California makes history

[neofied]

California Gov. Gray Davis will face a recall election in late September or more likely sometime in October.

They got 1.3 million verified signatures to force an election. It's the first time a California governor has faced a recall vote and first time in 82 years any governor has.

Tomorrow (Thursday) they'll announce when the election will be. The Lt. Gov. also will decide if he will take the place of Davis until the March primary or if he'll have the election for a replacement held at the same time. The Secy of State and most in the administration believe the election should be two-fold. And if Bustamante (the Lt. Gov.) wants to avoid any confrontations, I'm sure he'll do the two-fold election.

Ah-nold Schwarzeneger also is expected to throw in the hat for the job. Of all the Republicans, he is probably the most centric of them all and most likely to win over Democrats. He is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, with a passion for education. Basically the right kind of person for the job.

A handful of other Republicans likely will join in. A few third party (Green and Libertarian) also may join. And I wouldn't be surprised if a few Dems. gun for the job, just in case.

The interesting thing will be that the candidates will only have a short time to file, get the signatures and get on the ballot. Than it's a brief campaign for everyone.

If a majority of voters vote Davis out, than the top vote getter in the second vote would be the new governor. Though, I'm not sure if there'd be a runoff. Doubtful that's the way they'd do it.

It's expected to cost the state some $35 million to hold the election. Under the law, they can't hold it on the traditional November election day (when some jurisdictions will hold mayoral, school board, and other local votes).

Of course, the pro-Davis, anti-recall groups say the Republicans are hijacking everything and say nobody has a right to recall Davis. Yet the the State Constitution spells it out clearly that this is the fundamental right of the people. They argue the people spoke when the voted last November. True, but the people can change their minds.

Sure it's going to cost money, but it is perfectly legal. It is part of the democratic process. If it isn't supposed to be, than someone needs to amend the Constitution -- after the recall election.

Davis only had a narrow victory last November. Had Ah-nold ran than, rather than Simon than Davis wouldn't be in office. Davis basically won because Simon is an idiot.

[neofied]

Gov. Davis, after losing the recall and his seat to Ah-nold:

"I'll be back."

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

[JeeberD]

Arnold, to Davis as he's moving out of the Governor's Mansion:

"Hasta la vista, baby."

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...

[neofied]

Good one JeeberD.

I really think if Ah-nold runs, Davis is out and Ah-nold is Gov.

[MrBug708]

What killed it is they caught Democrats talking about how they were prolonging the budget talks to make the Republicans look worse. Way to go guys. California is having money problems are you are worried about re-election

[neofied]

Regardless of the outcome, it's going to be an interesting time over the next 2 months or so. This could very well be one of the wildest campaign periods and elections in California history.

According to Fox News:

The ballot could be heavy on fringe candidates, since it's not hard to run: Candidates must submit signatures from 65 registered voters of their own party and $3,500, or 10,000 signatures in lieu of the filing fee.

65 signatures and $3,500? I think we're going to see plenty of offbeat characters running for office. The ballot will be full of names.

Fox had a few names of possible candidates. Besides Arnold, the other candidate that could score well is Dianne Feinstein. And by winning, she'd also get to choose her replacement in the U.S. Senate. Yeah, she could send Gray to Washington.

It's interesting, but there are as many liberal and moderate candidates looking to run as there are conservatives. I think the key will be to get somebody that everyone respects in office to replace Davis. That would send a message to Davis that it wasn't about politics, but about approval and respect for the person doing the job.

[Swaggs]

This seems like a dangerous and wasteful precedent.

Hypothetically, couldn't 1.3M (or however many it takes there) angry democrats from Florida (think they couldn't find them?) call for a recall just go get rid of Jeb? And whether he wins or loses, he would be spending time and money on getting re-elected (again) and not the state of Florida.

[daedalus]

1) You're assuming 1.3M Floridian can manage to sign their name in the right box without FUBAR'ing. You're a very optimistic person.

2) Yes, he'd be spending his cash on the campaign fund. The state would be spending their cash on the re-election itself. I believe I read somewhere that this will end up costing taxpayers in the $50M range. Lovely.

[neofied]

Actually, it depends on what Florida's recall laws are like or if they even have such a law on the books.

Only 18 states have recall laws. Most states require 25 percent of the total number of voters in the last election to sign the recall petition. California only requires 12 percent.

Six states require you to specify a reason for the recall. California does not.

There is no Federal recall law.

Only one state governor has ever been recalled and that was 82 years ago.

