Hint to California: Change recall laws
When Sept. 15 arrives, California must get serious about changing the state’s recall laws. Process matters. Elections are supposed to represent the will, not the whim, of voters. Yet the Sept. 14 recall election — like the one involving Gray Davis in 2003 — was brought about by a small percentage of voters hoping to unseat a governor who opponents had no hope of beating in a regular election. Californians should reject this exploitation and stop a repeat in the years ahead.
How crazy are California’s election laws? They only require organizers to gather signatures equal to 12% of the votes cast for governor in the last election. That’s right. Twelve percent. As California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said, “Is it reasonable to have such a low bar for recall? There’s always 10 to 15% who do not like somebody.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s shortcomings are well-known. But a successful recall is more likely to install a governor who will be sworn into office with far higher negatives than Newsom, creating chaos in Sacramento. Not to mention encourage additional recalls.
Since 1913, there have been 179 recall attempts of state-elected officials in California, according to Weber’s office. Every governor since 1960 — Pat Brown (3), Ronald Reagan (3), Jerry Brown (5 in his first two terms), George Deukmejian (11), Pete Wilson (9), Davis (3), Arnold Schwarzenegger (6), Jerry Brown (5 in his second two terms) and Newsom (6) — has had at least three recall attempts.
California needs to make a minimum of two changes to its recall laws: — Raise the bar for what is required to force a recall vote. Only 19 states allow recall elections. California should join the majority of those states in requiring that organizers gather between 20-25% of the vote to force an election.
— Specify the grounds for allowing a recall. State officeholders should only be removed for egregious wrongdoing, such as misconduct, gross incompetence or failure to perform duties prescribed by law. Opponents shouldn’t be able to force a recall vote because they simply oppose an officeholder’s policies. That’s what regular elections are for.
The state should also consider two minor revisions. The first would alter the method in which a new officeholder is selected. In theory, Newsom could receive 49.9% of a recall vote and be removed from office and be replaced by someone who receives in the neighborhood of 20% of the vote. That invites division in Sacramento at a time when the state faces the serious threats of housing, climate change, wildfires, drought and homelessness.
California should also look at the potential for raising the bar for who qualifies to be on the ballot. Today, candidates need only submit signatures from 7,000 supporters or pay a filing fee of less than $5,000. The low bar crowds the ballot with dozens of candidates who only wish to see their name on the ballot.
The recall election will cost taxpayers $276 million. It a colossal waste of time and money that Californians should not tolerate.