The local man who has been trying to get a Santa Clara council member recalled has announced he is calling off the effort and running for mayor instead.
In 2024, David Kertes ran for District 5’s council seat, losing to incumbent Suds Jain. Less than a year later, Kertes filed papers with the Registrar of Voters to recall Jain.
During his recall effort, Kertes leveled a slew of charges against Jain. Among other things, he laid the blame for — what he called — bloated government salaries at Jain’s feet and claimed Jain acted unethically during former Vice Mayor Anthony Becker’s trial.
However, in a press release issued Feb. 15, Kertes wrote that he couldn’t “in good conscience continue a recall campaign” because throughout the recall effort, he has learned the city’s problems run deeper than just District 5.
“What I found is people were asking me was ‘why can’t you work this out with Suds?’” Kertes said. “What I didn’t want to be was a hypocrite … It wasn’t time to recall someone. It was time for something bigger.”
Many people told him the recall made him look like a “poor sport.” So, he vowed to instead work to be solution-oriented.
With a little more than three weeks to go, Kertes said the recall petition had managed about half the signatures it needed to get on the ballot. However, he said he wanted to respond to what residents were saying — because many said the city’s biggest problem is that the council doesn’t listen to residents.
What they were telling him was that the “dysfunction” is citywide, he said.
“Taking out one person is not going to make that big of a difference,” he said. “When I looked at the bigger picture, it wasn’t just Suds … I can do more as a mayor than getting somebody out.”
Several instances illustrate that city employees and the council are not listening to feedback, he said.
A survey of 400 residents showed that the community wanted to see the city’s July 4 celebration return to Central Park. Instead, the council opted to again have the event at Mission College. Additionally, Kertes pointed to the city’s intention to explore the Agnews site for a new city hall, instead of returning it to the downtown like civic group Reclaiming Our Downtown wants.
If elected, Kertes, a Santa Clara Youth Soccer and Little League coach, said he would work hard to wrangle the city’s spending.
“We have people in the city that are struggling … because they cannot afford $2 million, $3 million homes,” Kertes said. “What does that show? We have some heavy payments … We have to start reeling that in.”
Kertes has already filed papers with the city indicating his intent to run. He cannot begin campaigning until May.
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
Related Posts:
Former Council Candidate Seeks to Recall District 5 Council Member
Initial Election Results 2024
Kertes’ recall campaign was at the end of the line, and with just 50% of the required signatures, it marked the second time Kertes had lost a political fight against Councilmember Jain.
At the Santa Clara Farmer’s Market, a lot more people walked by shaking their heads in disbelief than people stopped by their booth. Kertes was right on one point; it did make him look like a sore loser.
Kertes says if elected mayor, he’ll work hard to wrangle in the City’s spending. Really? The biggest expense to the City of Santa Clara and its tax-paying residents is public safety, which is well-documented as far more expensive than in neighboring jurisdictions that provide better services. Kertes was the police and fire employee union endorsee; there’s no way he would advocate cutting expenses to be in line with neighboring cities. City liabilities would likely worsen under Kertes’s leadership.
The only thing Kertes can guarantee in his campaign to be mayor is a third consecutive loss at the polls.
Correction: the report above was, and I should have written, “poor sport” instead of sore loser. Apologies for the contextomy.
When he says, “When I looked at the bigger picture, it wasn’t just Suds … I can do more as a mayor than getting somebody out,” he’s trying to sound strategic and civic-minded. But the statement raises more questions than it answers — especially given the backdrop of a mayor who is reportedly refusing to disclose public records about her associations.
First, the phrasing suggests David believes the office of mayor provides some kind of special leverage that ordinary channels do not. That implication alone is worth scrutiny. In most cities, the mayor’s powers are defined and limited by charter, council authority, and state transparency laws. The role is not a magic wand. So when someone frames the mayoralty as the place where they can suddenly “do more,” it’s reasonable to ask: what specifically does he think the office allows that cannot already be pursued through lawful public processes?
Second, his comment hints that he may believe — or know — that the current mayor is capable of acting (or failing to act) at her own discretion in ways that materially affect outcomes. That’s a serious undertone. If David truly thinks the present mayor is withholding records, slow-walking transparency, or selectively using her authority, then the responsible path would be to state that concern clearly and support it with facts. Vague allusions to a “bigger picture” can sound less like leadership and more like political positioning.
Third, the intensity of his stated ambition invites a basic political question: why does David want the mayor’s seat so badly? Public service is legitimate, but when a candidate frames the office as the key to fixing systemic issues, it risks oversimplifying complex governance problems. Cities struggle with structural constraints — budgets, state law, council dynamics, labor agreements, and bureaucratic process. No mayor, however motivated, can unilaterally resolve entrenched problems.
Finally, there’s the optics problem. When someone closely connected to the current mayor’s circle speaks in broad, almost proprietary terms about what can be done from the mayor’s chair, it can create the impression that decisions are driven by insider access rather than transparent policy. Whether that perception is fair or not, it’s politically risky and deserves clarification.
