Gavin Newsom

California Democrats Want To Make It Harder for Voters To Challenge Their Power

Political class rallies behind making the infrequently used recall mechanism more difficult to deploy


Today, California is holding its second-ever recall vote for a sitting governor. Unlike Gray Davis in 2003, Democrat Gavin Newsom is widely projected to survive the effort. The recall mechanism itself, however, may not prove so lucky. At least not in its current form.

Why? Because Democrats and their empathizers in the media and academe are talking themselves into the conclusion that one of progressivism's crowning electoral achievements, originally aimed at a democratically unaccountable machine, has become an anachronism now that Democrats are the ones pulling all the levers.

"For starters, California's recalls can happen in off-years, which makes them ripe for manipulation by the minority party," The New York Times editorialized Monday (please note the conspiratorial/pejorative word choice; it's standard issue in these efforts):

Voters in off-cycle elections generally skew older, whiter and more conservative, a recent study led by the University of California, San Diego, found. In other words, not very representative of California's population….The leading candidate is the Republican talk-radio host Larry Elder, whose conservative policy positions—including his opposition to mask mandates, abortion rights and a minimum wage, as well as his troubling views on women's rights and climate change—aren't in line with any statewide election result in California for decades.

Contra the Times, the purpose of the century-old recall feature, which has only made it to the ballot 11 times for state elected officials (six of whom were removed), was not to ensure that California's public representatives match up demographically and ideologically with the electorate, but rather to act as a between-elections check on corruption, incompetence, or whatever the relevant voters deemed a firing offense. The second California official to be successfully recalled, back in 1913, was Democratic state senator Edwin Grant, whose San Francisco constituents did not care for Grant's fervent opposition to the time-honored local industry of prostitution.

But "what was path-breaking and innovative a century ago," warned public policy professors Henry Brady and Karthick Ramakrishnan in Monday's Los Angeles Times, "looks anachronistic and downright dangerous today." ("Dangerous," alas, is a not-uncommon political-class adjective to describe the prospect of having someone else govern the Golden State for the next 14 months, after which the Democratic nominee will almost certainly win again.)

The profs continue: "In these times of intense party polarization, we should be wary of mechanisms that enable electoral losers to win back power through outlandish means or to derail the governing agenda of a popularly elected officeholder."

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is to note that polarization has helped produce 30 essentially one-party states, in which the same team controls the governor's mansion, the state legislature, the two U.S. Senate seats, a majority of the House delegation, and a predictable presidential vote. Against that backdrop, recalls could also be interpreted as the last direct-democracy line of citizen self-defense against mono-party hackery.

Unfortunately for Larry Elder—who is only leading the if-Newsom-is-recalled pack because Republicans have precious few California political professionals of note, and Democrats made the conscious choice not to run a viable candidate (recall targets themselves are barred from appearing on Question No. 2)—most journalists and professors swim in the same ideological fishbowl as the state's dominant political party.

That means not only that every micro-blemish stands out—"Before the California recall, Larry Elder's charity failed," panted the L.A. Times, about an Elder nonprofit that in nearly two decades raised all of $20,000—but also that his events are covered in ways inconceivable if he had a different letter beside his name. When a white woman in a gorilla mask threw an egg at Elder (who is black) on a Venice street last week, the news media was uncharacteristically subdued about possible racial subtext.

The op-ed pages have shown no such reticence about divining (negative) racial import from Elder's campaign. Sample headlines: "Larry Elder and the danger of the 'model minority' candidate," "California governor recall hopeful Larry Elder is a soldier for white supremacy," "Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. You've been warned," and "Larry Elder says he's not a face of white supremacy. His fans make it hard to believe." Why, it's enough to make you suspect that there might be dual standards applied to public figures based on their party affiliation!

In a column Monday for Mediaite, California commentator John Ziegler posited that the media imbalance might end up proving decisive for Newsom.

"Given his extreme advantages in voter registration, the power of incumbency, money, and highly favorable media coverage from every single communication outlet except talk radio, it would have taken a near miracle for him to be removed," Ziegler wrote. "But he will get away with claiming vindication for his Covid polices because the news media, which is similarly deeply invested in not having been very wrong for the last year and a half, will be thrilled to share in his alleged exoneration."

I suspect that that's exaggerated, in part because the news media just doesn't have that much popular pull, but we'll see. In the meantime, the elites who use the news media to talk amongst themselves and maybe pry open the Overton window a bit have been making every indication that a post-Newsom recall mechanism will be either mended or ended.

