Davis recall qualifies for ballot

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced in an unusal evening press coference that the the petition drive to recall Governor Gray Davis has gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the state ballot.

The recall election will most likely be held in the Fall.

(Source: KPFA radio)

Election Officials Finish Verifying Names in Calif. Recall Effort
LOS ANGELES, July 23 -- County election officials completed their verification of signatures today, virtually assuring that Gov. Gray Davis (D) will face a recall vote in the fall once those results are certified by the secretary of state.

But confusion reigned as Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D) said he will not issue a call for a two-part ballot that would ask first whether Davis should be recalled and second who should replace him if he is ousted. Instead, Bustamante said he would leave the question of how to choose a possible Davis successor to an independent commission and the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution.

The high court could rule that if Davis is ousted by voters, his successor would automatically be Bustamante. That would inevitably be challenged by GOP hopefuls who want onto the ballot. Or the state supreme court could order the fall ballot to include a list of candidates for Davis's job if he is successfully recalled. That is the ballot everyone has been expecting to see.

snip
On a morning radio interview, Davis said, "I said from the very beginning if the recall got serious, I would get serious. I've had to fight for everything in my life, and trust me, I've had more political obituaries written about me than you could possibly imagine."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37194-2003Jul23.html?nav=hptop_tb

If Davis can be defeated by 51% voting for recall, how can his successor win with a plurality in a field of 3 or 4 or 5? He could have 49% support while his successor has 30%!

purchased by a Florida company and we're looking ripe for a takeover.

A 900,000 dollar deal in the works! :scared:

Oh well, time to get busy.

and the longer the California party lives in denial the greater the probability of a republican win. They seem like they are almost trying to lose this.

6.7 million Dems, 5.3 million pukes. It only took a small number for the recall. It will take quite a bit more to get elected.

Bustamante will have 24 hours to set the date for the election.

If I'm wrong, Californians, tell me, but I feel that many liberal Californians don't like Gray Davis at all. The Democratic Party is alienating their voters there by saying that they are 100% behind Davis.

This could be a disaster for the Democratic Party in California.

Gray Davis is one of those moderates who feels he has to run to the right of the GOP on some issues. His position on capital punishment makes the Frat Boy look reasonable.

His campaign financing practices are on this side of the law, but still sleazy. While there is no explicit quid pro quo, it is rather obvious that there is at least an unspoken understanding.

Speaking in his defense, he has been good on those issues that coproate America doesn't care about -- gay rights, for instance. He did call the energy companies what they were: Pirates.

However, all of that goes out the window. Regardless of his virtues and vices, this recall is nothing more than an attempt to get another election by people who didn't win the last one. Those behind the recall drive have offered no valid reason for removing Davis. Unfortunately, they don't need one. However, the fact they don't need doesn't mean they shouldn't have one. This is just bad politics.

The Democratic strategy of not running a replacement candidate in the recall election is foolish. Davis is not popular and may lose this vote. Among those puzzled by this strategy, although he may be its greatest beneficiary, is Peter Camejo of the Green Party. Camejo calls it a "suicide pact." I tend to agree with him.

Camejo will run as a replacement candidate. My plans as of now are to vote NO on the recall question and vote for Camejo as a replacement candidate.

to have a replacement vote or not*. It may be that Davis is recalled, Bustamante gets the Gov. seat and Issa is out millions because Bustamante won't call for a vote to replace Davis. I'm guessing this whole thing ends up in the courts and my understanding of CA courts is that they'll side with the Dems. So unless the US Supreme Court gets involved or I'm missing something I ^think^ the issue is whether Davis or Bustamante gets to be Gov.

*NPR was talking about it earlier today - the way the statute is written for recalling the Governor the governor recall and replacement look like two seperate procedures with the replacement vote being optional.

Mostly Republican appointed judges and one is currently nominated by Bush for a Fed seat.

I guess it was the 9th Circuit I had all confused. So maybe they end up with Camejo instead? I guess we'll see.

Ty for filling me in :)

Official stats from the Secretary of State:

Overview at http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror_021003.htm

Details at http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/regstats_02-10-03.pdf

The fastest growing segment is "Declined to State" - over 15% of registrants; nonpartisans who are allowed to vote in any party's primary and are notoriously unpredictable. They are all the disaffected former Democrats and Republicans who quit their traditional major party for whatever reason.

Whatever THAT court decides will be appealed. Guess where...

I don't know Cali law, but that seems logical to me, especially after 2000.

It can be appealed to federal courts, but only if there is some federal issue involved. Otherwise, the federal courts will defer to the state courts.

