Auburn mayor filed after regular election deadline. Why city says she still qualified

Auburn Mayor Kelley Davis filed paperwork to run for reelection three days after the ordinary nomination deadline — a fact that has fueled an online dispute over whether she should be on the November ballot.

But the city said Davis filed during a five-day extension triggered when another incumbent, Councilwoman Sandy Amara, did not seek reelection. Auburn officials said the extension applied to the city’s at-large City Council race and that Davis was properly qualified as a candidate.

Davis is one of four candidates running for three at-large City Council seats in the Nov. 3 election, along with Bridget Powers, Erik Robb and Stephanie McKenzie.

The dispute hinges on how California’s extended nomination period applies when multiple seats are up for election in an at-large City Council race.

When did Kelley Davis file?

Under California election law, the ordinary nomination period for the November election ended Aug. 7, the 88th day before Election Day, which is Nov. 3.

Amara, an incumbent, did not file nomination papers by that deadline. Her decision triggered a five-day extension, moving the deadline to Aug. 12, the 83rd day before the election, according to a statement the city released Monday.

Davis, who is also an incumbent, submitted her nomination paperwork Aug. 10, the 85th day before the election.

That means Davis filed after the ordinary deadline but before the extended deadline.

The question raised online is whether Davis, as an incumbent herself, was eligible to use an extension triggered by another incumbent.

Why does Auburn say Davis qualified?

Auburn officials pointed to the way the city elects its council members.

Unlike a city divided into council districts, Auburn holds at-large elections. Candidates do not run for a particular seat or against a particular incumbent. Instead, all candidates compete for the council seats available in that election.

This year, three of Auburn’s five council seats are up for election.

Because Amara did not file by the ordinary deadline, the city said the nomination period for the council race was extended through the 83rd day before the election. Davis submitted her paperwork during that period.

“Kelley Davis’s submission on the 85th day before the election did not affect the nomination period or the extended nomination period and all candidates who wished to run for office had an opportunity to do so,” the city said in its statement.

Read more Suspect in 2025 homicide of Sacramento woman dies in Mexico, police say

The Auburn city clerk, who serves as the city’s elections official, qualified Davis as a candidate. Placer County, which facilitates Auburn’s election, accepted the filings, according to the city.

The deadline for candidates to withdraw has since passed.

Did Auburn make an exception for Davis?

The city’s public statement does not indicate that Davis received a special extension. Auburn’s position is that the five-day extension occurred automatically because Amara did not file — regardless of when Davis submitted her paperwork.

The city also noted that Davis had completed her nomination paperwork before the ordinary deadline, although she did not submit it until Aug. 10.

The city said the clerk’s role in processing nomination papers is a ministerial duty under state law.

Questions about Davis’ candidacy have nevertheless continued circulating online and reached the City Council during its last meeting.

During public comment Monday, Auburn resident Wayne Mater said city officials needed to address mistakes with honesty and integrity.

“It speaks to character,” he said. “This is especially important when it comes to leadership in the public arena because that comes down to public trust and an erosion of potentially public trust if issues are not dealt with integrity.”

Mater also alleged that city officials had made an exception concerning Davis’ filing and pointed to a special closed-session council meeting held the previous week.

The publicly posted agenda for that meeting did not identify Davis, her candidacy or the election. It said the council would confer with legal counsel because attorneys believed the city faced “a significant exposure to litigation” and listed one potential case.

Councilwoman Alice Calvillo said during Monday’s meeting that she could not engage in a back-and-forth discussion during public comment but wanted to correct the record.

“City Council did meet in closed session last week. We took no action,” she said.

Davis did not respond to a request for comment about the questions surrounding her candidacy.

Read more Why are California’s flags flying at half-staff?