Mayor Murphy (photo/alandeckerphoto.com)

From polls he’s seen, veteran political consultant Tom Shepard says Mayor Murphy “would have a tremendous uphill battle to survive” if he faces a recall election. What remains to be seen is, come June 9 when such an effort could begin, who, if anyone, is willing to put their cash — at least $300,000 — or political organization behind such an effort. The challenges are great, with legal questions arising along the way.

A recall timeline likely extends to December or even January.

Here’s a condensed timeline. (The City Clerk’s office has a detailed generic recall explanation on its Web site at sandiego.gov/city-clerk.)

City law gives an official six months in office before a recall can be mounted. Since Murphy’s second term started Dec. 8, that date is June 9, says Joyce Lane, the assistant city clerk.

Recall supporters would publish a notice of intent containing the names of those supporting the recall and a 300-word explanation. Within 10 days an affidavit verifying it was published must be filed with the city clerk. Within five days of publication, notice must be served on the campaign’s subject and an offer made to pay for a published response.

In this scenario, the first day to circulate petitions would be June 30. Backers must collect the signatures of 15 percent of the city’s voters. Since 661,446 San Diegans were registered for the November 2004 election, the target is 99,217.

Backers have 39 days (Aug. 8) to fill out the petitions. The clerk then has 30 days to verify signatures, although usually it takes less.

The real signature target is closer to 150,000, a number that in a random sampling would then likely exceed 110 percent of the minimum needed to move forward without a full count. If the sampling shows valid signatures falling between 90 percent and 110 percent of what is necessary, the clerk must check each signature. Less, and the gig is up. But not really.

Say after 30 days (Sept. 7) the clerk’s office determines recall advocates are short valid signatures. That begins an additional 30 days to make up the difference.

The rest of the signatures would be due Oct. 7. The clerk’s office has 30 days to verify them. If enough are submitted, that information is presented to the city council at its next regular meeting and an election is called. City law says it must be held within 60 to 90 days. Lane would recommend 90 days. The County Registrar’s office generally needs 88 days to get the ballots out and prepare. Also, those interested in running need time to apply and campaign.

Things could move faster, possibly by weeks, but not months. So where are we? Lane says a December election at the earliest, most likely January 2006.

Getting there has other challenges.

If those opposing Murphy have to pay petition circulators, the going rate is expected to be between $2 and $3 a signature. At 150,000 signatures, political consultants say that’s $300,000 to $450,000, minimum. Plus money for a supporting television commercials.

Where does that money come from? That’s tricky. City campaign law limits donors to $300 each by treating a recall the same as a campaign for citywide office. (The limit is $250 for district-only recalls.) A single donor could legally underwrite a campaign’s entire cost. One of those mentioned as a possibility is hotel magnate Doug Manchester.

But he won’t. “I have no plans to fund anything of the sort,” Manchester says. “I have always maintained that the mayor should resign, due to lack of real leadership and the financial mess we are in, but have no plans to lead a recall. If someone else does mount a recall I may, and I reiterate may, contribute.”

Could a wealthy person mount a separate, non-affiliated campaign criticizing the person who is the subject of the recall petitions? Probably not. But maybe. The city’s Ethics Commission would have to rule.

If another wealthy person, or organization like a union, is pondering singlehandedly mounting the recall effort, they haven’t emerged. A populist budget effort could be led by Councilwoman Donna Frye who has not conceded the November election to Murphy. (He won when thousands of write-in votes for Frye were tossed by the courts, a decision on appeal.) Frye’s success of getting into that election is legendary, with 7,000 signatures gathered in a weekend. But she has given no indication of backing a recall.

Murphy foes see simply mounting a recall serving as the final straw that would cause the embattled mayor to quit. Maybe. Maybe not.

The timing of when he may quit is key. A resignation before sufficient signatures were submitted would leave the city council to decide whether to appoint a replacement or call for a special election. A resignation after sufficient valid signatures are submitted gets tricky. State law appears to say “too late, the recall is still on.”

But Section 27.2730 of the city municipal code says an office holder could quit as late as right before election day, terminating the vote. It reads: “If from any cause a vacancy in the position occupied by the official whose recall is sought occurs after the filing of the certificate of sufficiency by the Clerk and prior to the election, the election shall not be held.”

But 27.2730 was passed in 1968 and likely coincided then with state law. Today? State law may take precedence. Possible lawsuit.

Murphy foes consider a special election desirable because its crowded field would likely lead to a runoff between the top two candidates. In a similarly crowded recall election, the person with the most votes wins.

“I’m not sure the proponents of a recall have thought through the permutations of that,” says Shepard, the political consultant. “In a winner take all election, Donna Frye is the likely winner. I’m not sure those supporting a recall would want that outcome.”

— Tim McClain