Some Progressives Are Now Claiming California's Recall Election Is 'Undemocratic'

But they don't really think that the recall process is illegitimate or unconstitutional. They simply don't like that it's being used against one of their own.


California Democrats are dressing up their opposition to the Sept. 14 recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsom by pointing to high-minded principles, but their arguments are hard to take seriously. Progressives don't really think that the recall process is illegitimate or unconstitutional. They simply don't like that it's being used against one of their own.

I've got mixed feelings about this particular recall, mainly because, as my colleague Matt Fleming noted in his column today, the organizers blame in their "statement of reasons" illegal immigrants for the bulk of California's problems. Our state's problems entirely are the making of its U.S.-citizen politicians and the voters that have empowered them.

Nevertheless, the recall process—like the two other cornerstones of direct democracy, the initiative and referendum—is dyed into the fabric of our state. Today's progressives, who claim to stand for the power of the people against special interests and the political class, despise a process that was devised by early 1900s progressives for that explicit purpose.

Their opposition is situational, an outgrowth of their fear that the public isn't nearly as given to liberal pipedreams as they would like. Note the results from November, when the same California voters who reliably send Democrats to Sacramento rejected initiatives that would expand rent control, increase commercial property taxes, and re-impose race-based college admissions. They supported a measure that exempts drivers from a ban on independent contracting.

This special election is entirely legitimate. State law clearly spells out the rules. Recall supporters gathered the requisite signatures, submitted them for approval, and have legally placed it on the ballot. By contrast, California Democrats toyed with the schedule, as they passed a law designed to speed up the election date because they believed an earlier date would help Newsom.

As news reports note, they previously passed a law to protect Sen. Josh Newman (D–Los Angeles) from a recall in 2018 by moving the date to a more Democratic-friendly primary. Their goal in both situations was to rig the rules to benefit their candidates, so they ought not to lecture us about their, er, principled opposition to this time-tested election innovation. Their only principle is whatever helps them the most.

"Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks and a lineup of Democratic elected officials claimed the recall effort was a 'coup' to remove Newsom, led by far-right extremists including white supremacists and neo-Nazis," according to an Associated Press report from January. I love this line in the AP story: "However, they provided no evidence to support the allegations." Seriously, a coup?

Democratic attacks on the recall haven't gotten much better since then. "The same Republicans who refused to hold Donald Trump accountable for the deadly insurrection of January 6th are now trying to hold Governor Newsom accountable for the failures of Donald Trump. The recall effort is partisan, reckless, dangerous," said U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D–Calif.).

From a political perspective, it's fair game to depict this election as a partisan, right-wing, blah-blah-blah effort, but I'm disturbed by ongoing arguments that the recall process itself is some affront to democracy or a distortion of the original creation. The father of direct democracy, Gov. Hiram Johnson, argued "that if you believe in the recall, and if in your wisdom you desire its adoption by the people, you make no exception in its application." That's rather far-reaching.

The latest absurdity comes from UC-Berkeley professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Aaron Edlin. They've offered a novel argument for why this type of election, which is embedded in the state Constitution, is unconstitutional. They're concerned that the winning candidate might end up with fewer votes than the "no" side on the recall question.

"The most basic principles of democracy are that the candidate who gets the most votes is elected and that every voter gets an equal say in an election's outcome" they argued in a New York Times op-ed. "The California system for voting in a recall election violates these principles and should be declared unconstitutional."

That's a fascinating legalistic theory, but simply is a contortion that would gut the state's direct democracy in service to short-term political preferences. As Johnson noted in his first inaugural address, "The opponents of direct legislation and the recall, however they may phrase their opposition, in reality believe the people cannot be trusted."

Progressives apparently no longer trust the people they claim to represent. Conservatives—at least in some other states—aren't much better as they seek to rein in their initiative systems because they are yielding results (e.g., marijuana legalization) they dislike. That's an odd position for newfound champions of populism.

California voters often do the wrong thing, but I trust them to decide whether to recall their governor. But whatever you decide, base it on your views of Newsom's governance—not on bogus arguments about the illegitimacy or undemocratic nature of the state's recall process.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Review: Reminiscence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Darn that insurrection against Newsom.

