At a moment when public trust is already fragile, that precedent would be especially damaging.
In 2022, San Mateo County voters elected Christina Corpus as the county’s first Latina and first woman sheriff after she campaigned on a platform of reform. Less than halfway through her term, that choice is about to be overturned.
In the coming weeks, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will decide whether to remove Sheriff Corpus from office. The vote could come as soon as next week, and the supervisors have emphasized speed over thoughtful consideration.
Related Articles
From brothels and Batmobiles to removal hearings, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office has a long line of scandals
Judge orders partial release of spending records in Sheriff Corpus corruption probe
Sheriff Corpus takes stand as San Mateo County removal hearings close
Sheriff Corpus’ allies defend her in high-stakes San Mateo County removal hearing
San Mateo County executive testifies in sheriff removal hearing
They will act under a provision of the county charter that they drafted after her election and placed on the ballot as Measure A in March 2025. In doing so, they kept final authority for themselves: They control the procedures, select the hearing officer, and ultimately decide the outcome.
False promise
Measure A was promoted as a way to “save millions” by avoiding lawsuits. Its supporters leaned on a report by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, an “independent investigation” that accused Corpus of mismanagement.
But the reality was different. The election itself cost at least $4.4 million. The Cordell report has since been discredited — missing transcripts, factual errors and even confusion of key witnesses.
When hearings began, county lawyers admitted it was irrelevant and refused to use it.
A measure sold on false promises and a flawed report now provides the tool to erase a voter-mandated result.
The supervisors then wrote the rules for the procedures, leaving little room for fairness. Deadlines are compressed. Hearsay is admitted. Two supervisors publicly signaled their positions before hearing all the evidence. The hearing officer acknowledged he cannot adjust the rules even when justice demands it.
This is not impartial oversight. It is a rushed process designed to ratify a decision already made.
Money, union power
The push to remove Corpus cannot be separated from entrenched financial and political interests.
Just before she took office, the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association secured a 13% raise, making San Mateo County deputies the highest paid in the region. Soon after, the county reopened the contract to allow double overtime, driving overtime costs to $53 million in one year.
By 2024, the county’s highest-paid employee was not a judge or doctor — it was a sheriff’s deputy whose overtime pay exceeded all others. These arrangements were overseen by County Executive Mike Callagy and supported by supervisors who depend on union backing for political power.
Sheriff Corpus questioned whether this system was sustainable. That put her in direct conflict with entrenched law enforcement union interests aligned with the supervisors and dependent on their political power. Measure A gave those interests the means to silence her.
If the board removes Sheriff Corpus, it will establish that a countywide election can be undone by five politicians under rules they wrote themselves.
The precedent will not stop with the sheriff. It can extend to other independently elected officials — the district attorney, the assessor, the controller — anyone whose independence makes them inconvenient. The line between legitimate oversight and the nullification of elections would no longer hold.
Beware, California
This is not just a local dispute. If the San Mateo County model stands, other counties could adopt the same framework, granting supervisors power to void election results mid-term whenever politically useful.
At a moment when public trust is already fragile, that precedent would be especially damaging.
The decision before the board is not simply about Sheriff Corpus. It is about whether San Mateo County honors the choice its voters made in 2022 or substitutes that choice with insider control.
The removal of an elected sheriff should be an extraordinary act, undertaken only in the most serious circumstances and with full safeguards. If removal occurs here — under rules drafted by the very officials who benefit from them, rushed forward without limits — it will be remembered not as accountability but as self-preservation.
Attorney Matthew J. Frauenfeld represents Sheriff Christina Corpus.
