Fixing the Recall Process

Since I don’t really have much to post about today, I’m going to promote this comment into full-blown post status. In the comments of this post, Earnest made this observation about California having “too much democracy” (as he’s described it in the past)

It’s not the recall that I dislike but the system that makes it possible. The people really have too much power in California. Of course, that may be better than being absolutely impotent like New Yorkers who are at the bottom of a political process so convoluted, it’s amazing that anyone knows which office to run for.

Despite all my problems with the recall, I actually think it’s a good thing to have a law that allows us to remove politicians from office. People have become so frustrated by politics, any law that gets people more involved in the political process and keeps our representatives in check is a great step forward. That said, the combination of California’s vague laws, a timid judicial system that puts electoral haste over the rule of law, and the mob mentality of this state’s electorate turned what should have been a “great equalizer” into a massive clusterfuck.

I hope that one of the eventual outcomes of this whole process is the refining of the entire recall process. Here’s a few suggestions for improvements I’ve got :

  • Signature gatherers must be legal residents of this state, must be registered to vote, and must be volunteers. Paying out of state signature gatherers isn’t “democracy in action”, it’s “democracy for sale”.
  • Petitions must include a cost associated with any recall effort. Many Californians who signed the petitions jumped through the roof when they found out that the cost of the election would run in the tens of millions of dollars.
  • Since deciding whether to remove someone from office and who should replace him/her are separate issues, the recall and replacement elections should be completely separate. I would suggest a three month gap between the two, during which time the position would be filled by whomever falls next in the line of succession (if it exists) or appointed by the state legislature.
  • There should be clearly defined criteria for which someone can be removed from office. Evidence of committing a crime would be a start. Perhaps grossly misstating positions during an election would be another (but at the same time we’d have to give politicians the freedom to change their minds on an issue). I’m not sure exactly what the criteria should be or how they should prove their allegations (maybe a three-judge recall panel with a low burden of proof?), but there definitely needs to be some standard that keeps the recall process from just becoming a “do-over” of an election based on simple whim.

    Many of these suggestions are might already a part of the law. If they are, then they bear repeating since they obviously weren’t followed this time.


    • posted by greg on October 7, 2003 @ 11:38 am

    one comment so far

    1. I like your idea of including the costs of the recall. It really does almost always come down to the presence of dollar signs with the electorate. Instead of having them be registered voters, I think you should just have to have proof of residency for petition gatherers. I just don’t like the idea that because someone hasn’t voted they can’t attempt to make a grassroots change. Morally it makes sense to deny them but not ethically.

      I don’t think that there should be a gap between the recall and the subsequent election. That would give whomever the Lt. Governor is an unfair advantage over his or her competitors.

      Also, defining criteria for which someone can be removed would be shortsighted because it’s next to impossible to anticapate the needs of the electorate.

      Comment by Earnest — October 8, 2003 @ 9:29 am

    Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.