    1. The day after the Democrats branded me a conspiracy theorist, insurrectionist, and racist was the day a bunch of signatures got added to that recall petition. My sisters, who are pretty non-political, got political at being called that.

      The recall is about Newsome being a dick. And a shite governor, and a typical “do as I say, not as I do” leader. Independents wouldn’t be on board otherwise.

      Actually… lemme find the quote:

      >“This recall effort, which really ought to be called the California coup, is being led by right-wing conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, anti-vaxxers and groups who encourage violence on our democratic institutions,” said state Democratic Party chairman Rusty Hicks.

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in kSx the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

      2. Yep. Fuck Newsome, and fuck California progressives.

        1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.GBw You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom… You can have your first check by the end of this week…Lifetime Opportunity

          This is what I do……………… VISIT HERE

      3. I agree with you on what the recall is about.

        Newsom is a rich kid who has no clue how normal people live. His father was a trustee for the Getty Trust for God’s sake. He is isolated from outrageous housing prices, sky high gas, water and electricity prices, awful public education performance, inability to get a job because one’s skills are worth less than minimum wage, tripping over homeless people, having one’s car broken into every few months by drug addicts, and rapidly escalating violent crime.

        Newsom is a clone of Marie Antoinette. Her “I am better than you.” “Let them eat cake!” attitude got her guillotined.

        We don’t guillotine officials in the US, but a recall is sufficient.

        Psst…. You may want to think about moving the free Republic of Texas.

        1. I think jail would be a better solution for some of the stuff that has been pulled by these politicians while in office. At least give us the satisfaction of a good tar and feathering.

          I also like the Czech solution of defenestration. It will only be 20 ft tops.

    2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month.CXz I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      You can check it out here……… VISIT HERE

    3. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable XSa but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

      Learn more about it here……. VISIT HERE

    4. Pay no attention to that Libertarian candidate Jeff Hewitt…

      1. Agreed, it’s better not to risk it with people with an L behind their name these days. Big L is for Loser.

    5. Progressives are simply afraid that Newsom will lose.

  2. The recall is unDemocratic because it might adversely affect Democrats.

    1. Democrats are an affront to democracy.

    2. I hope Newsom loses. Nevertheless, the California recall set-up *is* weird and un-small-D-democratic, allowing a candidate opposed by a heavy majority of voters in the state to be elected with an unconvincing (eg 20%) plurality on the recall ballot.
      California’s open primary suggests a better model: a preliminary round with the governor and all his challengers on the same ballot. If nobody gets over 50%, then have a run-off two weeks later among the top two vote getters.

      1. Hugo,
        CA claims that it is already spending $750 million on this recall. You suggest would cost far more.

        1. I suppose you mean that two election days would be twice as expensive as one election day. But if the one-day approach gives a nonsensical result, is the money saved really a good deal?

  3. What a shock. When a political party is concerned about the outcome, they attack the process.

    The hyperbolic radio commercials out here (I don’t watch local tv) are 100% on the “Stop the Recall” side of the equation. As noted in the article, they all try to link the recall effort to Donald Trump, his refusal to accept the results, the Jan 6 Riot, etc.

    Interestingly all the commercials tell voters to VOTE NO on the recall effort- but none tell you who to vote for on the second question (If Newsome is Recalled, who should replace him).

    I seriously doubt this recall succeeds. The Democratic party, with the help of its Technocratic allies, knows exactly who cares, and they have the machine to send volunteers to every single one of those residences to bring in ballots. Meanwhile the recall is being run on a shoestring budget by amateurs.

    Had this happened when the French Laundry Photos came out, Newsome would have been in big trouble (in fact that event is really what got the recall petition across the finish line). Absent Newsome having some spectacular fuck up on the order of Afghanistan, I see him staying around. The only good news is that it has kept him from meddling too much with lockdowns and other stupid legislation.

    1. “When a political party is concerned about the outcome, they attack the process.”

      Yes! But more broadly, when people, like many liberals, are focused only on desired (and sometimes superficial and arbitrary) outcomes, and have absolutely no respect for truly universal ethics and rules, of course they will judge everything accordingly.

