- “I think the vote to recall me was manipulated number one by a lot of untruths.” – Pamela Price
Former Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price said the overwhelming 2024 recall that removed her from office was fueled by misinformation, outsized spending by wealthy interests and a political process that denied voters a meaningful choice, as she prepares for a return to the ballot in 2026.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Davis Vanguard, Price described the recall as a campaign against her rather than an election, arguing that she never had the opportunity to run a traditional campaign or present her record to voters in a competitive race.
“I think the vote to recall me was manipulated number one by a lot of untruths,” Price said.
Price repeatedly emphasized that she made a conscious decision to prioritize managing the district attorney’s office rather than defending herself politically, a choice she said left her vulnerable to a well-funded recall effort.
“When I was in the office and I had to make a choice, am I going to run the office or am I going to run for office, I made a decision to run the office,” Price said.
She described an office she said was plagued by dysfunction when she took over, pointing to disorganization, low morale and what she characterized as decades of mismanagement that required immediate attention.
Price said her opponents benefited from millions of dollars in spending while she remained focused on internal reforms, which she believes distorted the outcome of the recall vote.
“So it wasn’t a fair fight,” she said.
Looking ahead to 2026, Price said voters will face a fundamentally different choice in a regular election, one that allows them to evaluate competing visions and records rather than casting a simple up-or-down vote triggered by a recall process.
She argued that recalls inherently lack context and disproportionately advantage well-financed interests, leaving officeholders unable to fully communicate accomplishments or policy tradeoffs.
Price also suggested public attitudes toward wealth and political influence have shifted since the recall, citing broader national debates over billionaires and governance.
“A billionaire decided that he wanted to destabilize the justice system and he did it,” Price said.
A central focus of Price’s critique was her successor, Ursula Jones Dickson, whom Price accused of failing to uphold accountability standards for both local and federal law enforcement.
Price said Jones Dickson’s response to federal immigration enforcement, particularly alleged misconduct by customs and border patrol agents, demonstrated what she described as a dangerous unwillingness to challenge constitutional violations.
“If you’re not prepared to hold these people accountable, if you’re not prepared to hold local law enforcement accountable, then why should we trust you to hold these federal agents accountable?” Price said.
She accused the current district attorney of remaining silent in the face of alleged violations and said that silence effectively enables unconstitutional conduct.
Price also alleged that Jones Dickson has become financially and politically aligned with sheriff’s organizations, asserting that fundraising activity has coincided with favorable prosecutorial decisions.
“That is so obvious, a pay-to-play arrangement,” Price said.
Those claims mirror long-standing tensions in Alameda County politics between reform-oriented prosecutors and traditional law enforcement interests, a divide that intensified during Price’s tenure and figured prominently in recall messaging.
Gun violence policy emerged as another point of division, with Price sharply criticizing her successor’s support for mandatory minimum sentencing following recent high-profile killings.
Price characterized those proposals as politically motivated and ineffective, noting that they would not have applied to the individual charged in the most prominent case cited by the district attorney.
“Clearly this is political,” Price said.
She argued that invoking tragedy to advance punitive sentencing risks stigmatizing entire communities while failing to address the root causes of violence.
Price pointed to a $5.5 million grant her administration secured to expand training and enforcement of gun violence restraining orders, often called red flag laws, which she said have been used effectively in other jurisdictions.
She said that effort was abandoned after she left office, a decision she described as both baffling and harmful, given continued concerns over gun access.
When asked to reflect on her own record, Price identified victim services as one of her administration’s most significant achievements, pushing back against criticism that she was indifferent to victims of crime.
“I walked into that office with a rock solid commitment to improve the services for victims across Alameda County,” Price said.
She said her office reduced a backlog of victim compensation and services from more than a year to under two months and was recognized by the state for those improvements.
Price attributed that work in part to her personal experience as a survivor of sexual assault, sexual harassment and domestic violence, which she said shaped her approach to prosecution and victim advocacy.
Beyond victim services, Price described sweeping organizational and technological reforms aimed at modernizing an office she said had remained paper-driven and understaffed for years.
She said vacancy rates exceeded 20 percent when she took office, forcing advocates and attorneys to manage caseloads she described as unmanageable and incompatible with quality representation or service.
According to Price, her administration focused on rebuilding staffing, improving internal communication and creating accountability systems while addressing decades of deferred maintenance and infrastructure neglect.
At the same time, Price acknowledged that her tenure was marked by intense internal resistance, particularly from long-serving prosecutors aligned with her predecessor.
She described entrenched informal power structures within the office that she said sabotaged reform efforts and resisted initiatives such as implementation of California’s Racial Justice Act.
Price said civil service protections limited her ability to replace resistant staff wholesale, forcing her administration to attempt cultural change within a deeply entrenched system.
Asked whether critics or media coverage ever raised valid concerns, Price said she struggled to identify criticisms she believed were grounded in a full understanding of prosecutorial decision-making.
She said prosecution inherently involves information that cannot be shared publicly, leaving decisions vulnerable to misunderstanding and second-guessing.
Price said her approach has always welcomed new ideas, particularly from younger attorneys, whom she credited with bringing innovative thinking into traditionally rigid legal environments.
One of Price’s most pointed critiques of her successor involved the handling of death penalty cases tainted by unconstitutional jury selection practices identified during her tenure.
Price said her office disclosed the violations and initiated resentencing proceedings, which she said were halted by Jones Dickson even before formally assuming office.
Price argued that abandoning those cases reflects a fundamental misunderstanding, or rejection, of constitutional obligations.
“If you have evidence that people’s constitutional rights were violated, it is your obligation as a prosecutor to act,” Price said.
Critics of Price, including supporters of the recall, have argued that her administration created internal turmoil and weakened relationships with law enforcement, contributing to staff departures and public confusion during a period of heightened concern about crime.
As previously reported by the Vanguard, recall proponents framed the vote as a response to what they described as ideological governance, managerial instability and a loss of public trust, claims Price has consistently rejected.
Supporters of Price, meanwhile, argue that the recall interrupted reforms aimed at addressing racial disparities, prosecutorial misconduct and structural inequities in the criminal legal system.
With the 2026 election still more than a year away, Price said the coming campaign will give voters an opportunity to assess the consequences of the recall and directly compare candidates and records.
“If no one else is going to challenge her, if you don’t do it now, by 2028 it will be too difficult to bring these issues to light,” Price said.
As the race takes shape, the contest is expected to revisit fundamental questions that defined Price’s tenure and recall, including prosecutorial accountability, law enforcement oversight and how Alameda County chooses to balance reform, public safety and constitutional rights.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
What did the recall campaign do that wasn’t fair or by the rules?
Ultimately it was the people who voted her out.
In Woodland there was a recent school board member recalled, was that also not a fair election?