Berkeley law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Aaron Edlin got the ball rolling one month ago with an unconvincing New York Times argument that the recall was unconstitutional. Straight news pieces have been given headlines like "Has California's unique brand of direct democracy gone too far?" The state Senate last week passed a law banning paid signature-gathering, which would gut California's entire direct-democracy apparatus (and likely invite legal challenges).

Most of the reform proposals being floated would make it more difficult for voters to challenge their leaders. California requires the signatures of 12 percent the number of those who voted in the last relevant election, which is the lowest recall threshold in the country; most are at around 20 percent. "Other states with recall provisions, like Minnesota and Washington, require an act of malfeasance or a conviction for a serious crime for the recall to proceed," The New York Times notes wistfully. (Such designations being too important to leave in the hands of mere voters.) Newsom himself prefers the automatic installation of the lieutenant governor in case of recall, which would in the current electoral climate lock Republicans out of the statehouse.

The catch is that any such change in the state constitution has to be approved…via statewide ballot referendum. Public opinion surveys show that Californians are open to tinkering, but they do appreciate having the recall power.

As do I, though I forfeited the privilege long ago via U-Haul. There is an available if lonely conclusion to be potentially gleaned from today's vote, should Newsom indeed survive: The system maybe…works? Six for 11 in recalls, including one for two with governors, across 98 years does not seem to me evidence of a "dangerous" and "outlandish" anachronism, overrun by "manipulation." Turns out it's actually pretty hard to recall a popularly elected Democrat in a heavily Democratic state, particularly when the minority party is attracted to nutjob candidates and clownball tactics.

Democrats could just take the W, rather than squeeze ever more tightly on power. Which means you can expect to see degrees of recall-difficulty placed on the ballot in time for the midterms.

NEXT: FEC: Twitter Blocking the Hunter Biden Story Wasn’t Election Interference

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. Democrats want to Fortify the election against the voters? Say it ain’t so, Reason!

    1. Progs believe that elections would run more smoothly if people weren’t allowed to vote.

      1. No widespread corruption.

        1. mostly peaceful fraud.

          1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.GDw simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

            Click & Chang your Life …………… VISIT HERE

            1. 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. IT Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

              Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

            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. I Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

              Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

        2. Correct, just corruption contained to districts they are competitive in but may not win…Seems legit to the Reason gang.

      2. So let’s show those progs by expanding access to voting!

        1. Voting access has been expanded.

        2. Death shouldn’t disqualify citizens from voting!

          1. In New Jersey it doesn’t. In fact, many dead people vote multiple times.

            As I’ve mentioned before, when I turned 18, I registered to vote twice in the same district (I didn’t get anything telling me I was officially registered, so I did it again). My name appeared twice in the electoral rolls, one right after the other, and I probably could have gotten away with it.

            It stayed that way for years, until my mother of all people got on the board of elections, and found it.

          2. The mortally challenged should not be denied the right to vote.

        3. You mean to prospective illegal aliens who haven’t shown up yet?

        4. Unless it’s the poor minority voters or lgbtq snowflakes. Because they SHOULD definitely be able to tell the other 90% of the population what the fuck they can and can’t do.

          Jacob Gollum has never heard of Federalism. Or urban tyranny. It’s because he hasn’t talked to many libertarians throughout his life.

          1. This was meant as a response to Lordy’s other comment.

      3. The California state constitution was amended in 1911 by a Progressive agenda to be able to remove corrupt or at least non-progressive state officials. The process has only led to two elections, but has had about 60 unsuccessful petitions. The fact that it has been Democrats that have had the elections against them shows that the process is flawed; only Republicans should be at risk. Things must change.

        1. It actually shows that the process isn’t only flawed but racist. Why? Well, because asking that question is pretty racist.

      4. Not quite. They think people should not be allowed to vote the wrong way.

  2. I don’t know if Elder would make a good governor. But he is on-target when he points out that Newsom’s supporters can’t say that Newsom has done a good job.

    This applies to Biden and Harris as well. All the Left can talk about is Trump Trump Trump.

    Granted, the last time they tried praising one of their leaders–Cuomo–it didn’t exactly come up roses for them did it?

    1. He wouldn’t. He’s politically naive and would only have a year before the next election. Governing is hard, and it can take some time to settle into a job like that. Someone elected now wouldn’t have that luxury.

      The Dems have a supermajority so he can’t get any help in the legislature like when republicans had a few more people in the senate. The Dems wouldn’t work with anyone post election, just out of spite. But, he’d have a veto pen and that’s BETTER than a dictator with the Democrats in the legislature focused on progressive trendy feel good item of the day.