If David wants to persuade skeptics, he would strengthen his position by:
Explaining concretely what powers he believes the mayor can exercise.
Clarifying what, specifically, he thinks the current mayor is doing or failing to do.
Outlining realistic, legally grounded actions rather than implying the office itself is the solution.
Until then, the quote reads less like a clear plan and more like an assertion of ambition wrapped in generalities — and in local politics, voters tend to notice the difference.
Kertes is going for the trifecta, so we can officially call him what he is: a serial loser.
David Kertes ran for District 5 in 2024 and lost. Less than a year later, he launched a recall against the very person voters had just elected. That recall effort gathered only about half the required signatures before he called it off, stating that removing one councilmember “wouldn’t make that big of a difference.”
Now he says he can get downtown built if he becomes mayor. But for more than 10 years, residents, including Reclaiming Our Downtown, have been doing the hard work: organizing, studying plans, attending meetings, and pushing for real progress. During that time, he was not part of the effort.
Leadership isn’t about launching recalls and then pivoting to higher office. It’s about long-term commitment, consistency, and coalition-building. If someone is promising to “fix downtown,” voters should ask: Where have you been for the last decade?
By the way, he would have to recuse himself as Mayor of any Downtown issues as he lives directly across the street from block A of the Downton
Well, butter my biscuit, if this isn’t the most entertainin’ political square dance Santa Clara has seen in a coon’s age. David Kertes lost an election, launched a recall, couldn’t get enough signatures to fill a Little League dugout, and now he’s running for *mayor*. Honey, in Texas we call that “failing up,” and we’ve had considerable practice watching it.
Now, I don’t want to be uncharitable to Mr. Kertes. Lord knows politics needs more youth soccer coaches and fewer lawyers. And bless his heart, he’s got the kind of audacity that made America great — or at least entertaining. But let’s review the scoreboard: zero wins, two losses, one abandoned recall, and now a mayoral campaign. The man is collecting political defeats like some folks collect souvenir spoons.
And let’s not bury the lede here — the man who’s promising to fix downtown can’t even *vote* on downtown issues because he lives directly across the street from it. That’s like hiring a vegetarian to judge your brisket competition.
Now here’s my unsolicited two cents, which is frankly worth considerably more: Mr. Kertes, you’ve got energy, you’ve got passion, and clearly a high tolerance for public rejection — all admirable qualities. But maybe, just *maybe*, instead of aiming straight for the mayor’s chair like you’re skipping levels in a video game, you might consider the Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Trustees. Lord knows they could use some fresh blood. I hear tell that Trustee Andy Ratermann has been warming that board seat for 22 years — *twenty-two years*, people, that’s longer than some of the students have been *alive* — and rumor has it the man occasionally treats board meetings like a particularly comfortable nap opportunity. Now that’s a race where an energetic outsider with a coaching background and genuine community ties might actually *win* something, and do some tangible good for real children in the process.
But if it’s mayor you want, Mr. Kertes, then run. Democracy is nothing if not an invitation for optimism. Just know that the residents of Santa Clara have already voted once on your fitness for office, and the recall petition made it twice. Three times is either charm or a pattern, and right now the smart money isn’t entirely sure which.
As the great Ann Richards once observed about another ambitious gentleman who didn’t know when to recalibrate: “He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” We’ll see if Mr. Kertes can prove us all wrong. Stranger things have happened in local politics. Not many. But some.
Well now, that is a mighty colorful telling of Santa Clara politics, and I will grant you it reads like a county fair commentary booth calling a demolition derby. But if we are going to keep the scorecard straight, we ought to talk about what actually happened at the last council meeting, because that moment says a lot about how this whole conversation around accusations and political theater is playing out.
At that meeting, Kertes stepped up and accused Councilmember Kevin Park of voting improperly and handling matters incorrectly. It was one of those moments where the charge sounded serious enough to get people’s attention, the kind of claim that can hang in the air and shape a narrative if it is not addressed.
But Park did not let it just sit there.
Instead of arguing back or getting theatrical, he did something pretty simple and pretty smart. He asked the city attorney to clarify the record. Specifically, he asked the attorney to explain what the vote actually was, what the question before the council had been, and how he had voted in relation to that issue. In other words, rather than sparring over accusations, he asked for the official explanation from the person whose job it is to interpret the rules.
That is a fairly telling move. When someone invites the city attorney to explain the legal and procedural facts in real time, it usually means they are confident the record will back them up.
And that is the larger point here. Local politics often thrives on insinuation. Someone says a person voted wrong, someone claims another person cannot participate, or that someone has conflicts. But when those claims get brought into the daylight of an actual council meeting and handed to the attorney to sort out, they either hold up under scrutiny or they do not.
So while folks may enjoy the political storytelling, the scoreboards, the metaphors, and the speculation about who should run for what, the meeting itself showed something a little less theatrical. When accusations were made, Park asked for the facts to be put on the record.
And in local government, that is usually where the real story starts.