      Thus they fetishize “democracy” but it really means a set of specific outcomes and edicts, not an open process that could lead to an undesired result.

      1. Leftists fetishize “democracy” the same way the Jihadists fetishize “honor.” Neither of those two terms, as rhetorically employed, mean anything other than an unwavering allegiance to a preferred ideological framework. If you have to cancel elections to preserve “democracy,” so be it. After all, sometimes you have to stone a woman to death to prove that women need to be protected.

        1. Everyone knows that “democracy” means “a system of government that ensures that the right kind of people get into power.” That’s why the EU can characterize the governments of Poland and Hungary–both legitimately chosen by the people (demos) of that country, in free and honest elections–as threats to democracy. (I swear, one of their arguments is that the governments are undermining judicial independence. I always thought that an independent judiciary was meant to be a check on democracy, but that just shows how I haven’t mastered the Newspeak of the EU mandarins.)

    2. As the saying goes, “you can vote your way into communism, but you have to shoot your way out.”

    3. The “lockdowns” aren’t “legislation”. They’re ukases. And the reason there’s a recall isn’t the French Laundry kerfuffle or even the self-exemption for his winery, it’s precisely a reaction to the lockdowns. (I would have hoped the insane power outages — not currently being repeated despite larger wldfires than any at the time — would have been enough, but it wasn’t).

      Unfortunately, none of the other individuals who are running for Governor seem to be concentrating on defeating Newsom. Elder has seemed particularly deficient in this regard. The first ad I saw from him started off about some tax increase, and I saw him wasting rhetoric ion the Great Society… and declaring that Biden’s election was “free and fair”(!)). The former is true enough and I can see why he told the SacBee the latter… if his object is to finish ahead of the other hopefuls. But it’s not getting job#1 done.

    4. I don’t like Newsom or democrat policies. Still, I didn’t see that Newsom did anything so universally intolerable that he should be kicked out. When Elizabeth Warren blanketed the state with “deplorables” ads, I realized that this is war. To hell with him, I’ll vote him out.

      1. I voted against Newsom.
        But my wife convinced my son to vote for the first time in a dozen years to more than cancel my vote.

  4. Pretty lame. Dems should accept it’s legitimate and if voters truly think Newsom is worse than one of the other 48 on the ballot, then so be it. If your guy is that bad, he should be ousted.

    1. I agree on that.

    2. That was actually pretty logical.

    3. The election is about gangs, not guys. The communist did the usual job and the fascists are trying to exploit that to get one of their looters in. Jeff Hewitt the Libertarian is being crowded offstage by Long Dong Silver II in a “fascism is Libertarian” campaign the media is lapping up like warm dog vomit.

  5. Progressives are utilitarian in their arguments. It is always about the main chance. You might want to apply that to the Democrat’s other claims about “democracy” and it threats.

    1. Progressives are in the fortunate position that their prominent opposition, mainline (R)’s, is such a pointless collection of the worthless. Luckily this isn’t Newsom vs anyone in particular, so it’s actually an unusual opportunity to get something different in.

  6. Maybe they should have warned the Dems to not push the recall forward to September.

    A huge chunk of the electorate have an attention span barely more than that of the toddler.

    By November, these people would basically forget all of these inane COVID-19 restrictions.

    1. By then even more of the state will be on fire and the power will be out and a new variant will be requiring new lockdowns. Delta variant already brought back the mask mandates, less than 2 months after it was lifted.

      1. ^

      2. Notice that the new mandates for venues to check vax status dont’ come into effect until the week AFTER the election?

        Can’t have people getting pissed off when they get barred from a concert until after they can’t vote.

      3. Newsom will NOT under any circumstances repeat the power outages before the election. Otherwise the Dixie Fire, etc., would have triggered it.

    2. Bingo. The insane power outages are already ancient history, apparently.

  7. The latest absurdity comes from UC Berkeley professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Aaron Edlin. They’ve offered a novel argument for why this type of election, which is embedded in the state Constitution, is unconstitutional.

    “… that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    1. Has Laurence Tribe pitched in yet? In my view, these vaunted legal “scholars” are a few political twists and turns away from outright declaring that the entire federal Constitution is itself unconstitutional.