In California there have been 31 attempts to recall a governor. All have failed. Overall there have been 117 recall attempts on the state level. Only seven of those made it to the ballot and only four officials were tossed from office. This in the nation's most populous state and a state that is 150+ years old.

It's not easy to force a recall election, in California or anywhere else. The talk of precedent is pretty meaningless, given the history of recall elections and the laws of the land.

How did this recall manage to get this far? Davis has an approval rating of 21 percent, the lowest rating for any California governor.

And I'm sure you'll find a few non-Republican signatures on the Davis recall petitions. He's just not very well liked and got lucky that he won last November. His opponenent was a moron.

[cartman]

There's also some vague wording in the California constitution regarding recalls. Some interpret the meaning that if the governor is recalled, then the Lieutenant Governor becomes governor, and gets to select who is on the replacement ballot. The 65 signatures and $3,500 is what gets you in the door to be considered for the ballot, and it does not automatically get you put on the ballot.

[neofied]

Originally posted by daedalus

2) I believe I read somewhere that this will end up costing taxpayers in the $50M range. Lovely.

$30-$35 million divided between California's 58 counties.

Also, the ballot would include other items, including two referendums.

[neofied]

Originally posted by cartman
There's also some vague wording in the California constitution regarding recalls. Some interpret the meaning that if the governor is recalled, then the Lieutenant Governor becomes governor, and gets to select who is on the replacement ballot. The 65 signatures and $3,500 is what gets you in the door to be considered for the ballot, and it does not automatically get you put on the ballot.

Even Secy of State Kevin Shelley, a Democrat, has advised Bustamante not to take the seat and instead go forward with the two part process on the same ballot.

Simply saying "I'm the governor now, neener, neener" would only piss off electorate even more.

If anyone is stuck between a rock and a hard place it's Bustamante. His decision determines his political future.

[JPhillips]

I read that Bustamante is going to send it to the Cali Supreme Court. There is also something about a small council of the Sen Pres, Speaker of the House, a couple of university Presidents, and a cabinet sec. That commission could also decide who is governor. All in all its far from certain that Issa, who funded the recall, will get a chance to be gov.

Longterm I hope Cali changes the recall to make it harder. In a state that size it just doesn't seem too difficult to get less than 900,000 sigs. I would bet both parties have that many hard core suporters. It wouldn't surprise me to see a recall effort launched immediately after the next gov takes power. This could be ugly for a while.

[QuikSand]

Thinking bigger picture for a moment... doesn't this seem like the best opportunity in some time for a legitmate third party candidate to actually assume a high elected office? (Yes, I know about Jesse Ventura and a smattering of independent Congressmen... you get my point here)

California, as we know, is fairly ripe politically for "alternative" ideas. Plus, here we have a circumstance where there might be 6 or 7 "significant" candidates - many form the same party, all in a one-time, free-for-all style election where only a plurality is needed to win. So, in theory, a good Green party candidate (if there is such a person) could actually win the election with soemthing like 25% of the vote, conceivably. That's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that it is to see such a third party person managing to outpoll both a single D and a single R in an open election among just the three of them-- there, you absolutely must gain 35% or so, and probably more. (Trying to think back to the Ventura results - I think he won with fewer then 40% in MN)

Though it's fairly unlikely that the Greens or any other third party will muster the oprganization necessary to pull this off - it seems like logistically, this is about as good shot as they might be able to conjure up.

[Fritz]

Ack, a plurality vote. That means you have the possibility of some of that crazy European multiparty coalition stuff.

Originally posted by QuikSand
California, as we know, is fairly ripe politically for "alternative" ideas. Plus, here we have a circumstance where there might be 6 or 7 "significant" candidates - many form the same party, all in a one-time, free-for-all style election where only a plurality is needed to win. So, in theory, a good Green party candidate (if there is such a person) could actually win the election with soemthing like 25% of the vote, conceivably. That's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that it is to see such a third party person managing to outpoll both a single D and a single R in an open election among just the three of them-- there, you absolutely must gain 35% or so, and probably more. (Trying to think back to the Ventura results - I think he won with fewer then 40% in MN)

Though it's fairly unlikely that the Greens or any other third party will muster the oprganization necessary to pull this off - it seems like logistically, this is about as good shot as they might be able to conjure up.

