San Diego County supervisors vote unanimously to call special election for 1st District seat

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 14 voted unanimously to call a special election to fill the vacant 1st District supervisor seat, setting a special primary election for April 8, 2025 and a special general election for July 1, 2025 if no candidate wins a majority in the primary.

The decision followed a staff presentation on three options to fill the vacancy — a direct appointment under board policy A‑39, a special election, or an interim appointment until a special election — and more than two dozen public comments. Andrew Potter, county staff, told the board that the county charter requires action within 30 days of a vacancy and that a special primary must be set no earlier than 76 days and not more than 90 days after the resolution calling the election.

Supervisor Jim Desmond moved for a special election, saying, "The residents of District 1 deserve an opportunity to elect their next representative for a nearly a full 4 year term through a transparent democratic process and not a political appointment." Supervisor Montgomery Stepp seconded the motion. Desmond added that the cost of holding a special election is significant — citing a prior expense of about $5,000,000 — but called that "the price of democracy." The board approved the motion unanimously; the clerk announced the motion passed with all supervisors present and voting aye.

Under the timetable presented by staff, if the board calls the special election the calendar would include a nomination period, sample ballot mailings, and certification steps. Potter said the special primary would be Tuesday, April 8, 2025; if no candidate receives a majority at that election, the special general election would be the 12th Tuesday after the primary, anticipated to be Tuesday, July 1, 2025. If needed, the board could certify results and swear in the elected supervisor by Aug. 1, 2025.

The board also approved the administration method tied to the motion: option B, which retains both vote centers and vote‑by‑mail operations rather than an all‑mail model. Potter noted in his presentation that the vote‑center model is roughly $900,000 more per election than an all‑mail approach.

Public comment at the meeting was heavily tilted toward calling a special election. County employee and SEIU 221 member Vanessa Rygosa told the board, "We are urging you to set a special election to fill the position for District 1." Community groups and multiple callers argued that voters in District 1 should choose their representative rather than having four supervisors appoint a successor.

Staff described the appointment option as governed by Board Policy A‑39 and outlined an application timeline that would have allowed the board to appoint a successor by Feb. 4, 2025. That timeline included an application period beginning Jan. 15, applications due Jan. 27 at 5 p.m., an initial public hearing (interviews and selection of up to five finalists) on Jan. 29, and a second hearing with finalist interviews on Feb. 4. Potter said applications would require a five‑year residence history, employment history, a written qualifications statement, and a Form 700 (statement of economic interests); applicants must be registered voters in District 1, U.S. citizens, residents of District 1 for at least 30 days before filing, not disqualified by certain convictions, and able to assume office within three business days of appointment.

Board members acknowledged the fiscal impact of a special election but emphasized representation. Supervisor Anderson said he supported the motion despite the cost, adding that "the price of democracy is invaluable" and noting the nearly 700,000 residents of District 1 who will be affected by the seat. Vice Chair Lawson Reimer presided over the meeting and called the roll for the final vote.

The board moved to closed session after the open meeting; the public comment record shows speakers addressing an anticipated litigation item but the transcript does not record any reportable action from closed session at the time the open meeting adjourned.

What happens next: Because the board called a special election rather than appointing a successor, staff will proceed with the election schedule described at the meeting, and county election officials will complete the nomination and ballot‑preparation steps for the April primary. If the board instead had chosen an appointment, staff said an appointee could have been sworn in as early as Feb. 5, 2025.