    2. In a cite from their NYT op-ed by California Globe:

      “The first question is decided by a majority vote,” said Chemerinsky and Edlin in the op-ed. “If a majority favors recalling Mr. Newsom, he is removed from office. But the latter question is decided by a plurality, and whichever candidate gets the most votes, even if it is much less than a majority, becomes the next governor. Critically, Mr. Newsom is not on the ballot for the second question.”

      Jesus tap-dancing Christ…I’ve always known that pants-on-head stupidity was a bonus when applying for a professorship at Berkley, but apparently it’s actually a basic requirement.

  8. Who cares what Greenhut has to say about anything. All credibility lost.

  9. I just wish Cali would address another immigration problem, all its idiot citizenry that continues to flee to TX and elsewhere bringing their Newsom Bullshit politics with them.

    1. They’re so fed up with the socialist utopia they built in CA that they just have to bring it to TX.

    2. Emigration problem.

    3. I’ve been saying all along I don’t need a wall between me and Mexico, I need a wall between me and California.

      1. I’d be fine with my tax money going to that Fat Mike!

        Can we get the wall to include Washington and Oregon too?

        1. Just get rid of the democrats. Problem solved.

      2. ^100%

      3. I have long contemplated putting up a sign on 40 on the AZ side of the Colorado River saying “You Are Now Leaving America”.

  10. So democrats come out to stop the steal?

  11. Reason headline:
    Some Progressives Are Now Claiming California’s Recall Election Is ‘Undemocratic’

    Some Regressives Are Now Claiming California’s Recall Election Is ‘Undemocratic’

    There is nothing progressive about left wing totalitarians who want to redistribute wealth to folks who vote Democrat. That’s regression, not progression.

    1. If you are an ideologically driven group with a solid ideology that you want to convince others to adopt, you use that label. “Libertarians”, for example. Or “the Communist Party of America”.

      If, however, you know that people will reject your ideology yet you still seek power, you choose a label that obfuscates the true purpose of your group.

      “Progressives”. They are for progress. Who could be against progress??

      1. “Libertarians” is also mostly a lie, however. Are libertarians for liberty? Sure — the liberty to smoke weed, do drugs, and fuck for money. Everything else? Not so much. If Reason is any indication, Libertarians are slightly right leaning leftists that will simply become leftists once leftists become outright communists.

          1. Remeber all the articles about Operation Chokepoint? I have yet to read a single article about how Biden revived it. Even the article above doesn’t mention it.

            1. The Titty Streamer demonetization was operation choke-the-chicken point.

        1. Reason isn’t much of an indicator of what actual libertarians think, these days.

          I mean, they’re slightly better than the New York Times, but not by nearly as much as they should be.

        2. True. I’m registered “Libertarian” in CA to keep the nice name on the ballot, but it did not elude my attention when their Presidential candidate endorsed the “public accommodation” theory to force that cake maker to design frosting patterns for homosexual weddings. If a “Libertarian” is not for freedom of association he’s flying a false flag. That one’s nomination was about nothing but pot.

        3. Mystical bigot having carpet-biting Rapture fit in front of the Billy Graham bookstand. We need a wet mop, some Trump butthurt salve, a fire extinguisher, pepper spray and a straightjacket on the double!

          1. You might consider leaving the cheap LSD alone for a while.

  12. What an odd article.

    It is kind of like the inverse “complement sandwich”.

    I suppose the logic goes “since we all know that democrats are normally just and noble, we shall bracket our criticism in this one narrow area with attacks on republicans in unrelated areas.”

    1. Why place one’s invitation to a responsibly masked, social distanced cocktail party for the triple jabbed in Manhattan in jeopardy? Nobody needs that kind of trouble.

      1. Dem cocktail parties aren’t “responsibly masked, social distanced”. That’s for the peons, not the nomenklatura,

    2. I was relieved when he worked in the unsupported Both Sides supposition at the very end.

  13. Their goal in both situations was to rig the rules to benefit their candidates…

    You mean like many states rigged their rules to hurt Trump last November? When is rigging voting rules good vs. bad?

    1. I think you know the answer to that – when rigging voting benefits democrats it’s good, when it favors republicans it’s bad.