[clintl]

A poll last week put Peter Camejo, the likely Green Party candidate, fourth among possible candidates (which did not include include any Democrats, because all of the prominent Democrats have pledged not to run), behind former LA Mayor Richard Riordan, Arnold, and Bill Simon. Camejo was getting 8%; Riordan was at 21%, Arnold 15%, and Simon 12%. Neither Riordan nor Arnold have committed themselves yet, and Simon is very unpopular, so I could see a scenario in which Camejo might possibly win if no moderate Republicans entered the race.

There was also an article last week about a possible attempt to draft Arianna Huffington as a candidate, and Camejo said he might step aside if she enters and runs on a progressive platform. And since she is wealthy, and can finance her own campaign, that could throw another wrinkle into things with respect to independent/third party candidates.

[Swaggs]

From what I am hearing, there will be two votes on this.

The first will be simple vote for or against Davis.

The second would take place if the first vote does not favor Davis.

Is this right?

[JPhillips]

From the Sacramento Bee


Facing the biggest decision of his career, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante said Tuesday he will likely take no more than 24 hours from the day the choice is his to set the date for the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis.

But he said he will leave to an independent commission and the California Supreme Court a decision on whether he becomes governor himself -- without an election to determine a successor -- if Davis is recalled.

Under the California Constitution, the lieutenant governor sets the date for the recall election, which must take place 60 to 80 days from the day the election is certified by the secretary of state.

In an interview, Bustamante said he is leaning toward the 80-day time period.

"The day of the election depends on when the (recall is qualified)," he said. "But right now, I think 60 days is not likely. I would like to give stability to the process and make it work."

The lieutenant governor, however, said he would not call for the election of a Davis successor on the same ballot.

After consulting with lawyers from the offices of the state attorney general and legislative counsel, Bustamante said he believes the California Supreme Court will ultimately decide a successor should Davis be recalled. The interpretation calls into question the widespread assumption that the election would determine a possible successor as well.

"Article 5, Section 10 of the Constitution states the lieutenant governor becomes governor in the event of a vacancy," said Deborah Pacyna, a spokeswoman for Bustamante. "It provides that the state Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine questions regarding succession. And it calls for a body, the Commission on the Governorship, to be created by the Legislature to consider such questions."

The commission has exclusive authority to petition the Supreme Court regarding succession to the office of governor, Pacyna said. The panel's chairman would be Senate President John Burton. The other members would be Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, the University of California president, the California State University chancellor, and the governor's director of finance.

The involvement of the commission and the state's highest court raises the prospect of added confusion about the final composition of the recall ballot.

The law that sets up the commission is one of many under intense scrutiny by California officials and election lawyers.

Prodded by recent court rulings, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has ordered counties to verify petition signatures and report the results to his office by today.

If the number of signatures surpasses 110 percent of the 897,158 required for an election, Shelley will certify that the ballot measure has qualified, and the spotlight will shift to Bustamante. Barring last-minute legal developments, that could occur as early as today.

Bustamante has been busy conferring with lawyers from the attorney general's and secretary of state's offices and said he will decide the election day "probably within a day" of the recall's certification.

Bustamante said he would not run to succeed the governor if a successor election is held. But sources say he has also been calling supporters and friends around the state seeking advice about whether he should enter the race.

Last month, Bustamante joined the state's other high-ranking Democrats in denouncing the recall effort and said he did not "intend" to put his name on the ballot.

Yet privately, some Democrats singled out Bustamante as the most likely member of the party to break ranks.

Bustamante is not a prolific fund-raiser, they said, pointing out that the recall's short campaign could be his best shot at becoming California's first Latino governor.

They cited his high standing in the polls, especially among Latinos, and they noted there is no love lost between the lieutenant governor and governor.

After their public falling-out in 1999 over Davis' decision to mediate parts of Proposition 187 left unresolved, Bustamante called the ballot measure to deny illegal immigrants services "morally indefensible."

In a move Davis' staff claimed was unrelated, the governor's office repossessed parking passes assigned to the lieutenant governor's staff. The chasm has persisted: Bustamante's involvement in Davis' re-election campaign last year was tepid.

On Tuesday, Bustamante's political consultant, Richie Ross, emphasized that under no scenario would the lieutenant governor run in a recall election.

"(That's) been our intention all along, from the time he put out his initial statement," Ross said. "Everyone treated the statement as though Bill Clinton had written it and it needed to be parsed, but we've tried to make it clear to people."

[clintl]

The two votes (if the second one occurs) will happen at the same time; it will be two parts of the same ballot.

Because of some potentially conflicting language in the California Constitution, there's a slight possibility still that there could be only a vote to recall, and the Lt. Governor would assume the governorship if it passes.

