California’s process for recalling its governor is so broken, some Democratic strategists are encouraging a vote for a Republican former San Diego mayor because “he’s not insane.” Millions of mail-in ballots were already cast before the state even released a list of qualified write-in candidates to potentially replace the sitting governor, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, leaving voters to choose from a list of 46 mostly gadflies and wannabes.
Voters are asked to answer two questions: First, do they want to recall Mr. Newsom, and second, if he is recalled, whom do they want to replace him? The governor can be recalled through a simple majority vote. His replacement needs only a plurality, no matter how small. This means that Mr. Newsom could win the support of 49 percent of voters and still be recalled. A candidate vying to replace him could be elected with half of that support, or even less.
Election rules don’t allow for Mr. Newsom’s name to appear on the ballot, as is the case in a number of other states with recall rules, or for him to serve if he wins as a write-in candidate. That structure may amount to unconstitutional disenfranchisement. Another wrinkle: In order for votes for write-in candidates to count, the person written in must have filed paperwork to qualify. The list of qualified write-in candidates wasn’t made public until last Friday, less than two weeks before polls close on Sept. 14 — but weeks after mail-in ballots were sent out.
Scrapping the century-old recall system altogether would deny California voters an important check on their top elected official. Whatever the result of the Newsom recall effort, however, the process is well past due for an overhaul.
For starters, California’s recalls can happen in off-years, which makes them ripe for manipulation by the minority party. There have been at least 179 recall attempts in California since the measure was adopted by voters in 1911, and every governor since 1960 has faced at least one.
The timing also means a far smaller electorate ends up determining who is the state’s leader. Special elections will always draw fewer voters, but for something as consequential as the governorship of the country’s most populous state, every effort should be made to increase turnout, including potentially requiring them to be held during regularly scheduled votes. Voters in off-cycle elections generally skew older, whiter and more conservative, a recent study led by the University of California, San Diego, found. In other words, not very representative of California’s population.
Early polling suggested that as few as one-third of the state’s 22.3 million registered voters may participate this time — and they are facing a dizzying array of choices for Mr. Newsom’s potential successor. The slate is a ragtag bunch including the former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner, YouTube star Kevin Paffrath and mononymous billboard personality Angelyne. Kevin Faulconer, a former San Diego mayor, is among the few with any prior political experience.
The leading candidate is the Republican talk-radio host Larry Elder, whose conservative policy positions — including his opposition to mask mandates, abortion rights and a minimum wage, as well as his troubling views on women’s rights and climate change — aren’t in line with any statewide election result in California for decades.
Yet polls show he is the top candidate with the support of just 20 percent of likely voters. In California’s recall scheme, he could assume the governor’s office with well under two million votes, compared with the 7.7 million votes Mr. Newsom won in the regular 2018 election.
“The system as it’s designed allows a minority faction that really has no hope of winning statewide election to get a recall on the ballot,” said Chris Elmendorf, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, who studies elections.
Some Californians point to the last recall election, in 2003, as evidence that the system works. That year, voters booted Gray Davis, a Democrat, and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. While Mr. Schwarzenegger fell short of winning an outright majority, at least more people voted for him than voted to keep Mr. Davis.
But is that good enough? There are numerous ways that California should reform its recall system.
First, it ought to shift the burden of winning majority support from the incumbent — who was, after all, duly elected by the voters — and put it on the recall effort. There is a reason that impeaching and removing the president requires not only a majority vote in the House but also a supermajority in the Senate. In a democracy, the results of a regularly scheduled election should not be overturned before the next election except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
Other states with recall provisions, like Minnesota and Washington, require an act of malfeasance or a conviction for a serious crime for the recall to proceed. Mr. Newsom’s maskless dinner at a high-end restaurant to celebrate a lobbyist’s birthday, which buttressed the recall effort, was certainly hypocritical and tone-deaf, but it shouldn’t alone be grounds for early eviction from office.
Another needed reform is to make it harder to get a recall on the ballot in the first place. Among the 18 other states with voter recall measures, none have a lower threshold than California’s. It takes signatures equal to just 12 percent of the total votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election to initiate a recall in California. In many other states, the threshold is 25 percent. In Kansas, the bar is 40 percent. In 2020 alone, at least 14 governors nationwide faced recall efforts, but only California’s attempt proceeded to a ballot, according to Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College’s Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform and the author of a recent book on recall elections. That’s due in part to those other states’ higher thresholds. California already has a more stringent 20 percent standard for recalls of state lawmakers and judges. That would make sense for governors as well.
Finally, California’s system discourages the sitting governor’s party from backing a replacement candidate for fear of bolstering the recall effort. That’s why Mr. Newsom asked voters to vote “no” on the recall and leave the second question blank. Doing so makes it even more likely that a candidate from the opposing party will win.
Another fix would be to hold the vote on the recall itself on a different day than the vote on a successor, as several other states do. That would give replacement candidates time to put together a campaign on the issues, rather than just on the recall itself.
Alternatively, lawmakers should consider requiring a recalled governor’s seat to be turned over to the democratically elected lieutenant governor, who would otherwise assume the post if the governor died, resigned or was impeached.
Properly conducted, recalls can serve an important function in representative democracies, a salve for buyer’s remorse in extreme circumstances. But it should be in the state’s interest to have the broadest and most diverse electorate possible. That’s not now the case in California, where many people aren’t even aware the recall election is happening, even though ballots were sent to all registered voters in the state.
A system that allows a legitimately elected governor to be replaced with a fringe candidate winning only a small fraction of the vote is in desperate need of reform. California voters should vote no on the recall question, and the Legislature should, at last, begin the work of revising the state’s recall elections.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