Again, I beleieve Bustamante's interpretation of the law is wrong. At least my reading of the State Constitution's provisions on recall is different from his.

"It can be appealed to federal courts, but only if there is some federal issue involved. Otherwise, the federal courts will defer to the state courts."

Really?

What happened in Florida in 2000, then...?

(Not a knock on you, JR, just the power-grubbing Republicans...)

...it's merely 51 individual STATE elections to determine who wins respective electors. It's all there in the Constitution.

Always willing to do my part to keep us informed... :-)

The State Constitution lays down the process for recalling a state officer. It says that in a recall election, replacement candidates shall run.

I think Lt. Gov. Bustamante is wrong in this instance. We should not expect the courts to side with him.

SEC. 14. (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to
file signed petitions.
(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by
electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the
office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1
percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to
recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of
Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must
equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
(c) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of
the signatures certified to that office.

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the
date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction
in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters
eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at
least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall
election.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives
a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate,
nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to
subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

The way I read this, the recall and the replacement election are to be held simultaneously. Does anybody have a different reading?

supreme court has alot of wiggle room:

I had posted this in your thread in GD

Jack, I think the words IF APPROPRIATE give the LT. Gov wiggle

room if one reads the state constitution in TOTALITY. There may be sections of the constitution that could negate the appropriateness.

Frankly since Bustamante's role is as LT Gov., he is elected to govern in the event that the governor can't. Since the constitution allows for that (i.e. there are NOT "understudies" elected as replacements for OTHER statewide offices..there IS for GOVERNOR as that is the PURPOSE of a LT GOV.) Therefore it MAY not be appropriate to elect again.

I will obviously have to go back and check this but that is my feeling. THE LT GOV was elected in the general election and is independent of the Gov, need NOT even be of the same party. There seems to be a GOOD argument that an election is NOT appropriate given that scenario.

Issa MAY have elected BUstamante. There is NOTHING in constitution that implies another election for officer MUST be held.

Since the language of the statute say GOVERNOR SHALL, it appears the GOVERNOR (or by the duties vested in LT GOV., LT GOV.) SHALL determine if it is appropriate.

Said another way, there is no need to elect a successor...Bustamante already IS the successor to the governorship.

then I posted this
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE


SEC. 9. The Lieutenant Governor shall have the same qualifications
as the Governor. The Lieutenant Governor is President of the Senate
but has only a casting vote.


SEC. 10. The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a
vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor shall act as Governor during the
impeachment, absence from the State, or other temporary disability of
the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office.
The Legislature shall provide an order of precedence after the
Lieutenant Governor for succession to the office of Governor and for
the temporary exercise of the Governor's functions.
The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all
questions arising under this section.
Standing to raise questions of vacancy or temporary disability is
vested exclusively in a body provided by statute.


Looks to me like a line of succession is already called for in the state constitution insofar as governor is concerned. AGAIN, THE LT GOVE SHALL BECOME GOV WHEN A VACANCY OCCURS

I think Bustamante is on STRONG state constitutional grounds.

On edit, SHALL is operative in all matters constitutional.

on second edit: even the state supreme court CANNOT reinterpret the word SHALL

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is
initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the
Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively.

"The way I read this, the recall and the replacement election are to be held simultaneously. Does anybody have a different reading?"

Actually, I do. Check it:

"SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures."

The "if appropriate" is key here. If Bustamante felt it appropriate to provide a ballot here, he would. However in this case, he's deferring that power to the Commission on Governors, which is his right. Said commission could very well say the ballot is fine and move forward with it. Or it could demand that ALL valid political parties be represented on the ballot; in which case Davis wouldn't qualify, and the Dems would have to supply a candidate. Or it may simply demand that the GOP focus on one candidate instead of the six, or nine, or four million, or whatever the hell they have now. After all, this isn't Louisiana... :-)

Or, to save a whole bunch of heartache, the commission could simply defer to constitutional ascension and appoint Bustamante -- which is probably what he's counting on anyway. Sure the GOP would cry foul (it's what they do), but Bustamante and the commission would have the law on their side, and it would take some tap dancing on the level of the Felonious Five for the higher courts to overturn it.

But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong... :crazy:

Seems to me that the repugs don't like elections when they go against them

I think the CA GOP is in for the shock of their lives. I think the Califorians know what's REALLY going on here and will back Davis 100%!!!


rocknation

ARGH!

I've stayed out of these threads, but I's reached my boilin' point.