      Hard to imagine any honest person opposing election audits – so, I can only assume if someone opposes audits – they are dishonest, and don’t want to know the results. Obviously, they suspect the audit will find something that will reflect poorly on their party…

  14. How absurd can one be? Allowing voters more opportunities to decide who their elected officials are is undemocratic? Seems like their complaint is actually too much democracy.

  15. May the elections be good for everybody.

  16. The main problem with the recall is that if Newsom loses, his replacement may have less than 20% of the vote. They should probably have a runoff in future recalls. Of course, they can simply recall the replacement.

    1. Yeah, that part is odd. They should have a runoff with enough candidates to total 50% of the vote in the first round.

      But Dems want to write in Newsom for the second question, even though he is ineligible (since a majority will have voted to remove him.)

      1. It wouldn’t be very practical, maybe, but Newsom is not disqualified from re-election at some future point, AFAIK, so why would a write-in campaign be fully functional? I don’t even see why he couldn’t have been on the ballot to replace himself. Does the wording say otherwise?

    2. It is a problem of the Dems’ making. The Republican vote is highly fragmented. The Dems could have done the “no on recall, yes on Bustamante” thing like they did last time and kept the governorship in the party. Instead, they intimidated away all the Democratic candidates that people could plausibly think are better than Newsome, to ensure that no Democrat voter will vote to recall.

      From start to finish, the problem has been the arrogance of the Democrats. If they had taken any of their opposition seriously, they wouldn’t be in this mess.

  17. Democrats oppose, and actively work against, anything that could keep them out of power. That’s the core principle that guides their party and also determines what the legacy news and media giants are instructed to report. It’s also exhibit #1 why they should never be allowed anywhere near power.

    So sure, dirtbags, let’s hear some more about how it’s un-democratic to recall an elected official.

    And in a related note, the California Republican Party hasn’t endorsed a replacement for Newsom, at least not in the official voter’s guide. Is this a shrewd move to help Newsom get recalled? Or is the party leadership go-along-to-get-along cowards as I suspect?

    1. And in a related note, the California Republican Party hasn’t endorsed a replacement for Newsom, at least not in the official voter’s guide.

      The state-level party also officially voted not to endorse anyone. I suspect it’s because Larry Elder is the clear frontrunner, but is a bit of an upstart who is stepping on Faulconer’s toes.

    2. State media in CA is up to their rotten shit. They had to tweak their headline a bit from “Elder Brandished Gun at Ex-Fiancée” from yesterday though, the day when most people got their mail in ballots.

      I guess the Democrats are back to believing every victim.

      1. I guess the Democrats are back to believing every victim.

        And that crazy, drug-addled, armed black men are raping our white women.

      2. Contrary to the evidence in the url, the current headline reads “…Larry Elder’s ex-fiancée details argument involving gun”, and the actual quote is, “”He reached in for his .45 revolver… He opened the chamber to see if all the bullets were in it. He made sure that was in my view and he put the gun back into the drawer.”

        I think Elder is pretty useless, and it might even have happened (or not), but, yeah, the leugenpresse is up to its usual tricks.

  18. The latest absurdity comes from UC Berkeley professors

    Hardly newsworthy.

    1. UC Berzerkely has a reputation to maintain here, guy.

  19. Progressives apparently no longer trust the people they claim to represent.

    Correction – Progressives don’t believe the people they claim to represent are people.

  20. I’m disappointed in Chemerinsky and Edlin. Surely they should be able to craft some arguments that initiative, referendum, and recall are racist. After all, Hiram Johnson supported a law to ban aliens from owning land in California, and was a supporter of the Immigration Act of 1924. That makes Johnson functionally equivalent to a Klansman, and demonstrates that everything else he supported must have been motivated by white supremacy.

  21. I’d have no problem with the recall process if they separated the recall from the election of a replacement. It doesn’t seem fair or rational for a replacement who doesn’t capture 50% of the vote to win the office especially considering that a sitting governor needs 50% support to avoid being recalled.

