The recall of San Francisco’s vote to re-elect Chesa Boudin as District Attorney illuminates several problems progressive DAs face in their reformative approach to prosecution. It should be noted that the recall of this specific election is unique. The vote was recalled despite an overwhelming majority of San Francisco voters who favor eliminating cash bail, expanding mental health treatment to divert certain cases from prisons, and diverting other minor-crimes cases toward other forms of intervention. The recall emerged in context of several other recent recall campaigns in San Francisco and the state of California. Governor Gavin Newsom faced an unsuccessful recall in September 2021, and three members of the San Francisco Board of Education were successfully recalled in February 2022. By May of 2021, Boudin himself had already faced two recall campaigns.
The fierce opposition to Boudin arose from heightened media coverage of San Francisco’s crime and homelessness during the Covid-19 lockdowns. This coverage stoked fears of worsening crime in the city, despite that violent crime rates decreased under Boudin’s tenure as DA. In California, jurisdictions with the harshest prosecutors have the highest crime rates in the state. Nevertheless, Boudin became the target at which unfounded fears of rising crime were aimed. Although disappointing, this comes as no surprise considering statistics that show that there is very little correlation between rising fear of crime and actual rates of crime. Sometimes record-low crime rates coincide with high rates of fear of crime.
There are several reasons why Boudin’s election recall was successful. Since this DA election occurred in an off-year, voter turnout was much lower than it would have been in a year that coincided with bigger elections such as the presidential election. Because fewer people turned out to vote, financially endowed interest groups were able to wield more leverage to buy election outcomes. San Francisco has the highest per capita rate of billionaires in the world, and Boudin’s extremely wealthy opposition amassed $7.2 million to remove him from office, by means of spreading misinformation and fueling public fear. However, the electoral process is not always trampled by those with deep pockets. Last year, Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner received twice as many votes as his opponent, even though the police union contributed massive funding to defeat him. Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx contended with a financially endowed opponent with police support; she was still reelected.
As progressive prosecutors gain more traction in dense urban areas, and citizens continue to be more vocal about rejecting “tough on crime” policies, proponents of more stringent approaches to criminal justice will inevitably attempt to militate against reform. However, this should not be cause for discouragement, as progressive prosecutors across the country continue to stand firm and enact reform.