Recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California

Angelyne currently has 3.2% of the vote from Santa Clara county (“Silicon Valley”). She is at 0.7% overall.

280 million put to homelessness causes would be nice, but it probably wouldn’t even put a dent in the magnitude of that problem.

There are roughly 162,000 people who are homeless in California. That money would have worked out to close to $2k per person which is probably room and board for 6 months depending on how you did it or at least a couple of months not having to live on the street.

In California? More like 3 weeks.

Not if you shipped them all off to Montana…


I’m not sure what buying a home in LA has to do with my point. The average 1 bedroom apartment in Barstow is $775/month and I’d bet if I actually cared to look I could find cheaper. The homeless getting a free place to live for at least a couple of months wouldn’t have to be put up beachside in LA.

I had a thought when I heard them talking about the cost of the recall election on the news last night. What they should do is if a recall petition gets enough signatures to trigger an election, there should be an automatic increase in the state sales tax. That would provide the revenue to cover the cost of the election, and might also make people think twice about signing the petition if it means their taxes go up.

At the very least, the $280M will give the Dems cover for making recalls much harder. Or even to make so that the Lt. Gov. takes ov er if the recall succeeds. This would eliminate frivolous recalls.

So I should pay more tax because some other schmuck wants to recall the governor? I don’t think so.

It would certainly make citizens stop and think before they signed - and the money for a recall has to come from somewhere.

This is the obvious answer. Recalls are for situations where the governor is obviously criminal or incompetent. It’s like a people’s impeachment. It shouldn’t be a way for the opposition party to get a governorship they could never win in a straight election.

But as mentioned earlier, in CA the Lt Governor is an elected position, so it’s possible for the Governor and Lt Governor to be from different parties. I imagine if the Gov is a Democrat and the Lt Gov is a Republican, that will AUTOMATICALLY trigger a recall, for no other reason than it being a possible short-cut to get a Republican in the top office, no matter how small the ember of hope is there.

I think additional measures would need to be put in place to ensure this pathway is not so easy, like only permitting a recall if the Governor has committed a crime, etc. Right now the only bar to cross is just having enough people sign a petition that don’t like the governor. We need to raise that bar. A lot.

But at least in that situation it is a direct competition - either the Governor or the Lt Governor will hold the job. And from what I can find the last time a Republican won Lt Gov in an election in CA was 1978.

The biggest problem with the current system is that if you can convince a relatively small percentage of Democrats that the current Gov sucks (maybe 20% or so), and you can drive down turnout, you can get a governor recalled and then put in a replacement that only gets 40% of the vote or so.

And wouldn’t this recall attempt have failed at the signature stage if not for the COVID extension a judge granted?

I think just raise the signature requirement and eliminate the second-stage voting part (Lt Gov automatically gets promoted) and you will see these things go away.

Agree. Even with the potential I mentioned, having the Gov replaced by the next elected official in line is orders of magnitude better than the current set-up.

I think so as well. I’d be willing to keep the recall process with a few modifications:

1.) There must be cause. Rhode Island is a reasonable model - In Rhode Island, an official may be recalled if he or she "has been indicted or informed against for a felony, convicted of a misdemeanor, or against whom a finding of probable cause of violation of the code of ethics has been made by the ethics commission.

2.) Go with the Lt Governor replaces. Yes, that potentially sets up a party-driven competition if the offices are split. But at least the Lt Governor was popular enough to have already won a general election in CA which automatically moderates their politics if they’re Republican. I’m comfortable with that solution - I can live with a Faulconer-type as governor, just not an Elder-type who could never have won a normal statewide campaign.

I initially typed that a top two candidate runoff with the governor potentially participating would also be fine. But on reconsidering the extra cost, screw that. Let’s just go for the simple Lt Governor replaces.

3.) The signature threshold should probably be at least a little higher. Only Montana has a lower one.

I suppose you could even provide that the Governor be replaced, if recalled, by the next-highest-ranking statewide official of his or her party.

Is the system really broken? CA has had two recall elections in all of its history. The one a few days ago and the successful one in 2003. There have been numerous attempts in the past that haven’t gotten enough signatures. This most recent one only got enough signatures because they got an extension due to COVID.

I’m less concerned with the past than with the uncertain future. As we head into these more partisan times I have some worries that this might become a more popular tactic.

But beyond that, yes I think it IS broken as written. A bit. I think recalling without clear cause just because you are politically butt-hurt is a horrible waste of state money. More than that I think it is ridiculous that you can potentially use it as an end-run around a general election when someone like a Larry Elder, who could never win a general in modern CA, could conceivably win with a clear minority of the state vote. And I do think the 12% threshold is perhaps a little low - though to be honest that is the point I’m least concerned about.

Agreed. You can’t definitively say that something isn’t broken just because it hasn’t caused a disaster yet. A ripped-up parachute is just fine until someone actually jumps out of a plane with it on their back.

In this case, there is the clear potential for a problem where it is used as a loophole to get someone in office who doesn’t even come close to having the support of the majority, and therefore would never win in an election. That’s my biggest concern. The Governor of California is the leader of the fifth largest economy of the world and shouldn’t sneak in on a technicality.

If that wasn’t a problem, then I would expect the general election would be run that way.

Ahhh, you evoke my memories of Buddy Cianci.