our manual dexterity. My signature is not what it was when I first registered to vote, many decades ago. Only moving has presented a new signature. Couple that with comparing a signature done at a desk or table with one done on a clipboard in front of a market.

Remind me who counts the votes. Does it even matter who casts the votes any more?

Thankfully, I don’t live there.

    No matter where you live: they’re coming for you.

      henrybowman in reply to | August 16, 2022 at 7:00 pm

      Tucker’s commentary of last night consisted of a recitation of “jackboots at dawn” moments from the Biden administration. From Biden’s second week in power, when he sent the Stasi after a meme creator in Vermont (to which Tucker gives a full 10 minutes before continuing), Tucker lists more than a dozen subsequent egregious “enemy of the state” investigations/arrests committed by his administration. It’s like a new Solzhenitsyn sequel was just announced on Amazon.

“My primary focus has been & will always be keeping us safe & creating a more equitable justice system for all.”

This is typically dishonest and greasy Dumb-o-crat snake oil. These two goals — public safety, and, “creating a more ‘equitable’ justice system — are in direct opposition to each other, as evidenced by the vile Dumb-o-crats’ perennial criminal-coddling, leniency in arrests/prosecutions, and, general deference to criminals at-large.

Did illegals get to vote? That might sway the count, since they would be considered “valid” in Californica.

Capitalist-Dad | August 16, 2022 at 9:28 am

No normal American can or should trust this “validation” process since it is run by Democrats. In their constant blizzard of corruption and lies, the safest assumption is this process is crooked.

Sooo…when their ox is being gored they demand microscopic voter accuracy. But when the table is turned, and they are goring the citizen ox, then voter validation is discriminatory.

Two-faced bums.

Just an extension of the same corruption that has given us a two tiered justice system. I’m very glad my son-in-law resigned from LAPD last year and that our whole family has fled SoCal for Idaho.

I’m guessing the ‘signature review phase’ that found thousands of ‘invalid signatures’ was done by Dominion software.

If there is any doubt that this vote was rigged, keep this in mind. The director of elections is a guy named Peter Logan. Every single election he has been in charge of everywhere he has been has been controversial Google John Fund/Peter Logan for more background. This the guy who oversaw elections in Washington state where hundreds of voters were registered at one address in King County.

Notice in this ONE instance they actually give a crap about whether or not you’re a legal voter.