Simple ?'s for Pubbies re California/US recall legitimacy, etc.

Great Debates
41

Semi-hijack…

Author Peter David (among others) observed that the success of this recall could have a long-term negative effect on politicians in areas where recalls are possible. He reasons that those politicians are now hamstrung when there are unpopular decisions to be made – that is, they have to live with the specter that making unpopular-but-necessary decisions could result in their immediate ouster (versus riding out the storm for the duration of their term).

Anyone want to comment on that?
(And to address the OP, while the recall may have been perfectly legal, ethically it stinks to high heaven IMO. Ousting an elected official between regular terms should involve something a bit more substantive than having 10% of the populace being sufficiently PO’d to sign a petition.)

42

Will a PBS cite do?

Here’s another one from the Public Policy Instituet of CA. It’s a PDF (warning), and I can’t cut and past from it.

Hey, Stoid: You keep asking for a reason. I gave you a big one and you ignore it. What gives?

43

Sam, you’re dwelling in the land of hypotheses again. You’re right in saying he could and should do these things, as should any government, but he’s taken most of his flexibility “off the table” as part of his campaign. No tax increases, no school cuts, no return of the vehicle fee … What’s left? Well, he says he’s going to figure that out when he gets to Sacramento. Whoop-de-friggin’-do.

44

Hey, I SAID it was hypothetical, and I said the odds were against him. My point was that no other politician on the right or left even had a chance of shaking up the system like Arnie can.

Stoid: Would you say Canada is a democratic country? We have the vote of no-confidence which can bring down a government *instantly. And it has happened several times here. The Diefenbaker government was felled in the wake of the Avro Arrow scandal (among other things), and the Joe Clark government was thrown out after losing a vote of no-confidence.

It baffles me how anyone can claim that this result was non-democratic. Was the recall law a good idea? That’s debatable. But in fact, it was the law, it was followed scrupulously, and the result was a MASSIVE mandate to throw out Davis and replace him with Arnie. The people spoke. That’s the essence of Democracy.

You would have had a better case if the recall vote had been closer, and if Arnie had one with votes being equally split among five or six candidates, such that he became governor with only a fraction of the votes that were cast to keep Davis. IMO, that’s one of the major flaws of the way the recall works.

Nonetheless, that didn’t happen. Arnie won in a landslide, and there can be no question at all that he is the choice of the people of California. How can you argue with that?

BTW, one of the reasons some people like the recall is because it’s a mechanism which can get past the two-party system. How do you break a deadlock when two parties have the electoral process sewn up and keep advancing lemons as their representatives? That’s a big problem in California - the people are moderate, but the Democrats and Republicans keep nominating people on the extreme ends of the party. So you have liberal Democrats in half the legislature, and conservative Republicans in the other half, neither of which truly represent what the average Californian wants. The recall process gets past the nomination conventions and other selection methods, and allows candidates from outside the ‘system’ to step in when the system truly fails. That’s a pretty good feature. Whether it makes up for the other liabilities is debatable, but what isn’t debatable is that this is a fair, democratic way of choosing a governor.

45

It did.

It involved 55% of the voting populace being sufficiently PO’ed to vote the rascal out.

In the same sense that it was NOT that the Democrats didn’t like the result so they exploited the law to get a second chance because they didn’t like losing in November of 2000. And that particular effort started a hell of a lot sooner than two months, and didn’t involve getting people to sign petitions at all.

It isn’t unethical to oppose a politician, even a Democrat. It also isn’t unethical to get the people of California to recall a politician who is perceived as a failure. If they wanted to keep him, they could have done so.

John Mace and bruce_d, thanks for the cites. Sam Stone, helluva post, as ever. In an odd way, Schwarzenegger has a better chance of doing well than Davis did, because he has no chance of running for President. This is as high as he can go, so he has nothing to lose by spending his political capital. This can’t be a stepping stone to the White House, as previous governors of California have attempted.