Republicans are so hellbent on getting their political rocks off, they are putting an ALREADY financially strapped state in more debt and making the entire state pay for their pecadilloes.

They should just wait until the next election, like EVERYBODY ELSE has to.

If Californians fall for this nonsense, they deserve whatever they get. This is such an irrelevant, stupid waste of time.

So I know what you mean. There's so much insanity right now, you have to reserve your energy for disagreements and arguments that have a basis in reality. This is another Republican temper tantrum; they've found a way to vent their anger through a loophole. They don't like elections they didn't win.

then whoever gets the repuke nod will get stomped on by Davis. Bustamante will opt for the latest possible date in all this, giving time for Davis to prepare himself.

We're talking about a very adept politician going against a couple of thugs, one of whom he already beat in a fair election.

This is not a regular election. There will be two questions on the ballot. The first is whether Davis should be recalled. If one wants him to remain in office, one votes No.

The second is elect a replacement. Davis cannot run to replace himself. It is an open race and the candidate with the most votes (not necessarily a majority) wins. The replacement votes will not be counted unless the recall carries.

Darrell Issa is going to run. Bill Simon might. If Swartzenegger runs, it could divide the GOP vote three ways.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, their announced strategy is to put all their eggs in one basket and simply fight the recall. They will run no candidate to replace Davis, although polls show Dianne Feinstein would win the replacement election.

On the other hand, Peter Camejo, the Green Party's candidate in the last gubernatorial election, has announced that he will run. This will give progressives a replacement candidate for whom they can vote. In an interview the other day, Camejo cited a poll showing he is leading among liberals, progressives and independents. He actually has a good chance to pull this off.

A wild card would be Arianna Huffington. Some are urging her to run. In a piece published earlier this month, Arianna gave better reasons to support the recall than do those driving the move. (While I think these reasons are better, they still do not persuade me to vote to recall the governor.) In a sign that America may be ripe for a major political realignment, the maverick conservative Arianna may be vying with the leftist Camejo for many of the same votes.

:shrug:

Check her work subsequent to her hubbie coming out of the closet. She left the dark side and has been a proponent for progressive causes since and she is certainly no fan of *... or am I missing something here?

If Riordan runs, I'd bet he'd take it.....

just like Florida and the rest of the country. When will everyone wake up-BEFORE it's too late?!?

The Republicans want to *own* the entire country (and, the friggin' world)..."by hook or by crook!"

Welcome to circa 1930's Nazi Germany!

:think:

...Maybe we can have Arianna run as a replacement.

She'd stomp any of the Republicans, and really give the BFEE heartburn.

I admittedly have not been following local politics until recently. I do not really like Davis all that much, but I voted for him and will oppose a recall. I do not believe he is completely to blame for this mess we are in.

My one question/concern, now that the recall is going to happen, is:

premise:

The ballot will ask yes/no on recall. The ballot will then ask voter to select replacement from list of candidates. There will be NO OFFICIAL Democrat on this list.

issue:

If I oppose the recall, do I select a replacement anyway? Just in case it goes through? I would not "want" to vote for a replacement if I opposed the recall. Would the average (CA) bear understand the issue?

I can see a HUGE amount of confusion which will arise if the recall is held in this manner. I see a lot possible votes not being cast. 14th ammendment, equal protection and all that.

Posted this in GD where it died a quick, unread death.

VOTERS ASK THAT CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PROHIBIT ELECTION OF REPLACEMENT GOVERNOR ON RECALL BALLOT

July 23, 2003

California voters Scott Rafferty of Mountain View and Andrew Byrnes of Redwood City have filed a petition to initiate a Supreme Court determination that it is unconstitutional to elect a successor to Governor Gray Davis on the recall ballot. The California Constitution provides that Cruz Bustamante, as Lieutenant Governor, becomes Governor automatically if a recall removes the incumbent. The Constitution also requires that the Supreme Court, not the affected politicians, resolve any dispute as to succession. The petition asks Senate President John Burton and Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, who head a Commission on the Governorship, to expedite Supreme Court review. A copy of the petition can be seen at www.dontrecall.com.

Rafferty stated: "California is not a banana republic. The purpose of the recall is to remove the unsatisfactory official, not to redo gubernatorial elections every six months. That's why 3.2 million voters decided 37 years ago to take the recall procedures out of the Constitution and let the normal constitutional rules apply to replace a recalled Governor."

I would hope all Californians would come together to agree that we should have a constitutional succession to the governorship, and that the Supreme Court should tell us how that works.