  3. Democrats hate democracy. The only thing worse than people living in freedom is people freely choosing their governance.

    1. Yeah buddy. Democrats consistently win more votes than Republicans but because of antidemocratic features in our system Republicans win more political power with fewer votes.

      1. That’s why they love direct democracy so much… oh wait.

      2. Lard of shit cherry picks stats from his ass and presents them to you on a rusty platter.

      3. Fuck off sullum

      4. Unless it’s the poor minority voters or lgbtq snowflakes. Because they SHOULD definitely be able to tell the other 90% of the population what the fuck they can and can’t do.

        Jacob Gollum has never heard of Federalism. Or urban tyranny. It’s because he hasn’t talked to many libertarians throughout his life.

      5. Who gives a fuck what you think you stupid democrat cock sucking faggot.

      6. Perhaps, but that’s the current situation. There have been times in the past where Democrats benefited from “antidemocratic features”. Oddly, Democrats didn’t denounce those features back then.

        Likewise, things may change in the future. If they do, will you still want those “antidemocratic features” pushed aside for the “will of the majority”?

    2. I’m not so sure how much I like democracy either. Those people choosing their own governance are also choosing how to govern other people. And look where that gets us.

  4. Democrats do not care one bit about standards, consistency, principles, or the rule of law. Those who seek power by any means only understand force. The only way to stop the power grabs is for the people of California to rise up and hoist these motherfuckers up on pikes. Give it time. At some point, the elites will be so divorced from the people and so blithely dismissive of the existence of common people that they will not even be able to buy the loyalty of their praetorians.

  5. What? Are Democrats worried that they might forget how to cheat? Why would they be worried about election procedures when they already know elections don’t matter?

    1. The fact that they’d feel the need to cheat in this situation should be a huge indicator.

  6. Just declare California a single party state already.

  7. Well it’s already a one party state even if Newsom loses the recall, the government is firmly in the grip of leftists which is why the state has gone so far downhill.

    1. So why can’t Republicans make a successful appeal to voters? California is among, if not, our most diverse state. Why are Republicans not seeing this fact and trying to appeal to this mix of voters. The fact is that many of these voters likely come from conservative backgrounds. Instead of appealing to this Republican seem to fixate on old white men’s concerns.

      1. That’s pretty racist. Elder, at least, has a lot of concern for issues affecting poor minorities. He just doesn’t happen to think that incentivizing single motherhood and abortion are particularly good for those communities. I don’t agree with all of his positions, but he is certainly not some “uncle tom” representing white interests (whatever the fuck that would be).

      2. That’s a complex question. And people don’t realize how diverse the state is because, nationally, the Bay Area is pretty much what they think of. Before that it was Hollywood. Both are hive-mind level leftists, but the less populous areas are extremely different.

        Just for context, Jerry Brown was governor before Newsome. Before that, we had only one Democrat as governor (and he was recalled) going all the way back to… Jerry Brown in the 70s.

        Two changes were really big. First, the lack of local news starting in the late 00s removed the smaller papers, so you were stuck with the larger, left leaning papers and online as outlets. Of course, Hollywood, too, which has a bully pulpit and skews left.

        Second, the fallout from the 2008 housing and jobs bust was especially skewed and bad here. Only two industries were making money — banking and tech — and California relies very heavily on income tax revenue which was way down. Also property taxes, which were way up before 2008, but the incentive to keep real estate prices high is a different issue.

        So, the only people making money, the only vibrant part of the economy, was Silicon Valley. The Bay Area has always had an outsized influence in Sacramento, but at that point it became far greater, as it was making heaps of money while everything else was dying — including all the traditional legacy media companies that used to provide an alternative voice. Sacramento just kept fawning over their cash cow.

        One of the other things the Democrats were good at was convincing the Mexican and Central American population that Republicans were racist. This is part of the “everything is racist” party platform, actually. But, though Mexican Americans tend to be reasonably socially conservative, working class, family oriented, the Ds were able to paint ANY opposition to divisive issues as “Republicans are racist” and the Rs are pretty terrible at that kind of messaging.

        20 years ago, Mexicans didn’t vote. Ever. Like far and away the lowest participation rate in the state. But they are the largest demographic in Los Angeles and voted reliably democrat, so all kinds of issues like driver’s licenses for illegals were pushed forward to keep painting Rs as racists — everything is racist. Even being anti-coyote is somehow racist, and those bastards are about the worst, most predatory scum on earth. So now, if you’re hispanic, the default setting is “Republians are racists” or that they hate Mexicans or whatever and Ds have heavily invested in voter mobilization to get the hispanics to vote. They’re still lower on the participation rate, but vote more often now and hispanics are 30-40% of this state so when they do vote it can be enough to matter.