[Ufer]

The reason Bustamante and the Dems are floating the "2 elections" balloon is because Davis (and who knows who else in the party) has pressured other Dems to not put their names on the ballot -- the thinking being that if an attractive name is on the ballot (e.g. Dianne F), then some Dems will break ranks and vote yes recall and for Dianne, or maybe some Dem voters won't think it's urgent to vote at all. In other words, go down with the ship. Therefore, if there are 2 elections, and if Davis loses the yes/no recall vote, a Dem candidate can still get in on the second part (who suceeds Davis) after the fact.

Quiksand's idea about a third party governor is certainly more likely if many Republicans run -- one of the burning questions is can the Republican party convince the potential candidates (especially mavericks like Bill Simon) to get behind one chosen candidate -- but (assuming there is one election for both parts) perhaps it's even more likely if NO Dems run, because then the liberal Dem voters who vote no on recall on part 1 may vote for a Green candidate on part 2.

Personally, I think my state has taken the idea of populist government by the masses too far. It's counterproductive. The propositions and referendums we've passed (on all sides of the political spectrum) have hamstrung the government. Propositions are crafted by focus group studies and win by advertising. If they're badly drafted as legislation and work badly, the legislature cannot fix them. Term limits have acerbated the budget crisis and other problems, because our legislators (both Dems and Republicans) have no experience and no personal relationships.

[clintl]

I agree with much of what Ufer said about how excessive use of propositions has made the state much more difficult to govern.

As far as the recall election itself is concerned, I am really pissed at the Republicans for doing this, and if there are no credible Democrats on the ballot to vote for, I will very likely vote for Camejo, the Green Party candidate. The only potential Republican candidate that has even a remote chance to get my vote is Richard Riordan, who might not even run.

[Anrhydeddu]

Yes, shame on them (and probably over a million voters) wanting an incompetant governor out.

[JPhillips]

I think its a given that if there is an election at least three big name Repubs will run. Issa funded the recall and certainly is in. I don't see Simon backing out, and either Arnold or Riordan will be the Party's choice. If there is an election seperate from the recall, and if the Dems run one candidate of stature, a really big if, I thik the governorship will stay in the hands of the Dems.

On a side note, did anyone else see that Orrin Hatch has proposed a constitutional amendment to elimante the native born American requirement for the Presidency? From what I've read this is Hatch's attempt to set up a chance for an Arnold presidency down the line. Strange.

[JPhillips]

Adtnmru66o: But wouldn't you at least agree that the threshold for forcing a new election is ridiculously low? Why should twelve percent be able to call a new election? I'd take this more seriously if the cut off were 25% or 30%, but either party can get 12% if they set their minds to it. Issa claims to have spent less than two million on getting the signatures. This just seems like a really easy way for a rich guy to change an election.

[Anrhydeddu]

That's the way it has been in many recall proposals throughout the country. Besides, with 25-30% turnout for state/local elections, half of that number seems pretty good, unfortunately. Having lived in California for a while (including the Prop 13 election), I do agree with the overkill on amendments. Here in Colorado, we have a recent law that each proposition must be short, concise and limited to one specific law.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Yes, shame on them (and probably over a million voters) wanting an incompetant governor out.

Much better than re-electing an incompetent governor a second time (Maryland's former King Parris I).

[clintl]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Yes, shame on them (and probably over a million voters) wanting an incompetant governor out.

Here is the problem I have with what the Republicans did. Last spring, they were stupid enough to nominate one of the worst candidates that ever lived, Bill Simon. Not only did he have NO relevant experience, but he had a long history of questionable business ethics. If they had nominated either of the other two candidates, Richard Riordan or Bill Jones, they probably could have won the election. So it's their own damn fault that they lost the election. They nominated the wrong guy.

However, once they had lost, it took them one month to conceive of, and launch, the recall. Davis had not yet even been inaugurated for his second term. So this was NOT about removing an incompetent governor; it was about the Republicans wanted a second chance after screwing up the first time.

Davis has not been the greatest governor, but the mess is not solely his fault. All four legislative leaders (Democrats John Burton and Harold Wesson, and Republicans Jim Brulte and Dave Cox) are every bit as responsible as Davis, and I would have a lot more sympathy for the movement if those four guys were also targets of recalls.

[heybrad]

Clint,

In regards to your "this is republican led" comments... I'm curious as to what you feel Gray Davis has done for California. I dont mean this jokingly. I really am so against this guy, that I dont understand how the voters fell asleep at the switch at the last election. Well... I guess I partially understand since the only alternative seemed to be Bill Simon and he comes across as a doof.

