San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Online at sfchronicle.com/opinion
Read additional commentary, including pieces you may have missed, at sfchronicle.com/opinion.
President Biden often urges voters to compare him to the alternative, not the Almighty. It’s a courtesy politicians and voters generally enjoy come election day, when candidates are judged against other merely human candidates, not divine standards. That’s appropriate given that any political office will ultimately be occupied by one person or another.
Recalls such as the one in which Californians are now voting should be a rare exception for that reason. Cutting an elected term short based solely on the incumbent’s performance makes sense only in the context of abject failure or unfitness.
The first question on the state’s recall ballot, which was mailed to voters last month ahead of the Sept. 14 election, is whether to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom. Voters will answer no to retain Newsom or yes to recall him without the usual benefit of knowing the identity of the candidate who would succeed him. That’s because if a simple majority votes yes to remove the governor, the office goes to the replacement candidate who earns the greatest share of the vote in a crowded field.
That holds true even if that share is a modest plurality — and even if it’s smaller than the constituency for retaining Newsom. That means more Californians could easily vote against the recall than vote for our next governor.
Rather than take this leap on the premise that the governor has fallen short of some fundamentally inscrutable measure, let him serve the year and four months left in the term we decisively elected him to by voting no.
What are the alleged grounds for recalling Newsom? The recall petition that eventually succeeded — one of six attempts on Newsom alone under the state’s permissive recall laws — lists a sprawling collection of half-formed grievances, including the governor’s supposed preference for “foreign nationals” over “our own citizens,” insufficient support for the death penalty and “rationing our water use.” It does not mention the pandemic lockdowns because they hadn’t happened when the document was filed back in February 2020.
But as the petition accumulated the requisite signatures with the help of an extraordinary court-ordered extension, frustration over Newsom’s coronavirus
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally against the recall last week in San Leandro.
orders became its ad hoc rationale.
It’s true that the governor managed the pandemic unevenly and imposed precautions inconsistently even as he violated their spirit with his infamous French Laundry soiree. The state nevertheless has weathered the crisis better than the nation despite suffering the first known U.S. death from the virus. Meanwhile, leading recall candidates such as Los Angeles talk radio host Larry Elder are openly pandering to anti-mask and anti-vax extremists.
Newsom does deserve to be challenged not just on his handling of the pandemic but also on the housing and homelessness crisis, dysfunctional state bureaucracy, and more — particularly if it’s by candidates proposing substantial ideas of their own. But the time for that is ahead of the next general election, which is scheduled for just over a year hence.
Why does Newsom face the prospect of three elections in four years? Because the recall allows candidates, particularly Republicans, to win without majority
support or a head-to-head advantage. It’s drifted far from the original purpose of reining in wayward officials to become a mundane and surprisingly routine strategy of a chronic political minority.
That brings us to the second part of the recall ballot, which features a scrum of 46 mostly obscure and unqualified candidates vying to replace Newsom should the recall succeed — another reason to vote no on the ballot’s first question.
The most prominent replacement candidates, mostly Republicans, are former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who has the most relevant experience and moderate positions in the field; Elder, the apparent front-runner despite (or because of ) his penchant for extremism; perennial candidate and distant 2018 gubernatorial runner-up John Cox; Sacramento-area legislator Kevin Kiley; decathlete turned reality television star Caitlyn Jenner; and YouTuber Kevin Paffrath (the lone Democrat with a polling pulse).
It’s a political minefield, but voters should not heed the Newsom campaign’s advice by leaving the second part of the ballot blank, which risks ceding the governorship to pro-recall voters. Nor should they write in an unlisted option with little to no chance of success (or write in Newsom, which won’t count). Rather, they should vote for the candidate they deem most qualified to run the state and least out of step with its political mainstream — criteria that should winnow the choices at hand quickly.
If this chaotic and cynical process succeeds in ousting Newsom and electing our next governor, it will only embolden the continued overuse and abuse of the recall. The way to prevent that is to answer the first and foremost question on the ballot with a resounding no.