The DA Recall Campaign: A City's Debate Over Criminal Justice

In January 2022, a group of San Francisco residents began collecting signatures to recall District Attorney Chesa Boudin. By May, they had gathered more than 83,000 signatures, enough to force a special election. On June 7, 2022, voters removed Boudin from office by a margin of 55% to 45%.

The recall campaign became a referendum on criminal justice reform in a city that has long been at the forefront of progressive policies. The debate centered on whether Boudin's approach to prosecution—which emphasized alternatives to incarceration and declined to prosecute certain low-level offenses—was contributing to rising crime rates.

The Data

According to the San Francisco Police Department, property crime increased 32% between 2019 and 2021. Violent crime rose 15% during the same period. Homicides reached a 25-year high in 2021, with 56 murders recorded.

Supporters of the recall pointed to these statistics as evidence that Boudin's policies were failing. Opponents argued that crime rates were rising nationwide due to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic disruption, not local prosecution policies.

A study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that San Francisco's crime trends were similar to those in other California cities, regardless of their district attorneys' policies. The study noted that cities with more traditional prosecutors, such as Los Angeles and San Diego, also experienced significant increases in crime during the same period.

The Campaign

The recall effort was led by a coalition that included small business owners, crime victims, and former public defenders. Richie Greenberg, a former Republican mayoral candidate, served as the campaign's spokesperson. The campaign raised approximately $7.2 million, with significant contributions from tech executives and real estate developers.

Boudin's supporters raised $13.1 million to oppose the recall. Major donors included progressive organizations, labor unions, and criminal justice reform advocates.

The campaign focused heavily on public safety concerns. Recall supporters highlighted cases where individuals released by Boudin's office went on to commit additional crimes. Opponents emphasized Boudin's record of holding police accountable and reducing the jail population.

The Policy Record

During his tenure, Boudin declined to prosecute cases involving sex work, public camping, and certain drug offenses. He established a unit to review wrongful convictions and expanded diversion programs for young offenders.

Boudin's office secured convictions in 75% of felony cases that went to trial, compared to 80% under his predecessor. However, his office filed charges in a smaller percentage of cases referred by police, leading to criticism that he was too lenient.

The district attorney's office also faced staffing challenges. More than 50 prosecutors left during Boudin's two and a half years in office, representing about half of the department. Some cited concerns about office policies and working conditions.

The Aftermath

Following the recall, Mayor London Breed appointed Brooke Jenkins as interim district attorney. Jenkins, who had worked in Boudin's office before resigning to support the recall, promised a more traditional approach to prosecution.

Jenkins announced she would reverse several of Boudin's policies, including resuming prosecution of drug dealing cases and public camping violations. She also pledged to work more closely with police and to be more aggressive in charging repeat offenders.

Early data from Jenkins's tenure showed an increase in charging rates and a decrease in the use of diversion programs. Crime statistics for 2023 showed mixed results: property crime decreased slightly, while violent crime remained elevated.

The Broader Context

The recall occurred amid a national debate about criminal justice reform. Progressive prosecutors in other cities, including Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón and Philadelphia's Larry Krasner, also faced recall efforts, though Boudin was the first to be removed from office.

The San Francisco recall highlighted tensions between reform goals and public safety concerns. It demonstrated that even in a progressive city, voters have limits on how far they're willing to go in reducing incarceration and changing prosecution practices.

The debate continues. Supporters of reform argue that the recall was driven by misinformation and fear, while opponents maintain that it was a necessary correction to policies that prioritized offenders over victims.

What the Research Shows

Academic studies on the relationship between prosecution policies and crime rates have produced mixed results. Research from the University of California, Berkeley found that progressive prosecutors had little to no effect on violent crime rates, though they did reduce incarceration.

A study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology examined data from 35 large urban counties and found that declining prosecution rates were associated with increases in some types of crime, particularly property offenses.

The research suggests that the relationship between prosecution policies and crime is complex, with many factors beyond the control of district attorneys influencing crime rates.

Looking Forward

The recall has left San Francisco's criminal justice system at a crossroads. The city must balance competing priorities: reducing mass incarceration, addressing racial disparities in the justice system, and responding to public safety concerns.

The debate over the district attorney's role is far from settled. As crime rates fluctuate and new data emerges, the conversation about how to best serve both victims and defendants will continue to evolve.

What is clear is that the recall has made district attorneys across the country more aware of the political risks of reform. The question is whether this will lead to more cautious approaches or a renewed commitment to explaining and defending progressive policies.