California was recently listed as the worst fiscally managed state in the US. It has a democratic governor and a democratic legislature and yet all I hear is that the problems are due to the republicans causing gridlock on the budget. It seems to me that we as a state have horribly overspent and its time to put a stop to it.

Anyway... I'd be interested to hear a pro-Davis argument that is actually about Davis instead of bashing others. Its interesting to note that Gray Davis is considered one of the biggest smear campaign artists even amongst his own party. If there is anything good about the guy, I'd like to hear it.

[heybrad]

Dola... Clint, keep in mind I was typing my response before I saw your last post.

[cuervo72]

heybrad squared.

[clintl]

Originally posted by heybrad
Clint,

In regards to your "this is republican led" comments... I'm curious as to what you feel Gray Davis has done for California. I dont mean this jokingly. I really am so against this guy, that I dont understand how the voters fell asleep at the switch at the last election. Well... I guess I partially understand since the only alternative seemed to be Bill Simon and he comes across as a doof.

California was recently listed as the worst fiscally managed state in the US. It has a democratic governor and a democratic legislature and yet all I hear is that the problems are due to the republicans causing gridlock on the budget. It seems to me that we as a state have horribly overspent and its time to put a stop to it.

Anyway... I'd be interested to hear a pro-Davis argument that is actually about Davis instead of bashing others. Its interesting to note that Gray Davis is considered one of the biggest smear campaign artists even amongst his own party. If there is anything good about the guy, I'd like to hear it.

I am not really pro-Davis. He has been a big disappointment. However, I think the real problem is not so much Davis, but the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget in the legislature. Basically, it makes it impossible to hold either party accountable when things go bad, because the minority party can block passage of the budget. Davis proposed a budget (very similar in approach to what Republican Pete Wilson proposed during similar budget problems in the '90s) in January that the non-partisan Legislative Analyst said would work to close the deficit, and the Legislature basically refused to even do anything with it. In addition, the Republicans are flat out lying when they say the deficit is solely due to overspending. When there was a surplus, they insisted on, and got, some big tax cuts to go along with the spending increases the Democrats wanted. So the truth is that both spending increases and tax cuts contributed to the current situation.

There was a report I saw yesterday by some UC economists that prior to Davis' election, California ranked 24th in the nation in per capita state spending, and it still ranks 24th. And it ranked 46th in per capita state employees before Davis, and still ranks 46th. So this myth that California somehow went wild with spending compared to other states is just that - a myth and another Republican lie. Almost every state has had budget problems. The big difference between California and the other states is that the Republicans in those other states have decided to favor pragmatism over dogmatism.

There are other people I'd rather have as governor than Davis, but I don't see any of them on the list of potential recall candidates so far.

[neofied]

On a side note, did anyone else see that Orrin Hatch has proposed a constitutional amendment to elimante the native born American requirement for the Presidency? From what I've read this is Hatch's attempt to set up a chance for an Arnold presidency down the line. Strange.

I think this should be changed. Many immigrants come to this country, become citizens and productive members of society. They become just as American as someone born here. Yet they're forbidden from running for office. Just doesn't seem right to me.

Back to the subject of this election, there is some wording in the California Constitution regarding recalls. It pretty much said that if there is a candidate to replace the recalled leader, the candidate with the most votes is the replacement. It's all there in black and white.

True, another part of the Consitution says the Lt. Gov. becomes Gov. if the Gov. leaves office. But that doesn't apply in this case, since there is a procedure in place for a recall. Only if someone didn't run to replace Davis would Bustamante become governor.

At this point, Bustamante would have to run himself if he wanted to replace Davis.

Seems the only reason they aren't following the recall election rules, is that the Democrats don't want to field a candidate and stand behind Davis. That's their decision. If they lose they accept the consequences.

My guess is that there will be a two-question election and that the Democrats will be forced to field candidates.

[clintl]

Neofied, I think the State Supreme Court will ultimately decide what the ballot looks like, and I don't blame Bustamante at all for asking them to clarify. Even if he has a stake in the ruling, the state is in the long run better off if the question is addressed before the election, rather than after. I think the Court will rule as you stated, but I don't think it's a 100% certainty that it will.

I also think that there's a good chance some ambitious Democrat (probably from the state legislature if it's not Bustamante) will step forward and run, and if he or she wins, all will be forgiven (it's not like Davis actually has any real political friends). Or, once the Republican field is known for sure, if it looks like Davis is in trouble, the Democrats might recruit someone at the last minute.