    1. You can’t be sure that the winner will get 50% unless you provide for a runoff, which relatively few states do. In fact, I’ve heard it argued (with a straight face) that requiring a runoff is racist, because in a three-way race with two white candidates and one black, the white voters will split their votes between the two white candidates, giving the black candidate a plurality, and a runoff will give the white voters the opportunity to throw their support behind the better-performing white candidate and beat the black guy.

      What all this tells me is that if you argue that the winning candidate needs to get at least 50%, you’re a racist. Better turn yourself in right now for reeducation.

    2. It doesn’t seem fair or rational for a replacement who doesn’t capture 50% of the vote to win the office

      Why not? People are elected on pluralities all the time. Any time you have an election with more than two candidates, it’s downright likely.

      The fundamental action here isn’t an election. It’s a referendum. The referendum is “Should Gavin Newsom be removed as governor?” In the context of that referendum, yes – he needs more than 50% of people to answer “no” in order to stay in office or else he goes.

      The secondary need is to know who is going to be governor instead. That’s what page 2 of the ballot is for. If it were a normal gubernatorial election in CA, there would only be two candidates, and therefore the other guy would get more than 50%.

      The reality is that recall elections are opportunities for actual democratic elections in CA where the candidates were not chosen by the parties, which is why there are so many of them and why the victor is going to be the one who gets a plurality.

      Because that’s how democracy actually works.

      1. Yes. The recall elections might actually result in Californians picking better representatives then the normal party controlled elections. I would be interesting to me to see the outcomes if it always worked like this.

      2. “If it were a normal gubernatorial election in CA, there would only be two candidates…”

        Actually that’s a recent abnormality, which first produced a CA Sen ator (Kamala) in a process where the only other choice in the general election was another (D). Which still seems pretty abnormal to me, who’s registered (L) precisely to get someone else on the ballot.

  22. The best part is Newsom slipping in the polls since Warren started appearing on TV on his behalf.

    The second best part is the Dems encouraging pro-Newsom voters to abstain from voting on the second question (who will replace him?), all but guaranteeing that a Republican will win.

  23. Greenhut left out the Dems’ weakest argument against the recall: that it’s a waste of taxpayer money. Like they’re suddenly concerned about that. If Elder or some other conservative replaces Newsom, the state will save many times what the recall cost.

  24. Democrats have controlled the state legislature for the past four decades. Their policies are directly responsible for the decline, decay and disaster we are experiencing today. They created the problems and they don’t know how to solve them. They are 100 percent culpable.

  25. California is a shit hole today because democrats dug the hole and then all took a shit in it.

    1. Unfortunately, they didn’t dig a big enough hole, and the shit is overflowing into other states.

      1. Unfortunately, they didn’t dig a big enough hole

        They had a much bigger hole planned but, you know, budgets . . .

  26. BTW, the Voter Info brochure came out a week or so ago. It had a one-page whine by Newsom claiming the recall was a R ‘power grab’. It had nothing at all about any of the challengers.

  27. Newsom is so incompetent he doesn’t know he’s incompetent.

  28. To be fair, if they keep stealing ballots, it IS undemocratic.

  29. “The most basic principles of democracy are that the candidate who gets the most votes is elected and that every voter gets an equal say in an election’s outcome” they argued in a New York Times op-ed. “The California system for voting in a recall election violates these principles and should be declared unconstitutional.”

    So please, take it to court.

    Also, the US Constitution defines a Republic, not a Democracy.

    1. Also, the US Constitution defines a Republic, not a Democracy.


      It’s specifically not the case that “the candidate who gets the most votes is elected and that every voter gets an equal say in an election’s outcome.”

  30. The Recall, Gerrymandering and the filibuster are all examples of practices which the Democrats used enthusiastically until they no longer benefited the party.

  31. Progressives are at heart undemocratic. They absolutely believe in top men controlling the masses, because the masses are too stupid to know what is best for them.

    So it’s little surprise that Progressives rail against democratic processes. Democracy is anathema to them. Sure, they’re happy to use the democratic process to achieve their agenda but you can be sure that once their agenda is fully realized elections will not be something the common man has any say in, if they occur at all.

    Recall that this is the same political movement that thought that mass sterilization of undesirables was perfectly acceptable. Because, notably, they were ‘following the science’. This is literally the party of eugenics, plain and simple. One cannot think democracy is a good thing while holding such a view.