        The national Republican party stopped investing in California. They assume it’s D no matter what in the 21st century, so they just don’t bother. And the state party has put forth the worst possible alternatives in a couple of elections — Carly Fiorina? I could NEVER vote for her — so it just got worse for local elections and the Senate majority became a supermajority.

        The problem with tech being the money makers after 2008 became compounded by their getting the concentration of “news” sources as Google became a monster, the face books, the twitter, and the like became where people got their news, not the local papers, which had a lot more diverse an opinion on things.

        Papers are worse now. San Diego’s Tribune, which was already owned by a progressive asshole, is now just owned by (and an arm of) the Los Angeles Times. Neither an alternative view NOR local (San Diego is VERY much not Los Angeles). The Bay Area has a couple of papers, all are progressive/left. The locals that were the alternative voices are all gone except for a few, and nobody reads them anyway.

        When all news is national news, and all outlets are very tightly controlled by Democrats, the resulting messaging to the masses is obvious. So here we are.

        1. You wrote a lot but never really addressed why Republican are not working harder to appeal to California voters. Look at the comment before yours. What is the Republican point of view, that black women are single mothers and that abortion is legal. It is going to take more than that to win an election.

          I don’t believe that all Republicans are racist, but I do think too many Republicans refuse to stand up to the racist in their party. This is not good it allows racism to fester in their party. They need to stop it early before it get out of control.

          1. I think that the Republicans mostly, for whatever reason, are bad at messaging to a lot of people. More conservative ideals like hard work, importance of family and even harder socially conservative positions like opposition to abortion and tough on crime stuff are pretty popular in a lot of black and hispanic communities.
            I’m not sure what they could do better, but it seems like it should be possible.

            1. At the end of the day, race is all that matters to the overwhelming majority of people. It is a brutish and medieval mindset, but it is appealing to many, many people. What is the Republican message on race? “We are all equal; we can all achieve success if we work hard.” Sounds nice, but many people simply do not want that.

              Minorities do not want to be minorities; they want to be majorities, and the Democrats are the only white people willing to give them that overtly racist taste of power; a dream of the good life where white people do not exist and their culture dominates.

              Republicans are not losing because of bad messaging; they are losing because race matters A LOT to A LOT of people. People do not want to be equal; they want to be supreme.

              1. At the end of the day, race is all that matters to the overwhelming majority of people.
                I’m not convinced that’s true. But I don’t know.

                But let’s say it is for the sake of argument, so then what? It’s just hopeless and everyone will always be stupidly race obsessed? Or should republicans and other non-leftists try to do something different to get through to people they aren’t getting through to?

              2. So why don’t they embrace it and explicitly appeal to the whites and to those who want to be white?

                1. Because whites are, generally speaking, no longer unified on the issue of race, whereas the members of other races are.

                  Latinos for Latinos.
                  Blacks for Blacks.
                  Asians for Asians.
                  Whites for Latinos, Blacks, and Asians, and fuck Whites.

                  That’s why.

            2. More conservative ideals like hard work, importance of family and even harder socially conservative positions like opposition to abortion and tough on crime stuff are pretty popular in a lot of black and hispanic communities.

              Blacks in the South voted Democratic in the 1930’s even while the Democratic party publicly embraced racism, segregation, and eugenics. Obviously, people’s beliefs and moral views have little to do with who they actually vote for.

              I think that the Republicans mostly, for whatever reason, are bad at messaging to a lot of people.

              Perhaps that reason has something to with being called “racists” and “white supremacists” over and over again by academics, mainstream media and tech monopolies?

              1. Probably. But it’s still up to them to do something about it. “Boo-hoo, it’s not our fault.” Fine, but no one else is going to fix it for them. They still need to get their messages to new groups of people or continue to become less and less relevant.

            3. So the follow-up is why are Republicans so good at messaging to a base but can’t expand that message to a broader group. I would suggest it is because their message has gotten away from ideas and policy to one of grievance and distrust.

              1. That has happened all over politics and I agree it is not good. But I don’t think it’s a particular problem of Republicans by any means. Republicans have gone too far down that road in my opinion. But it’s pretty much all Democrats have at this point. And I think it’s a large part of how they keep their traditional voters “on the reservation” so to speak. “You may disagree with half of our policy proposals, but you just can’t vote for those people because they are icky.”

