San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin just got recalled. What happens now?

After a bitter, monthslong campaign, District Attorney Chesa Boudin has been recalled by San Francisco voters. As of 11 p.m. Tuesday night, “yes” on the recall is leading “no” 60% to 40%

The results, though disappointing for supporters, were hardly a surprise to those who have been following the race carefully. In the months leading up to the election, polls consistently showed Boudin’s ouster was likely, and that generally, San Franciscans are concerned about crime and public safety. 

The question of “what happens now” can be answered three different ways: procedurally (when will a new DA take office?), politically (what does the recall mean for the local and national political landscapes?) and practically (will removing Boudin actually improve San Francisco’s crime rates?). 

The procedural answer is the most straightforward. Boudin must vacate the office no later than 10 days after the Board of Supervisors certifies the election results, likely sometime in late June or early July. At that point, a successor chosen by Mayor London Breed will assume office. There will be no special election for the office; San Francisco voters would next weigh in during the regularly scheduled election on Nov. 7, 2023.

Breed’s choice to replace Boudin is harder to predict, largely because of Proposition C, a ballot measure seeking to change the recall process itself. Prop. C. failed, with “no” leading “yes” 60% to 40% as of late Tuesday night. It’s a margin very similar to the Boudin recall.

One major provision of Prop. C would have prevented anyone appointed by the mayor to replace a recalled official from running for the position in the next election. The fate of the proposition has a significant effect on the mayor’s list of possible replacements, according to an official familiar with discussions but not authorized to speak publicly. 

Even though the mayor’s office has not begun its search in earnest, it is already considering three candidates in particular, according to the official: District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani; Nancy Tung, a former prosecutor who ran against Boudin in 2019; and Brooke Jenkins, another former prosecutor who emerged as a leading Boudin recall supporter. All three have expressed interest in the job and present themselves as more tough on crime than Boudin. Other candidates will also emerge during the process as Breed speaks to members of the community and legal experts, the official said.

The choices make sense, given Breed’s recent embrace of tough-on-crime rhetoric. At a December press conference, she said, “It’s time that the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for it to come to an end,” and, “It comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement … and less tolerant of all the bulls—t that has destroyed our city.” She also recently announced plans to increase the San Francisco Police Department’s budget, a striking reversal from her earlier support for slashing the police budget and using that money for social programs, a response to the 2020 murder of George Floyd.

Each of the three candidates mentioned by the official would provide unique political advantages for Breed. If the mayor picks Stefani, Breed would then get to appoint her replacement on the Board of Supervisors. Tung, on the other hand, could help Breed make inroads with Asian American voters, who helped fuel both this recall and the recent school board recall. And Jenkins, who has characterized herself as a progressive prosecutor, could signal that Breed isn’t completely abandoning criminal justice reform — although criminal justice reform advocates dispute Jenkins’ record on the issue.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed speaks during a press conference to present 2021 crime statistics on violent crimes and property crime at the San Francisco Police Department Headquarters on Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2022, in San Francisco.

San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst N/San Francisco Chronicle via Gett

University of San Francisco professor of political science James Taylor believes that a return to tough-on-crime policy — more police, more incarceration, stronger charges and less reliance on diversion programs — is on San Francisco’s horizon.

“Oh it’s inevitable,” Taylor told SFGATE. “I sense it. I had a conservative friend who told me, ‘You know it’s coming.’ I said, ‘Oh I’ve known for some time.’” 

Not everyone agrees. Cristine Soto DeBerry, a former chief of staff to Boudin and the executive director of the progressive Prosecutors’ Alliance of California, believes that Boudin’s replacement will likely maintain at least some reformist policies. DeBerry cited the fact that many high-profile recall proponents went out of their way to say they support criminal justice reform, but oppose Boudin’s methods.

“They wouldn’t be saying that if voters weren’t telling them they support reform,” DeBerry said. “You can be sure the recall campaign spent some of their millions on polling to see which messages resonate. You can tell what they’re seeing is voters in California and San Francisco may have anxieties about crime but they support better solutions than what we’ve had in the past.”

Nationally, conservatives are already celebrating Boudin’s demise. Headlines on Fox News and Breitbart read “Progressive San Francisco DA recalled by voters in one of nation’s most liberal cities” and “San Francisco Voters Recall Radical D.A. Chesa Boudin: Warning to Left-wing Prosecutors Nationwide.” Conservative pundit Ann Coulter tweeted, “The good news for Chesa Boudin is that he will still be prosecuting the same number of criminals.”

Given these attacks from the right, Taylor points to a regression to the mean among Democratic politicians nationwide, who, after embracing reformist rhetoric in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, are largely returning to “tough on crime” policies and public statements. (Even Boudin explicitly disavowed defunding the police in an SFGATE Q&A before the recall.)

“When Joe Biden learns Boudin lost, I don’t think he’ll be upset at all,” Taylor said. “It will be exciting to him to have a more moderate, acceptable Democrat in office. What you’re going to see with Democrats is attempting to slowly acclimate people to accept a ‘law and order’ backlash to reform. You see this from the top down from Biden to the mayor of San Francisco.”

Regardless of the political machinations, what the recall means for the daily lives of San Franciscans is perhaps the hardest question to answer.

California jurisdictions with tough-on-crime prosecutors have some of the highest crime rates in the state, so a move toward incarcerating more individuals is not likely to be a cure-all for problems voters are most concerned about. While there’s evidence that pursuing stronger charges for fentanyl dealers could lead to fewer repeat offenses within a short period of time, it’s less clear that changing any of Boudin’s current policies will have a dramatic impact on property crime or violent crime.

“The sad news is if the DA is recalled, San Franciscans will not see a change in their experience,” DeBerry said. “Recalling the DA will not change the homeless crisis. It will not solve the drug use crisis, and it’s not going to solve the lack of response from SFPD. Those things will look exactly the same unless other leaders in the city step forward and take their obligations seriously.”

Perhaps the biggest impact from the Boudin recall — both politically and practically — is the loss of the most popular scapegoat for frustrations over crime in San Francisco. Removing an easy target of blame could lead to more scrutiny of the San Francisco Police Department, which “solves fewer crimes despite larger staffing per city resident and costs per area patrolled” compared with other California jurisdictions, according to a March report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Boudin repeatedly argued during the campaign that district attorneys can only bring charges when police make arrests. The San Francisco Police Department’s arrest rates have been decreasing for years.

“The DA’s office is at the end of the system,” DeBerry said. “At the front end, the police department has the biggest impact on reducing crime. Prosecution is a reaction after something has already happened.”