The California Recall Election



Funded by a Republican millionaire and ultimately yielding 135 candidates, the circus that is California’s politics has been entertaining to say the least for the past couple of months. Frustrated voters and taxpayers dissatisfied with the job that Governor Gray Davis has performed decided to take direct action and, for the first time in state history, attempt to remove him from office and replace him with someone who they feel is a more competent candidate. As one of the most compelling series of political events wraps up today, it goes without question that it will be a long time before anyone forgets the California recall election.

The ability to administer a recall was put in place in 1911 as a defense against corruption in the government. In order to successfully conduct a recall election, 897,156 legitimate signatures were required to be collected by proponents of the recall, based on a percentage of the number of voters who voted in the 2002 election. It was after news of the 38 billion dollar budget deficit became public that voters and taxpayers in California began to seriously consider the prospect of replacing Davis with a more reliable, financially responsible leader who could pull them out of this crisis and escort them to prosperity once again.

Supporters for the recall—who were outraged by their local and statewide fiscal woes—decided to pinpoint Davis as the cause for all of the current problems that face California, including funding cuts across the board, job losses, and an outstanding recession in the economy. Once the Secretary of State approved the election itself, the candidates poured in, ultimately reaching 135 and being everyone from sumo wrestlers to porn stars.

People felt that they had been cheated and lied to. They put trust in Governor Grey Davis to responsibly manage California, and in the eyes of many, he failed at that task. And because this is a democracy, many felt that it was not only their right but their obligation to use their constitutional power and remove Davis from office in a respectable, legal fashion.

Unfortunately, the mechanism of this recall has many flaws. Firstly, while the primary complaint with Davis is the mistakes he allegedly made financially, the recall itself will cost California up to 66 million dollars! Another major flaw with the recall election is ironically the candidates posed to replace Davis. Because of the farcically simple steps to becoming a candidate, 135 people are on the ballot. Also, because the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, it is conceivable that if every candidate received a fairly equal amount of votes and by chance one got a few more, the elected governor would only represent one one hundred thirty fifth of the wants of California voters.

I am against the recall election. It defies the idea of a representative democracy. It takes half of California to vote a candidate into office, yet less than one million to get a ballot across that will replace him! Also, I fear the possible repercussions of some of the candidates, specifically the republican frontrunner Arnold Schwarzenegger. Because he is a popular actor, he has gained an incredible amount of support, despite his lack of a political background and various allegations of his sexual misconduct.

The recall would never have taken place if Republicans had not manifested its campaign. It is unfair that although way more people voted for Davis in 2002 than for the current recall, the recall prevails. Regardless of if Davis is the best leader in the world, California cannot be trusted to a backboneless leader with a pretty face. If the recall is successful, it will only serve to teach people that anytime they disapprove of a leader, the easiest approach is to remove them from office. This will also cause leaders who, once in office, would be reluctant to make any decision for fear of being recalled. The ability to recall was put in place to protect against gross corruption, which Davis did not do. To use such a powerful mechanism for political means is unjustified and wrong, and for these reasons I say vote no on the recall.

David Lempert
7 October 2003