Regards,
Shodan

46

Sam Stone: Nicely done analysis, but maybe a bit off the mark. There are no career politicians left in Sacramento – term limits has done away with them, and I think that’s a big part of the problem: the place is being run by amateurs. Back in the day, the position of Assembly Speaker wielded enormous power in the hands of Jesse “money is the mother’s milk of politics” Unruh and Willie Brown. They may have been “politicians” in every sense of the word, but they made the trains run on time, so to speak.

The California Governor is also hamstrung by Prop 13 (a cap on property tax). This means that the state budget is dependent on income and property tax: when the economy is good, the budget is balanced. When income and sales go down, we have a deficit. We also have the requirement that any tax increase be approved by 60% of the legislature–so a minority (usually a Republican minority) can stonewall any revenue enhancement proposal. The percent of the budget that goes to education is fixed, thanks to another recent voter initiative. So it’s hard to raise revenue and its hard to cut funding. I can’t wait to see how Arnie pulls a rabbit out of this hat.

Re: the legitimacy of the recall process–it was instituted in another time, when the state government was totally corrupt, and the chance of an elected official being impeached for malfeasance was virtually nil. Have we progressed so far that we don’t need this any more?

What happened between November and January? The announcement that “oops, I guess we don’t have a surplus after all – we have a $38B deficit.”

(Full disclosure: I voted No on the recall)

And my daughter, a senior at UC, called last night: dismayed because she realized that her diploma next June will have Arnold’s signature on it. :slight_smile:

47

Sam, the point is that your discussion wasn’t based in facts, but in spite of them. It would be more useful to discuss what can happen in the real world.

The recall vote was 55 to 45 %. That’s a mandate, but a “MASSIVE” one, in capitals? Sounds like the same self-reassuring Bushie “We won, you lost, we’re going to do what we want” stuff.

As for the recall being “nondemocratic”, we’ve previously gone over the topic of accepted rules not always being written down as law. If you insist on equating legality with propriety, you may, but don’t assume it to be obvious. That doesn’t get into the possibility of a challenger replacing an incumbent despite far less public support. If that baffles you, that isn’t the fault of those who’ve been trying to explain it. The law’s wisdom can be easily revealed by seeing how long it takes to get the Schwarzenegger recall vote set up - apparently the petition drive is already under way.

48

It has allready been mentioned that Issa didnt ‘start’ the recall process. He jumped on the wagon when he saw how many signitures had been gotten in such a short span of time…more signatures in a shorter span of time than any recall petition before. People dont spend a $1 mill+ of their own money on lost causes.

As for why, well I can only speak for myself, and I signed it early on; the bail out of the electric companies followed by legislation banning Californians from buying power from any other company but those that were bailed out.

The problem with the re-regulation of the power companies (cause it was in no way de-regulation) was it needed to be pushed further. The brown outs etc - well no shit thats what happens when companies are banned from building more plants and forced to charge only a certain amount. Only an idiot who had lived his life in the artificial atmosphere of the political world could ever be under the delusion that progress and innovation occur for any reasons other than self interest.

The whole situation could have been dealt with by getting rid of price caps and moratoriums on plant construction, but instead the moron left those in place (thus leaving the problem in place) and instead bailed out the power companies, in effect compensating them for the effects of laws which could just as easily have been removed.

For awhile there, there were small power providers sprouting up all over the state, many using solar panels, wind mills etc; more and more businesses and private individuals were generating more power then they used and selling it back to PGE or to people in their neighborhood. Thats why the free market works; prices increase, thus attracting more people to get into the power generation business, thus generating more power. But I guess that just isnt morally pure enough for some shmucks. If things had continued, more and more money would have flowed into alt energy generation simply because there would have been money to be made doing it, unlike now. Which is why innovation in alternative energy never gets off the ground; how can it, when conventional means are being subsidized?

One thing I have a problem with is this ‘unpopular but necessary’ attitude. Often, things are unpopular because they are stupid. Bailing out the power companies was stupid, hense its unpopularity. It was not necessary. Companies keep operating while in bankruptsy court. Not only did Davis reach into the pockets of all Californians and decide that he knew best what companies we should support, he went further and signed into law legislation banning us from making further choices. And all the cottage power providers that were slowly springing up all over the state are now gone, (including the one I was buying power from at far less than Im paying now - which was solar generated).