[neofied]

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the
date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction
in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters
eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at
least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall
election.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives
a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate,
nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to
subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

Note the last part, where it says "if there is a candidate." We know there are candidates who will be running. Whoever gets the most votes is the replacement.

This is done so that Davis can't run himself. If it is held later, it leaves the door open for Davis to run again. That's why it is done on the same ballot.

If Bustamante or any other Democrat want to replace Davis should he be voted out you must run on the recall ballot and not wait to see if he's voted out. That's what the law is clear on.

I've read that is what the Democrats are waiting for. They feel they won't look as bad by letting Davis simply get recalled and running in a later election. The later election would be held in the March primary.

However, Bustamente's theory is that you hold the election during the March primary. Of course, that would lead to the question, of whether this would be a gubernatorial primary? And would the gubernatorial general election be held with the Presidential election the following November? And would the winner serve a four year term or a two year term as the replacement?

Bustamante's scenario of replacing Davis only applies if he is dies, becomes incapacitated/unable to work, resigns, or is impeached. It doesn't apply in the case of the recall, where there is special procedure in place.

Bustamente this morning said he fears perpetual recall elections, yet he fails to realize just how rare this is. At the same time, if he wants to make it harder to recall than he must change the law. As it stands now and as Kevin Shelley said the current law is in effect and must be upheld.

The best thing that can happen is for a field of Democrats to join the election. And I think this would be a great time for Feinstein to make her move.

Whatever the case, I don't want Bustamante as Governor. If there is anyone as bad as Davis, I think it might be Bustamante.

[clintl]

That is not Bustamante's position, as I understand it. Bustamante's position is that there is a potential conflict between this part of the election law and other parts of the California Constitution, which provide for the Lt. Governor to become Governor if there is a vacancy, and for the specific wording about scheduling the recall election, which uses the specific words, "if appropriate" as far as scheduling the election of replacement candidates at the same time. If the recall is deemed to create a vacancy, then Bustamante would become governor, and there would be no replacement election at all; it basically makes the recall a Davis vs. Bustamante election.

[heybrad]

Clints got it right, but I think it will go to the Supreme Court and they can decide on the legislative intent as it relates to the conflict in the Constitution.

If it were a Governor vs Lt Gov. election in a recall, why have all the recall election language in the Constitution?

[neofied]

"if appropriate" applies to judges. Remember Rose Bird anyone? Since judges are appointed, it is not appropriate to have the replacement vote.

Sure you could argue there is a conflict and Bustamante brings up a good argument. But there is precedent for recalls. In previous recall votes, there has always been the second question.

You also could argue "if appropriate" means "if there is a candidate."

If there isn't a candidate, that is when Bustamante becomes Governor. Makes perfect sense to me.

If 59 days before the recall vote, no candidate has qualified to run on the replacement part of the ballot than that part of the ballot is left off. After the election, there is a vacany. Bustamante becomes Gov., serves out the term, and creates a vacancy for Lt. Gov.

[clintl]

I agree with you, Brad, and I think the Supreme Court will rule that way, but at this point, I think it's in our best interest that they do hear the case and rule, whatever their ruling is.

I also read today that there's another new legal wrinkle; apparently there is a group claiming that voters are required by California election law, to vote on the first part (the recall itself) if they want to vote on the second part (the replacement candidates), and that this provision in the law violates the U.S. Constitution. So they're suing to get the recall process itself thrown out.

[clintl]

Originally posted by neofied
"if appropriate" applies to judges. Remember Rose Bird anyone? Since judges are appointed, it is not appropriate to have the replacement vote.

Sure you could argue there is a conflict and Bustamante brings up a good argument. But there is precedent for recalls. In previous recall votes, there has always been the second question.

You also could argue "if appropriate" means "if there is a candidate."

If there isn't a candidate, that is when Bustamante becomes Governor. Makes perfect sense to me.

If 59 days before the recall vote, no candidate has qualified to run on the replacement part of the ballot than that part of the ballot is left off. After the election, there is a vacany. Bustamante becomes Gov., serves out the term, and creates a vacancy for Lt. Gov.

No recall of a California governor has ever made it passed the petition-gathering stage, so there is no precedent, because there is no other statewide or local office with an automatic successor in case of a vacancy. Ultimately, what "if appropriate" means will be determined by the California Supreme Court. I say, let's just wait, and see what they decide.