Told that Republican activists had denounced the petition as a "desperation move," Rafferty responded: "If the recall proponents had any confidence in their legal position, they would have been the ones asking the Supreme Court to make the decision. Instead, they've tried to bully Bustamante into stepping aside. But the Constitution doesn't permit that and the state can't afford it."

Byrnes added: "We decided to write this petition because the political circus surrounding the recall has distracted everyone from the fact that the Constitution specifies that the Lieutenant Governor fills a vacancy in the office of Governor. We didn't talk to Davis or Bustamante before we did this. I don't know what they think, but I do know what the Constitution says and the frenzy over potential replacement candidates doesn't change it. Darrell Issa should have made sure that his lawyers had a copy of the California Constitution before he bankrolled this effort to distract Californians with an incredibily expensive recall election. The California Constitution doesn't allow him, or anyone else, to make this sort of power grab."

I agree. The Constitution states all power is with the voters. Since a recall election is by plurality whereas the office of LT GOV is by MAJORITY and the state constitution grant the LT GOV power to govern should the office of governor be vacated, I agree.

is that the legislature passed a bill several years ago that is in conflict with the state Constitution and that conflict can only be settled by the state Supreme Court. I'm sorry I can't offer more detail on this as I do not even pretend to understand the legal ins-and-outs involved here. Basically, Issa and his group are pointing to the Legislature's version and the Democrats are pointing to the state Constitution. It's all very convoluted.

This will pretty much have to go to the CA Supreme Court now -- however, we DO remember Florida and how the Republicans are selective in supporting state's rights issues -- especially when it comes to elections. If this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, I've a feeling we're pretty much screwed. This should get VERY interesting in the weeks to come.

to take over california. this is outrageous. How can 8 million people vote a candidate into office (Davis) and 900,000 petition signers vote him out for a recall election. This is a waste of money and time. Somebody better have a rabbit in their hat.

The repugs play dirty - we the dems need to fight back and fight back with the same. Enough nice guys.

KQED has just reported that the recall election is on Oct 7 and there WILL be a replacement election on the same ballot.

How many of the 1.3 million signatures came from Democrats? And even if it was a substantial number, that number pales in comparison to the number of votes Davis received in the election, which was LESS THAN ONE FRIGGIN YEAR AGO.

Why should Dems rally behind Davis? Well, for one thing, if Davis is recalled, his successor will almost certainly be a Republican well to the right of Davis. Sorry Greens, but even if your guy is the ONLY left-of-center candidate on the ballot, he'll still get crushed. And while many of the left view Davis as a centrist, Republicans consider him to be a flaming liberal.

Furthermore, imagine the precendent. You can bet that if Gray Davis gets recalled, the Republicans will use this tactic in future elections. Every time a Democrat gets elected governor by a relatively small margin, the Republicans will simply pony up a few million dollars, hire people to gather signatures, get the recall on the ballot, and then try to elect a Republican in an election with much smaller turnout than the one in which the Democrat got elected.

Each side has many times tried to remove each others governors. A dumb law I would agree, but OLD law and applied by both sides. How many Davis defenders would have been upset if the recall effort against Reagan had succeeded ?

Davis isn't the Alamo and there is no requirement that the party die to the last man to defend him. There are worthy alternatives to Davis. The Maculiffe insistence on a united front is idiotic. If California is taken by the republicans, that will be why.

Maybe we ought to teach 'em a lesson and let 'em have it. GOP GOV with a Dem Assembly and Dem Executives...GOOD LUCK, see you at the Bill Simon recall in 6 months. Gray Davis is NOT the hill to die on. He has limited loyalties to progressives...he is a selfish pol who never really advanced a progressive agenda.
Of course, maybe I might be wrong.

The recall is a useful tool, if used correctly. If the state leglislature won't impeach and remove a crooked governor, then the people can.

Davis has made some mistakes. However, he is not malicious. He has broken no laws. I will vote against the recall. Show me that Davis personally profited from the energy contracts he negotiated a year and a half ago and I'll think about changing my mind.

Peter Camejo has called the Democratic strategy a "suicide pact." He's actually more bewildered at it than anything else. He will be the principle beneficiary of McAuliffe's blunder.

If we end up with a rightwing kook as governor, I hope the Democratic Party will finally see the light and give McAuliffe the coup de grace. If we end up with a Green governor, I'm sure those wizards in the DLC will demand it.

among Democrats in all parts of the state. It has been decided that the Democratic Party (as in the structure) will be behind Davis all the way. Personally, I can't stand the guy but I've voted for him twice because I considered the alternative to be much worse.