No, it’s not “just like any other election” - one candidate who is preferred by some of the electorate is barred from winning just because he isn’t preferred by a majority of the voters. The other candidates don’t have that requirement, so their supporters have greater rights in effect, hence the 14th Amendment violation.
As interesting as a demolition derby, yup. And can’t you just hear Rehnquist, Scalia et al. praying out loud not to have to address this one? How would they do so?
I am told now that if Davis resigns, the Lt Governor would be an interim governor and the recall election would have to go ahead. This doesn’t seem right. Anyone have the skinny on that?
OK, so Art. 2, Sec. 15 is not “automatic” and the looie can choose whether or not he’ll step in? It seems odd; the clause seems clear as to what should happen.
Sorry to harp on this but I used to live in Massachusetts, where the Gov and Looie were elected as a team (vote for Dukakis, get Evelyn Murphy free) and two Looies stepped in as Governor when the bosses were made Ambassadors recently (Cellucci for Weld, Swift for Cellucci). So I know it can be done even for large-populated states.
Now I’m thinking of the old Gershwin musical OF THEE I SING, with the hilarious book by George S. Kaufman, wherein the Vice-President (Throttlebottom, I think) is so very obscure he has to buy a ticket with a tour group to get into the White House.
Pfft. That’s nothing; Ecuador had 3 presidents in one day
If Davis were to resign, Bustamante (Lt. Governor) takes over the office of governor. The recall election on Davis proceeds as planned however.
If a majority votes to recall Davis, then the winner of the replacement election takes over and Bustamante goes back to being Lieutenant Governor.
The idea behind this is to allow the people a chance to remove the officer they want to get rid of and not be “cheated” out of the chance to do it by having the person resign. It’s sort of like committing suicide to avoid the death penalty.
If Davis were to resign and Bustamante became the acting governor, Bustamante could still run in the replacement election (he is rumored to be pondering this move regardless).
However, Davis isn’t going to resign.
Once the date for a recall is set, you can’t get out of it by resigning.
I’m not sure what happens in case of death.
Turns out if Davis died it wouldn’t make a difference either.
Here is the relevant section of the California Elections Code:
Of course, the people of California voted for Davis as well, but they don’t seem to want to deal with that. Now, instead of just voting someone else in when Davis’ term was up, California gets to deal with a circus that will likely give them someone less qualified running their state.
Thank God my parents moved out of Cali when I was two weeks old.
18 different states allow recalls:
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin
North Dakota is the only state to recall a governor and that was back in 1921. And that guy later was elected to the Senate.
I can’t see anything wrong with your logic. Why hasn’t anyone pursued this argument?
And do you agree that if Davis is allowed to be added to the ballot, then the equal protection issue goes away?
If I understand all that I have read correctly, if Davis were to resign, the recall election would continue anyway, but it would be the Lt. Gov who would be recalled (or not, depending on the vote).
Seems like a silly way to run a railroad, but “silly” is not the same as “unconstitutional”.
Thanks, Bob Cos. Other news reports I saw later (3000 miles away) said that is the argument Davis used in his own suit. Today we hear the Cali Supremes dismissed it, for reasons I’ve not seen reported. I have seen it reported which party dominates that court, though - wanna guess?
I do agree there’s no equal-protection issue if the incumbent is in Part 2, and that’s what else Davis was asking for.
Another question: How long will the Republican replacement be in office before the recall petitions against him get under way? This law is silly, and using it is sillier, since it undermines the authority of any governor.
We’re in agreement on this as well. I believe there should be mechanisms for removing someone from office for egregious improprieties, but I don’t agree with a “do over” law like this. Somebody doesn’t like Gray Davis? Don’t vote for him next time. That seems to me like a perfectly serviceable method for cycling through politicians (again, barring a criminal act or something like that).
There isn’t an equal protection issue because states have a fair amount of latitude to decide how to run elections. For instance, some states have term limits. The equal protection argument is pretty weak and I don’t think many lawyers thought it would work.
The California Supreme Court also discussed the “if appropriate” language. They said:
If Davis were to resign the Lieutenant Governor would take over the office until the recall election is held. If the recall were to pass, then the replacement candidate would take over. If it were to fail, the lieutenant governor would continue in office for the balance of the term and presumably would be able to appoint a new lieutenant governor.
I’m missing it. How are term limits analogous? What logic precludes this from an equal protection argument?
Nope. Davis would not be barred from the second election. Instead, he would be disqualified. That is the key distinction.
The Equal Protection Clause does not require that all people be treated alike. Instead, it requires that all people with the same circumstances be treated alike. If a government agency refuses you food stamps because you don’t meet the eligibility criteria, your Equal Protection rights have not been violated. They are only violated if you do meet the criteria and are still denied food stamps.
Here, Grey Davis has different circumstances, assuming he is recalled. He would have been thrown out of office by the electorate. Under California law, a person who has been thrown out of office is disqualified from running in the second election.
Because that disqualification is rationally related to a legitimate government interest (keeping out of office the person the voters through out of office), and is not discriminatory based on sex, race, creed, etc., it does not violate the Equal Protection clause.
Sua
I missed your point about the voters EP rights. They also don’t come into play.
EP, again, requires that people in the same circumstance be treated the same. In the voting context, that simply means that every eligible voter’s vote is treated the same.
There is no problem here. In the first election, Davis’ supporters’ votes are treated the same as everyone else’s. In the second election, they are again treated the same - they have the right to vote and have their voted counted just like everyone else’s.
Davis’ supporters do not have the EP right to have their preferred candidate on the ballot. If he has been disqualified from the second ballot by a valid California law (which he has), then he isn’t on the ballot, and Davis’ supporters can, just like every other California voter, vote for the candidate of their choice who was qualified to run.
Sua
The crux of the equal protection argument was that Davis voters were denied the right to vote for their candidate. Term limits do the very same thing by disqalifying certain people from winning an election. As SuaSponte discussed, this does not constitute a violation of equal protection.
And Davis’s situation is even, in my opinion, factually weaker than a term limits argument. Davis’s supporters have a chance to vote for him by voting against the recall. If the recall fails, they have their man. And if the recall fails, then under the equal protection argument advanced by some in this thread all the other candidates would have an equal protection beef. What if 80% of those supporting the recall wanted Gary Coleman as governor? Couldn’t they, under the same equal protection theory, argue they were denied equal protection?
**Gotcha. Some ignorance dispelled (my own). My thanks to Sua and to you.
Not that it’s important, but this I didn’t follow (just to carry on the proud tradition I’ve established in this thread). If the recall fails, the majority’s candidate wins. 80% of something less than 50% is still less than 50%. Why would the equal protection logic, fallacious though it seems to be, be stronger for the other candidates?
Except that it’s not two elections - it’s really only one. One trip to the polling place. Same day. Same electorate. Same issue - who should be governor? But one candidate is handicapped going into the election by having to gain a percentage of the vote that the others do not. Certain voters thereby have their votes count less than do other voters, and a certain candidate has less rights than the others.
I wasn’t asking about the law’s validity, but its constitutionality. Certainly a law is “valid” until judicially nullified or legislatively repealed, and that hasn’t happened.
But thanks for addressing it.