  32. Progressives want a totalitarian state. The people rebelling against them is not part of the plan nor should it be permitted.

  33. “Seriously, a coup?”

    You know exactly why they said this. You just don’t want to admit that calling January 6th anything more than an unruly protest is purely political.

  34. I moved to los angeles in 2007 for 2 weeks. i was lured by the promise of a paradise, but the stench of piss and shit and vomit on the streets led me right back to wisconsin. that state needs someone to help it get back on track before it falls into the pacific. i hear that Larry Elder guy is pretty awesome.

  35. Newsom’s going to be recalled. His actions have affected families throughout the state. For example, my son and his family had to move out of the state since Newsom wouldn’t allow him to work. One of our neighbors lost their place, again because Newsom wouldn’t allow them to work. Yet another neighbor lost his car since Newsom wouldn’t allow him to work. Then we have the French Laundry incident, where Newsom gaily and publicly flouted the rules he made for everyone else. Least when the Nazis and Soviets flouted the rules they made for everyone else, they did so circumspectly. Not Newsom – he laughs at us while telling us to get fucked. He’s worse than the Nazis or Soviets ever thought about being, in that regard and maybe others. I voted to recall Newsom and for Larry Elder. Anyone who votes to keep Newsom in is either insane or simply not paying attention.

    1. For example, my son and his family had to move out of the state since Newsom wouldn’t allow him to work.

      So they can’t vote in the recall election. And that’s the problem. Millions of people whose lives and homes Newsom and the Democrats have destroyed are moving out of California. That’s why the state is turning increasingly blue and radical.

  36. The author of this article misunderstands liberals.
    -Liberals believe that they are fundamentally intellectually, morally, ethically, and in every other way superior to anyone who disagrees with them.
    -They believe that their incredibly enlightened honesty, decency, nobility, and integrity empowers them to twist, distort, lie, and suppress information as they see fit.
    -The believe that their ‘superiority’ entitles them to shut down opposition through such techniques as banning them from social media, causing them to lose their jobs, and even putting them in jail without charges for many months.

    In the case of the Newsom recall, they feel totally justified in making any argument, spouting any lies, and suppressing any negative facts or information in order to help Newsom win — precisely because they firmly believe they have an absolute monopoly on honesty, decency, and integrity.

    1. Note to foreign readers: American National Socialists use “liberal” the way German National Socialists use the term “Jew”. Liberal in hillbilly does not mean laissez-faire libertarian as in Europe. The expression, popular with fascist, nazi and tea parties, applies to all who reject Gleichschaltung.

  37. Greenhut you’re a twat. You have mixed feeings about the recall because some recall organizers don’t like illegal immigrants? Ok ys I’m sure that applies to all the voters. Not sure how libertarians in California like ilegal immigration when the illegals get so many government handouts. I favor open borders provided we first reform our welfare state.

    1. And that is your MAIN reason?? What an embarrassingly stupid reason. Can I mute your articles? I’m afraid of losing the few IQ points I have left.

  38. FYI—It would seem that the entire future of humanity depends on Gavin remaining in the Governor’s Mansion
    (Someone sure thinks highly of himself!)

  39. Anti-democratic “U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D–Calif.)” is actually a State Senator.

  40. Nice article and it was very useful Click here

  41. “Matt Fleming noted in his column today, the organizers blame in their “statement of reasons” illegal immigrants for the bulk of California’s problems”

    No, they don’t (I read the link provided). The illegal immigrant complaints include “Laws he [Newsome] endorsed favor foreign nationals, in our country illegally, over that of our own citizens” and “He has imposed sanctuary state status and fails to enforce immigration laws”. That’s blaming Newsome, not illegals for “California’s problems”. Seems the desire to defend open borders is strong among Reason staff.