And lastly, in the past few months Davis’s incredible stupidity was again demonstrated by raising taxes/fees in a recession. That is incredibly stupid in the extreme. Yes, if the economy lowers, so do services. Thats good. You dont burden the very thing that generates state income with an even greater burden, at least not if you want the state income to increase.

And Elvis, there arent enough college kids and public employee union members in the state to get the recall on the ballot.

49

Your expressed outrage would be more believable if you WERE questioning the LEGALITY.
Where’s the campaign to repeal the current recall law and substitute one more narrowly tailored to criminal behavior or other emergency-type situations, where the people absolutely cannot wait until the next election?

I don’t think such a campaign will ever get off the ground, because Dems want to reserve the right to play these games themselves. Just like there’s never been an organized move to dump the Electoral College after the 2000 mess.

It’s more fun to squawk* and play political games than to do the hard work of reforming the system.
By the way, Elvis, winning with 55% of the vote is customarily viewed, in the world of politics, as a landslide.
*Hard to understand the reason for the squawking. Arnold is almost a dead certainty to fall on his face trying to run California, and you’ll have widespread resentment against the G.O.P. in time for the next election. That’s what you risk with celebrities who have no experience representing the people (mumble…Wesley Clark…mumble)

50

I don’t think so. The economy is likely to have recovered significantly by the time of the next election, and when economies recover, government budget deficits have a way of shrinking dramatically, which in turn eases tax and spending issues. This in turn brings undeserved credit to whatever government officials happened to be along for the ride, in this case Arnold.

Of course he could still mess up. But the odds are stacked in his favor, IMHO.

51

I have two friends in California. One is a self-described Libertarian, another is a liberal D. They both are pretty liberal on social issues. Being gay it is in their self-interest to hate fundamentalist Rs obviously.

They both said they would hold their noses while voting for Arnie after voting for the recall because Davis lied about the financial situation in California government. I’ve heard that rationale from Ron Silver the actor as well.

I’m a bit unclear why Republicans should come explain the recall in California – a hugely Democratic state. If the Democratic machine turned out for Davis the recall would have failed miserably.

The topic title should be: What happened to the absolute power of the Democratic Party in California?

52

I’ll bite.

With a few rare exceptions politicians are nothing if not self-serving. Even politicians who say they rae not poll watchers are most assuredly poll watchers. Many govern whichever way the wind is blowing at the moment. If it is not the polls influencing thier decisions it is likely some special interest group.

Imagine a United States where a recall process along the lines of California’s was allowed for in the Constitution. Imagine President Lincoln working under that threat around the Civil War. I personally feel that Lincoln made decisions based upon what he felt was right and not what was popular but who can say how he might have done things differently if a recall was a possibility. Certainly his popularity swung very low during the Civil War. So much so he himself was very unsure of his chances for re-election. Even so he stayed the course and in the end he was proven right and our country is better off for him having done what he did.

If a recall was available I can imagine McClellan having a shot at deposing Lincoln. While Lincoln may have made principled choices faced with a recall possibility he might have modified or toned down his approach (if only in the belief he needed to do that in order to retain office and see his ultimate goals achieved). Imagine a Commander in Chief facing a recall during a war.

All-in-all I think the recall idea is a very bad one. You have your chance to make your choice at the election. To get pissy a fewe months later tells me you probably should have paid closer attention to who the candidates were and what they were saying. If you voted against the guy who won in the first place then I think you’re just sour grapes and angling for a do-over to get your way outside of the normal election process.

53

This has little chance to spread like wildfire. Many states have provisions for recall, but few based on the California “model.”

California has nobody to blame but the government and the people of California for their recall provision.

It is so easy to legislate or amend around this problem: “for criminal conduct,” “for high crimes and misdemeanors,” “the legislature shall,” “by a 2/3s majority” “in cases of felonious conduct.” I could list things like that all day.