As far as a vacancy in the Lt. Gov's office if Bustamante becomes governor - Bustamante appoints his successor.

[neofied]

Actually under California law (and most state laws) you can skip portions of any ballot. All that matters is that the recall go 50 percent either way and that someone gets a simple plurality of the second vote.

There are people who will skip the ballot measures. There are people who will only vote for offices they are familiar with. There are some who vote for President and Governor only. It's your ballot.

The interesting thing will be to see how the new touch screen systems handle the election.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl
No recall of a California governor has ever made it passed the petition-gathering stage, so there is no precedent, because there is no other statewide or local office with an automatic successor in case of a vacancy. Ultimately, what "if appropriate" means will be determined by the California Supreme Court. I say, let's just wait, and see what they decide.

There is precedent for statewide offices. If your state senator is recalled, you vote than.

It's logical as it saves the state money. When a state senator leaves office, the governor appoints until such time a special election is held.

The idea there is to save money and essentially hold the special election at the same time.

There also is precedent in the North Dakota governor recall in 1921. Oddly enough, ND was in a similar financial situation as California. The replacement was on the same ballot.

As far as a vacancy in the Lt. Gov's office if Bustamante becomes governor - Bustamante appoints his successor.

True, but only until the next election.

[clintl]

North Dakota's 1921 election laws have no relevance to California's 2003 election laws.

And again, what makes the governor potentially a different situation is that the California Constitution has a provision for an automatic successor in case of a vacancy, something that is not true of any other California office holder.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl
North Dakota's 1921 election laws have no relevance to California's 2003 election laws.

If it gets to the Federal level, it might.

And again, what makes the governor potentially a different situation is that the California Constitution has a provision for an automatic successor in case of a vacancy, something that is not true of any other California office holder.

That is true. But than again the California Constitution also has rules in place for when a senator, assemlymember, or a county supervisor is recalled. In all three cases the governor appoints until a special election can be held.

Yet during recalls in those situations, that hasn't been what happened. The vote is held at the same time.

And that provision only applies when the governor is impeached, incapacitated, or resigns.

[clintl]

The federal courts will not get involved unless there is a federal issue, and differences between state election laws are not, by themselves, a federal issue.

And yes, the California Constitution does address vacancies in other offices, but in every case, the governor makes the appointment. There is no one to appoint a successor to the governor, so that's why there is an automatic succession. That's what makes the office of governor different from every other office.

And again, until the Supreme Court rules, no one knows 100% for sure what all this means. You can argue all you want, but the California Supreme Court has the sole power to determine how and under what circumstances the provision applies, and they have not done so yet.

[neofied]

SEC. 10. The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a
vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor shall act as Governor during the
impeachment, absence from the State, or other temporary disability of
the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office.
The Legislature shall provide an order of precedence after the
Lieutenant Governor for succession to the office of Governor and for
the temporary exercise of the Governor's functions.
The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all
questions arising under this section.
Standing to raise questions of vacancy or temporary disability is
vested exclusively in a body provided by statute.

"When a vacancy occurs" is the key phrase there. However, the understanding is that when Davis is recalled, the replacement election is held if there is a/are candiate/candidates.

After the election, it's up to the Secretary Of State to verify the results.

If Davis is recalled, he leaves office immediately after certification of the vote. If there is a replacement selected, that person takes the office of Governor immediately after certification. There is no waiting until January or big innaugration. The replacement is sworn in immediately after the voting is certified. This would happen within a matter of weeks after the Oct. 7 election.

Because of the above, there is never a vacancy and Bustamante doesn't become governor. The recall provisions have been followed and there never was a vacancy.

However there is chance there could be a vacancy if nobody is confirmed for the replacement portion of the ballot. If Davis were recalled and no replacement chosen, an immediate vacancy would occur. At that point Bustamante becomes governor.

Here are some scenarios

-- Davis recalled, certified, replacement chosen, certified, no vacancy created, replacement becomes governor.
-- Davis recalled, certified, replacement chosen, not certified, vacancy create, Bustamante becomes governor.
-- Davis recalled, certified, replacement not chosen, vacancy created, Bustamante becomes governor.
-- Davis not recalled.

This is how the picture is being painted on the news today. There never is a vacancy for Bustamante if the recall provision goes through without a hitch.

However if there are no candidates or the replacement candidate wins, but is not certified to serve, than a vacancy is created and Bustamante becomes governor.

