Random thoughts on the California recall

Those who believe that Gray Davis should be removed as Governor of California have forced the state to call a special recall 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.

On the issue of the two votes

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is expected to announce today when the election will be held. Bustamante has indicated he will call for a vote on recall question without calling for a vote on who shall replace Davis. Backers of the recall say that Bustamante must call for both votes on the same day.

My own reading of the California State Constiution is that the recall backers are right on this technical point. The provisions for the recall of a state official are given in Article 2 of the California constitution. Sections 14 and 15 read:

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.

There may be a minor court skirmish, but the recall backers will win the point. Bustamante would do us a fovor if he were to just call for the vote simultaneous vote.

Replacement Candidates

The replacement election is open. Anybody, except Mr. Davis himself, who pays a nominal filing fee and gathers a few signatures can run to replace Davis.

The Republicans would like to stay united, but they might have difficulty doing so. Darrell Issa, a wealthy rightwing Repupublican congressman who bankrolled the recall drive, is going to run. Bill Simon, the unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor last year might. If actor Arnold 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. Peter Camejo, the Green Party's candidate in the last gubernatorial election, characterizes the Democratic strategy as a "suicide pact."

On the other hand, Camejo 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 jouranlist 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.

Is the recall a good idea?

No one can deny that California has a serious problem. Is Governor Davis resposnsible? Insofar as he is the governor and this has happened on his watch, yes. Is that in and of itself reason to recall a governor. Of course not. If it were, recalling governors would be a commonplace event.

The state budget crisis is an annual ritual in California. Since the eighties, there has been a silly provision in the state Constitution requiring two-thirds of each house of the legislature to approve a budget. The two-thirds requirement is entirely unnecessary in a state that allows the governor to veto line items and requires the state budget to be balanced. Eliminating it would make it easier for the state budget will be passed on time, although it would not be one that would satisfy everyone.

Of course, no one suggested recalling Governor Deukmajian or Governor Wilson over the annual state budget crisis. Until now, no one suggested recalling Governor Davis over the matter, either.

On the other hand, the state has never before had this kind of budget shortfall. Painful decisions are going to be made.

Much of the budget shortfall is being blamed on Governor Davis' handling of the energy crisis of 2000/01. It can be argued with merit that Davis could have handled the crisis better. He ignored early warning signs that something was amiss with the state's deregulation plan. By waiting, he was put into a position where, in order to stabilize the situation, he had to buy long term power contracts at high prices from the same crooked power companies that gamed a dysfunctional market. California rate payers are locked into high rates for some time. Mr. Bush's FERC, a tool of the power companies, will provide no regulatory relief.

Davis made mistakes. However, he made them in good faith. These are mistakes that could have been made by any governor in any state facing the same situation.

Moreover, Californians had an opportunity less than a year ago to pass judgment on Davis' handling of the energy crisis. Although he is unpopular for his handling of the crisis, he was re-elected.

The backers of the recall have brought up nothing new about Davis since then. This is little more than a well-financed hijacking of the recall process in the hopes that an election that didn't go the GOP's way last year can go its way now. That is an entirely irresponsible use of the process.

A recall is not a normal election. Although those supporting the drive do not have to give a good reason legally, the citizens of the state should demand of them that they show reason why removing a elected official is so urgent and necessary that we should go outside the normal process to do so. They have not done this.

Unless those behind the drive can come up with something new and serious about Davis, he should be retained. It isn't so much a question of whether one thinks Davis is doing the best job imaginable or even a good one. It certainly isn't an ideological or partisan question, although that is what would appear to be driving those behind the effort. The recall is just bad politics.

Furthermore, let us suppose that Davis is recalled and Darrell Issa or one of the other candidates becomes governor. Will that solve the state's budget crisis? No. It will still be there. And the new governor won't get two-thirds of the state legislature to agree any more than Davis has.

Darrell Issa is wasting our time and money.

The section I saw says that after the recall question, the ballot is supposed to list the successor candidates. this is new to me, and Bustamente attempt to keep the call for successor off the ballot seems odd, although clever.

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,...

$35 million PLUS for a special election during a huge budget deficit seems INAPPROPRIATE in my book.

(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

"if there is a candidate" - Again this language indicates to me that the second question (list of candidates) is NOT automatic.

It also says(in Sec 15.a) "by the GOVERNOR", not LT. GOVERNOR, so at the very least it seems not very well thought out.

Besides that this morning Gray Davis pledged to fight like a "Bengal Tiger", and if he does, he will defeat this.

VOTE NO ON REPUBLICAN RECALL OF DEMOCRACY!

"Fighting like a Bengal Tiger" Yea!!

Go Guv!

... were probably put in because the recall law covers more than just the governor. my understanding is that non-elected state officials can also be removed, in which case it would not be "appropriate" to elect their successor either.

but in the case of an elected official, like the governor, it seems unlikely to me that an election would be "inappropriate".

Besides that this morning Gray Davis pledged to fight like a "Bengal Tiger", and if he does, he will defeat this.

brave words from a man whose approval rating is in the low 20s.

i do not like Davis's strategy of keeping all other dems off the ballot. it's the strategy that gives him the best chance of staying in office personally, but it is not the strategy that gives the dems the best chance of retaining the governorship.

when can we recall the simian?

I hope that they decide that Darrel Issa has to pay the state for the estimated $35 million dollar cost of the recall.

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.

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

was it appropriate for them to announce an election date? If not, what does Bustamante do to maneuver himself into office? This would be great!

not if Bustamante WHO THE VOTERS KNEW WOULD BE GOVERNOR if Davis were unable to finish his term should be recalled.

IMHO, the recall advocates must recall BUSTAMANTE as well in order to get a Repub governer since THAT IS the public remedy.

To do OTHERWISE would REMOVE power from the hands of the voters NOT place it in the HANDS of the voters as the constitution proscribes.

"if appropriate" means if there is no designated replacement.
What else would it mean?
This language occurs twice, and has no other reason for being there.
This does seem to be where Cruz is going with it, so we will see
what the courts say.

I don't see how calling for a replacement election would be inappropriate.

In any case, Bustamante called for the replacement election to coincide with the recall question.

I couldn't agree more.

Apparently, the repukes don't take too kindly to democracy.

:shrug:

BTW - Hope to see ya Aug. 23rd!!! :bounce:

The Rabbit, the Bear and the dog.

For this one reason--if it succeeds then it will never end.

It is simply bad politics.

To be perfectly honest, I would vote to retain David Duke if there were no better reasons than this to recall him.

(Of course, if David Duke really were governor, I'm sure he could provide some genuine reasons to recall him.)