How did California end up with a system based on signatures? I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.

54

This seems like a good summary of the law’s origins. So does this.

It was pushed through in 1911 by Gov. Hiram Johnson and his Progressive movement, as an anti-corruption measure intended to target politicians who had been bought by the Southern Pacific Railroad.

55

John Mace answered the question, but let me summarize:

(1) Whatever “ethics” are involved, Davis broke them before November. The public wanted a Riordan/Davis matchup, and Davis knew it. So he spent his hard-earned public employees’ union contributions nega-paigning against Riordan in the Republican primary. The Cali public did not want Simon, so they did the next best thing – they used Cali law to get the matchup with a moderate Republican Davis had nuked before the November election. (I would argue that Davis’s wholesale negapaign against Riordan was the truly unprecedented act here.)

(2) Davis lied or misunderstood the budget immediately before the election, as revealed by his admission of the size of the deficit after. When the lie/misunderstanding came to light, it was disqualifying enough for a recall.

(3) Regardless of Davis’s role in the lie/misunderstanding, people feel – for reasons Sam Stone gives, and others – that the budget woes are too severe to let Davis handle them. No matter what the ethics, a solution is needed rightnowthisinstant, and Davis is not the guy for that.

56

  1. Yes. He let the energy companies give it to California in the shorts, for starters. And there is no getting that money back. It’s all going to Enron’s lawyers and creditors.

  2. See the second part of the answer above. California’s deficit is a direct result of decisions that Davis made while in office. Bush inherited a bad economy from Clinton.

What we are witnessing in California is the result of gross, rampant, unchecked actions by the Democratic party.

I find it interesting that Libbies (as opposed to your “Pubbies”) have a double meaning for the word “legitimate”. I guess the true meaning of “legitimate” is in the eye of the Libby beholder.

Sidenote that has nothing to do with the core of my post:
[sarcasm]
How did I know, without even reading the title, but only seeing the grammar of the title that this was a Libby thread, and would mention Bush?
[/sarcasm]

57

Chicago Faucet:

Is that 100% true? How badly did the dot-com bubble’s bursting affect state revenue from Silicon Valley? Has anyone estimated what degree of California’s financial woes are due to that? Because that certainly isn’t Davis’s fault.

58

It is the government’s fault to the extent that those in power planned on a ridiculously inflated stock market to continue to inflate forever. Yeah, some plain old folks made the same bad decision, but it was with their own money. The state did it with my money. Note: I hold the legislature at fault as much if not more than Davis. Unfortunately, he gets the brunt because he’s more visible. Same goes for when times are good-- he gets credit where none is due.

59

I guess my biggest gripe is what is mentioned in the first article, the very low threshold for signatures. As mentioned, this was pre-computer age by a long way. I’m all for giving people the right to turn the government out for fraud, but that should be written into the wording of the amendment, statute, or provision.

Davis should push to overturn this provision before he leaves office. Nobody could blame him, it is a pretty extreme provision. His best argument was how this thing is bound to mess up the idea of the fixed term. Arnie would look like someone who feared payback. Whatever reason this provision was allowed to sit around, unchanged?, for all those years is sure not to be compelling.

Just strike the provision precluding judicial review and add “for criminal conduct.”

60

Your analogy is not a good one. Lincoln faced McClellan in the election of 1864, and won. So I don’t think he would have done anything different if we had a recall process during the Civil War.

You mean like FDR during WWII?

I hear what you are saying, but all of the arguments you have presented would equally apply to the idea of electing people for life, as we often do with judges. This also frees them up from the bother of worrying about the will of their constituents, and free them to make unpopular decisions, but this is far from an unmixed blessing.

Sooner or later, a politician has to face the voters. In Davis’ case, it was sooner. If the people of California had any confidence that he was going to make the tough calls, and resolve the situation in the long run, they would have voted to keep him. They did not, by a decisive margin.

For an example of the kind of harm a politician can do who does not need to worry about reelection, see the Clinton pardons. Being free from worry about the will of the people does not automatically lead to good decisions, obviously.

Regards,
Shodan