Well folks, after several weeks of what seemed like an endless array of stories about an inept governor, a vague movie star, and copious amounts of groping, the voters of California finally voted to recall Gray Davis and replace him with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's a shame.
Progressive governor Hiram Johnson - with the best of intensions - helped put the recall provision into place in 1911. After the widespread corruption of the Gilded Age, recall was a revolutionary concept, stating that the public could hold officials accountable for their actions.
Though they all should, only 18 states currently have recall provisions. Only seven state grounds for validity. Grounds are necessary because a recall essentially overturns a democratic election. Such a powerful tool should not be used lightly. For example, Minnesota's grounds for recall are "serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office." While this isn't perfect, it is better than California's anything-goes policy.
The recall proponents' case against Davis (as stated to the Secretary of State) was based on political opinions to show that he is an incompetent governor. That is a subjective view - anybody can make a case for incompetence based on ideological perspective. The list did not cite any evidence of malfeasance - laws being broken. Any tool of this magnitude should be above politics; it should be based on the law and whether it is followed or not.
The two-question ballot is undemocratic because it could (though it did not this time) result in the official being recalled and replaced by someone with even less support than the recalled official.
This is why California (and the rest of the country) needs to learn from this mess. The time has come for state legislatures to amend their recall provisions. In order for a recall proposal to be valid, there must be significant evidence of malfeasance. The recall ballot should be one question: Should the official in question be recalled? If the "yes" vote wins, then that official will be removed from office and replaced according to the line of succession established in the state constitution. This will vary from state to state. In California, it means that the Lt. governor would assume the office.
There are other compelling reasons to vote against the recall as well. One is that the election cost $66 million. It is hypocritical for Darrell Issa and those of his ilk to criticize Davis's spending habits while promoting such a wasteful expenditure-one that certainly won't help California's economic woes.
Another compelling reason is that the replacement candidates all looked worse than Davis, particularly the top two. Cruz Bustamante is beholden to the state's gambling interests. Governor-elect Schwarzenneger is even worse; his entire campaign has been an insult to the public. In a recent Eagle op-ed, Evan Wagner said that the governor should keep people interested in the process and keep them debating about the issues. I agree. So how can he support a candidate who offers no details about proposed policy, and instead just throws out cheesy movie lines? How can he support a candidate who not only refused to debate the man he wanted to recall, but also refused to do an unscripted debate against the other replacement candidates? Schwarzenegger says that he will "pump up Sacramento," but he doesn't say how he will do the pumping.
In the world's fifth largest economy the stakes are higher, so leaders should be held to a higher standard. Schwarzenegger won by lowering the public's standards.
By focusing on sensational allegations of sexual impropriety rather than substance, the Democrats played into the Republicans' hands. Davis should have let down his personal wall and let the state get to know him better. If he was a likeable guy, he would've beaten the recall easily.
But regardless of his lack of a personality, it simply is not reasonable to pin all of the state's problems on him. The state Legislature is very difficult, especially since a two-thirds majority is needed to pass a budget. Like all states, it has faced a significant burden thanks to President Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. But that didn't matter to the narrow-minded and self-interested recall proponents. They were very smart. They realized that when times are tough, the public looks for a scapegoat. Gray Davis was the perfect patsy.
I seriously hope that under Schwarzenegger things will improve for California. But history has shown that it takes a lot more than getting rid of a scapegoat to solve complex problems.
