On Tuesday, the Kern County Board of Supervisors voted to continue working on the charter that will be on the June 2, 2026, election ballot. One major topic of discussion around becoming a charter county is how it will impact vacancies on the board.
Currently, if a board member leaves their position before the term is over, the California Governor has the power to appoint a new supervisor until the next election. If Kern County becomes a charter county, the Board of Supervisors will have the ability to appoint the successor or have the special election.
While some community members agreed with the board and stated that this would give the county autonomy, others believe it could be used for political gain. Robert Hooks gave a public comment and stated that the charter will give a political party the power to dominate the board.
“Why else adopt a charter that is certain to give a clear advantage to conservative members of this board? There is enough uncertainty and lack of clarity to warrant more time,” said Hooks.
Hooks advised the board to vote no on adopting the charter, and stated that if one is going to happen, more time is needed to develop it.
“I disagree with the inference that this may be too much information or complexity for the county to digest. If that is a concern, and you value our opinion, you will allow more time,” said Hooks. “If you insist on doing this, I say we need more time. If you persist in rushing, I say hold supervisor Couch to his word, which leans heavily towards elections.”
Others believe that while the board will have the option to host special elections, the board will not have them.
Emma De La Rosa stated that the process by which the board is creating the charter negates the opportunity for the community to give input on what is in the charter, rather than whether it is just adopted or not. Another community member echoed the same sentiment, stating that the county should do something similar to the city of Bakersfield and host listening sessions as they did regarding the sewer rates.
De La Rosa added that in other counties she has seen, with a charter like the one the, they have opted to appoint the next person.
“There was no public process, and that’s the problem with this ordinance, that’s the problem with this charter,” said De La Rosa as she asked them not to approve the ordinance. “Take some time to think about it. Take some time to please bring it back to the public, the people that you represent.”
Carter Beardsley spoke in opposition to the charter. He stated that although the county being able to vote to appoint the next supervisor sounds good, he does not trust the voting of the board. One reason is the board’s recent decision not to give the funding that was cut back to the Public Health Department.
“The problem is the board just voted back in August to cut $12 million from Public Health. We slashed the budget by 25%,” said Beardsley. “I can not imagine that this board is going to be able to find the funds to hold a special election in the event that there is a vacancy on this board.”
He added that giving the board the ability to appoint will take the power away from voters.
“We elect you guys to represent our interests as the board of supervisors for our county, not to be the electoral college. And frankly, I just think it takes the authority out of the voters’ hands when we say that you guys are going to resort to appointing, because ultimately, we know that that’s what it’s going to come down to.”
Jeff Flores, District 3 Supervisor, stated that the county did not want to make the cuts and that they were imposed by the federal government.
David Couch, District 4 Supervisor, and Chris Parlier, District 2 Supervisor, spoke about the special election held when Parlier filled the vacancy left by Zack Scrivner in 2024. Couch stated that the governor could have appointed someone, but chose not to.
“The board called a special election, I heard today the board will never call a special election, the board called a special election that Monday, with the filing deadline on that Friday,” said Couch. “So the board has a history, at least recently, of calling a special election.”
Couch stated that he is positive that if they were to appoint someone, they would take the time to speak to people and make the best decision they could to appoint someone. He stated that the decision to appoint or hold an election would depend on various factors, including how much time there is between the person vacating the position and the next guaranteed election.
“That’s going to come down to how much time is probably left between the resignation and when the first guaranteed opportunity for having an election would be, that wouldn’t cost us any money. If that’s a short amount of time, I would prefer to just wait to have a special election and not even appoint someone, let the voters decide,” said Couch.
He added that if it is a longer period of time, the board may need to appoint someone to fill the seat until the election.
“But if it’s a longer period of time. Let’s say it’s a year or longer, and based on election law, it could be maybe upwards of a year before we have an opportunity for a guaranteed election,” said Couch. “Then I think the board has to weigh is it more important to wait and let the voters decide this and leave the office vacant, or is it more important to appoint someone to fill out that term until the next election opportunity because the people deserve to have someone here casting a vote.”
Leticia Perez, District 5 Supervisor, stated that although she is a Democrat, she was voting in favor of the charter because she does not trust Sacramento to make the decisions for Kern County.
If voters choose to adopt the charter in the June 2 election, the ordinance would take effect on November 1, 2026, if approved by the Secretary of State.