    Greenhut misses the valid points of critics, which aren’t clear for reasons obvious to me but not Greenhut. “The winning candidate might end up with fewer votes than the ‘no’ side on the recall” is obtuse, because they don’t want to say “the winning candidate won’t have a majority of votes”. He correctly points out the NYT’s bad argument that “The most basic principles of democracy are that the candidate who gets the most votes is elected” but doesn’t point out the most basic principle of democracy is that the candidate who gets a majority of the votes is elected. It’s too easy to get additional candidates to run to split the vote to win via plurality, which is the true basis of the objections. But Democrats (and also RINOs) want it that way, because going to something like Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Approval Voting (which do ensure a majority winner with voters only having to visit the polling place once) basically strips political parties of power, and the ability to pick the candidates.

    Libertarians should be promoting IRV at every one of these “winner by plurality” complaints from the political class. Because it will significantly reduce their power.

    1. The only way to defeat the left for the long term is enacting school choice. I suggest before pursing different voting methods that pushing for school choice should be you and every libertarian’s primary focus for now.

      The left’s monopoly on education must be broken before any electoral changes can be made. There are encouraging signs like parents pulling their kids out of schools due to mask or vaccination policies but also revolting against Critical Race Theory, but until the left’s lock on education is ended, unfortunately any efforts at electoral changes will, very likely, be in vain.

    2. But Democrats (and also RINOs) want it that way, because going to something like Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Approval Voting (which do ensure a majority winner with voters only having to visit the polling place once) basically strips political parties of power, and the ability to pick the candidates.

      And how is that better?

      The problem isn’t how we elect politicians, the problem is that politicians have too much power. You aren’t going to fix that by tinkering with voting procedures.

      If the difference between Biden, Clinton, and Obama matters to your life, then there is something wrong with the role of government in your life, not the voting system.

  42. Would one of these genius legal scholars please explain to me how the California constitution can be unconstitutional under itself? Talk about desperately grasping at straws. These two professors should be laughed out of their ivory towers.

    1. It might violate the US Constitution, something that member states are bound by.

  43. This isn’t surprising since when the deck is stacked against the left, they then call for “civility” or changes they hope will benefit them. It is the typical bait-and-switch they play.

    Since the election of George W. Bush, the left came to the conclusion that anyone who holding office from their tribe is illegitimate. The left applied that same logic to Trump and backed it up with violence and other forms of mayhem. Now it is being used in an attempt to delegitimize California’s recall statutes.

    The left is about achieving and maintaining power by any means necessary and the sooner they are not only demoralized but also defeated, nonsense like this will continue.

    1. The left is about achieving and maintaining power by any means necessary and the sooner they are not only demoralized but also defeated, nonsense like this will continue.

      The US left will never be defeated: generations of Americans are indoctrinated into their belief system. Collectivism, anti-capitalism, and authoritarianism as reflexive to most Americans born after 1970 as breathing. Just look at the Reason staff.

  44. I get paid more than $160 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $16k from this without having online working skills.

    This is what I do…

  45. Remember when Progressives in Wisconsin wanted to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker? Pepperidge Farms remembers

  46. Some Progressives Are Now Claiming California’s Recall Election Is ‘Undemocratic’

    If two wolves and a sheep can’t democratically decide to have the sheep for dinner, democracy has obviously failed!

  47. ‘Progressives’ mistake un-Democratic Party, for being unDemocratic.

  48. Can anyone explain to me why the Dems pushed the recall forward to September?

    Anger over the lockdowns was what motivated this, but a critically huge chunk of the electorate has an attention spam barely more than that of a toddler’s. They would have forgotten about the lockdowns, about the asinine restrictions, by November.

  49. I believe both looter factions. Both favor Nixon subsidies to rig elections and the initiation of deadly force, so why would I suspect the Ge-Oh-Pee or Dems of honesty? Germany had faith-based girl-bullying conservatives out to brainwash the volker yokels, and commie tax and asset-forfeiture vampires sucking their very life blood, when Hitler told them they were both right. German politicians, mystical bigots and parasitical leeches got the deadly coercion they asked for. Yet most acted suprised when entire voting districts went up in towering flames.

  50. To be a Democrat requires becoming a pathological liar, because only more lies can sustain the steaming mountain of lies that is their idiotology.

  51. “Progressives don’t really think that the recall process is illegitimate or unconstitutional.” Even money that, in the event Newsom’s recalled, Dems will file a recall against his successor PDQ.

  52. Democrats have made all the rules in California for decades and now want to gripe about the rules.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.