If Bustamante wants to become governor, his safest bet would be to take out papers and become a candidate.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl
And yes, the California Constitution does address vacancies in other offices, but in every case, the governor makes the appointment.

But this has never happened in other recall elections for offices in which the governor would otherwise make an appointment.

There is no one to appoint a successor to the governor, so that's why there is an automatic succession. That's what makes the office of governor different from every other office.

If you put the recall provisions and the governor sucessor provision together, it's pretty simple to interpret how this works.

And again, until the Supreme Court rules, no one knows 100% for sure what all this means. You can argue all you want, but the California Supreme Court has the sole power to determine how and under what circumstances the provision applies, and they have not done so yet.

The kicker is that they have to act fast, within a matter of days for two reasons:

-- Candidates have to certify for the ballot at least 59 days in advance.
-- To allow time for the preparation of ballots.

It's safe to say this will be Florida all over again, with people nitpicking at the law and not taking a FWIW approach.

[clintl]

You are basically repeating the position of the recall supporters. I agree with you that most likely, the California Supreme Court will rule exactly as you say. However, until it does so, it is not a certainty. You seem to be missing the point that interpreting the California Constitution is the job of the California Supreme Court, and that there is a question being raised about the correct interpretation. And the Court, and only the Court, will make the final decision.

Yes, Bustamante would be well-advised to be ready to take out papers, but he has a while still to do that. Papers can be filed up to 59 days before the election, and he has scheduled it for Oct. 7. That gives him (and the Commission and Court) 16 days to litigate, argue, and resolve the interpretation once and for all.

[neofied]

The court also would have to consider state election code which would clearly show no vacancy would be created.

Election law says that the successor MUST be chosen on the same ballot:

11322. In addition to the material contained in Section 11320,

(a) The names of the candidates nominated to succeed the officer
sought to be recalled shall appear under each recall question.
(b) Following each list of candidates, the ballot shall provide
one blank line with a voting space to the right of it for the voter
to write in a name not printed on the ballot.

11385. If at a recall election an officer is recalled, the
candidate receiving the highest number of votes for the office shall
be declared elected for the unexpired term of the recalled officer.

Basically Davis remains in power until the SoS certifies the election. When the election is certified, Davis is out and the replacement takes his place, with no vacancy created.

BUT ... Here's where the Constitution applies and the only situation where Bustamante becomes governor:

11386. If the candidate who received the highest number of votes
fails to qualify within 10 days after receiving his or her
certificate of election, the office to which he or she was elected
shall be vacant, and shall be filled according to law.

The interesting thing here is that Bustamante could lose the replacement portion of the election and still become governor if the winner doesn't qualify.

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by clintl
Here is the problem I have with what the Republicans did. Last spring, they were stupid enough to nominate one of the worst candidates that ever lived, Bill Simon. Not only did he have NO relevant experience, but he had a long history of questionable business ethics.

LOL. Instead we elected Enron's top Politician and the man who received the most financial benefits from Enron AS WELL as the guy who A) Has taken California down economically B) The Power Crisis? Before you go blaming Pete Wilson, Every powerplant Gray Davis "built" was a Pete Wilson started project.

It was a bad choice for both parties last election. Simon wasn't elected, not because he was inexperienced or had a questionable background (I'm sure you have seen that email that's been around about the members of Congress and the crimes they have committed), but because he was WAY to conservative for California. He was in favor of limited marriage rights for Homosexuals, Pro-Life, in favor of Vouchers, wasn't that enviro-friendly, and was in favor of guns. He won nearly every county but the two biggest population size ones, which cost him the election.

Right now, Democrats aren't looking so hot in California either. The recorded message of the Budget Committee Democrats discussing whether a Budget impass will help them more this year or next year for the election. California is running out of money, schools are super tight cash wise, especially the JC's, roads are not being worked on, and the Democrats are concerned about how to get re-elected. And here you wanted a career politican as our leader and not a "inexperienced one"

And to let it state, I didn't sign the recall petition nor will I vote in the recall election. California screwed itself and they need to live with the decision. Parties lines is what hurt us last election, and it will again this year

[clintl]

ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE


SEC. 10. The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a
vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor shall act as Governor during the
impeachment, absence from the State, or other temporary disability of
the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office.
The Legislature shall provide an order of precedence after the
Lieutenant Governor for succession to the office of Governor and for
the temporary exercise of the Governor's functions.
The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all
questions arising under this section.
Standing to raise questions of vacancy or temporary disability is
vested exclusively in a body provided by statute.

That's just as clear that the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to decide how succession is applied.