IT'S OFFICIAL: California is the new Florida. With Gary Coleman, Mary Carey and Leo Gallagher vying to replace Governor Gray Davis in the upcoming recall election, the Golden State has surpassed the Sunshine State as Worst Practitioner of American Democracy.
It's easy to poke fun at Californians -- who else will pick from a field of 135 porn stars, child actors and watermelon-smashing comedians when they enter the voting booth on Election Day? But beneath the recall's carnival exterior lies a core of impatience and democratic ineptitude. If Californians are to salvage any dignity from this summer's events, they should come to their senses and retain Davis, whatever his shortcomings.
California's recall procedures were adopted in 1911, under the leadership of Governor Hiram Johnson. A progressive reformer in a state then controlled by powerful corporate interests, Johnson proposed recall elections (as well as the initiative and referendum processes) as a means of returning power to the voters. Since then, in the event of an official's criminal behavior or other serious misconduct, he can be recalled from office by a majority vote.
The state constitution does not describe the offenses for which an official might be recalled, but Davis's failings are not likely what Johnson had in mind. They include primarily presiding over the inept deregulation of electrical prices and the accumulation of a $38 billion budget deficit. Both have caused major headaches, but considering other states difficulties in providing electricity and balanced budgets, it seems unfair to hold Davis solely responsible for California's problems.
Indeed, California's budget crisis is only marginally worse than those faced by nearly every other state. Amid an economic downturn that has sent state revenues plummeting nationwide, California's problems are hardly exceptional and cannot be blamed entirely on Davis's mismanagement. If presiding over an unbalanced budget is truly a recallable offense, then Davis should not be the only governor turned out of office this fall.
The foolishness of the recall effort is heightened by the fact that Davis was reelected scarcely 10 months ago. When Californians chose Davis over his Republican challenger Bill Simon (also a candidate in the recall election), they were aware that the state had budget problems and they knew of the governor's role in the deregulation fiasco. That 58 percent of likely voters now want him out of office suggests that the recall movement is motivated less by Davis's failings than by California's relentless fascination with the new and different.
But more concerning than the reasons for recall is the undemocratic nature of theprocess itself. The decision to recall or retain Davis will be taken by a simple majority vote. Thus Davis must win the confidence of at least 50 percent of California voters to continue in office. But if Davis is recalled, his successor will need only a plurality to win. With 135 candidates on the ballot, this could be as small as eight tenths of one percent of the vote. In theory, Davis could win the support of 49 percent of the voters and still be replaced by a candidate receiving less than one percent of the vote.
This is, of course, an unlikely scenario, but it is entirely possible that Davis will be ousted in favor of a candidate receiving far fewer votes. If and when this occurs, Californians will find themselves with a governor of doubtful legitimacy and likely no ready solutions to the state's mounting problems. Davis may not be the answer, but California has still less need of a rookie governor chosen by dubious means.
But the most depressing aspect of the recall is the sense of pointlessness that pervades the whole process. The recall movement was not launched by the public at large, united in response to some outrageous offense. Rather, it was conceived and financed by Darrell Issa, a Republican congressman with deep pockets and gubernatorial ambitions. That so many voters took up his cause for so little reason speaks poorly for their political maturity. By embracing the recall movement, California has replaced its normal electoral process with a political circus that will yield more celebrity gossip than sensible leadership.
If Californians have an ounce of sanity among them, the farcical nature of the recall process will be Davis's best hope. Rather than choosing a new governor from a field of pornographers, comedians and Republican opportunists, Californians should retain the governor they elected last year and search for realistic solutions to their state's problems. By permitting Davis to finish his term, Californians can escape with their dignity and avoid a pointless miscarriage of democracy.
(Alec Solotorovsky is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 16 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