      3. So why can’t Republicans make a successful appeal to voters?

        Same reason socialists get elected everywhere: millions are employed directly or indirectly by the state, millions more receive welfare or other government handouts; these people need to continue voting Democrat to keep receiving their money. In addition, Democrats are in bed with the media, Wall St., and the tech sector, meaning that the population of California gets regularly indoctrinated with garbage like “Republicans fixate on old white men’s concerns”.

    2. In a state that’s mostly been going retrograde for the last 20 years, and has “leaders” who seem to be intent on steering into that skid, maybe having someone with ideas that are out of alignment with what’s been winning elections for that time wouldn’t be a bad idea.

      If only so many California voters weren’t so committed to the delusion that anything someone with a “D” next to their name blathers about is, by definition, “progress”.

      If Donald Trump could somehow get listed as a Dem on the 2022 ballot, he’d be elected the next Governor of CA with at least 60% of the vote; it really doesn’t seem to matter to the bulk of the electorate in the state (even when they’re overwhelmingly passing ballot measures that the Dem Party opposes) who they put into power, as long as the party identification is there.

  8. This is not unprecedented. The referendum and initiative we’re also considered great achievements of the early progressive movement until, 40 years ago, California voters voted in favor of the tax limitations By referendum and initiative. Then, all of a sudden, these progressive reforms became tools by which the public can act like an “uneducated mob.”

    Let’s face it. The early progressives supported these reforms because they believed their side would prevail every time these tools were used. Now that it is being used against them, the same objections raised a century ago are now being raised by them.

  9. It appears that someone explained to Newsom very slowly, and in a way that he could understand, what would happen to him if there were rolling blackouts this month:

    “Despite pledging to reduce fossil fuel production in the state, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is turning to dirty energy as a solution to keep the lights on.”

    1. He also pushed back the vaccine passports until next week.

      So, to handle the August surge, he mandated that concert venues have to verify every attendee’s vaccine status… but it doesn’t go into effect until Mid September.

      If there was such at thing as a free press here that would have been above the fold at some point in the last month.

      1. The press here is free. What they aren’t is intellectually honest, or able to comprehend reality.

        Their allegiance to Newsom and the Dems is almost entirely voluntary as far as I can tell.

  10. I am somewhat agnostic on recalls. I think people should have a right to change their elected officials but not sure that recalls do much good. I do feel that a 12% signature rate for a recall is way too low. I also think that the target of the recall should be in the candidate list. So I would accept changes to both of these for future recalls.

    1. I also think that the target of the recall should be in the candidate list
      Uh, why? The list is of candidates for governor if he is recalled. If a majority decides to remove him, then he is removed. That’s the primary purpose of the recall.

      1. Check the name, then see if you even need to ask that question.

      2. Because the selection of the replacement only requires a plurality. It could be the current governor is recalled and is still the most popular candidate.

        I think a better system would be for the recall to require a new election in which parties select a candidate. The party of the current governor could select the incumbent or an alternative. Other parties could select their own candidate and then you would have a real race and not the free for all.

        1. But a majority wanted him not to be governor. Allowing a mere plurality to put him back in would defeat the whole point of the recall: to remove the governor from office (or not).

        2. Lmao uhm… You are arguing for a system in which 50+% of all voters can first say they want to recall the person in office, and then this person can be replaced by themselves. Actually, that sounds a whole lot like California law. Brilliant. Keep up the good work lol

        3. Because the selection of the replacement only requires a plurality. It could be the current governor is recalled and is still the most popular candidate.

          The majority want him gone badly. That’s enough for him not to hold office.

          Democrats were free to provide a replacement clone for the list of alternatives.

  11. I think that the target of the recall should be in the candidate list. So I would accept changes to both of these for future recalls.

    Download upcoming and latest movies from afilmywap

  12. Leftist Tony Benn on the health of your democracy:

    “What power have you got?”

    “Where did you get it from?”

    “In whose interests do you use it?”

    “To whom are you accountable?”

    “How do we get rid of you?”

  13. Vanquished human misfires in California will continue to seethe with impotent rage while losing all their freedoms while Americans elsewhere will continue to smile, win and enjoy their freedoms against the will of Californians.

    (Help me with my Kirkspeech if you like: I couldn’t figure out how to properly integrate throat-forcing in the above paragraph. I am also reluctant to use the word ‘clinger’, but haven’t managed to find a good equivalent as of yet. Maybe I should just go with ‘dinger’?)

  14. ” California Democrats Want To Make It Harder for Voters To Challenge Their Power ”

    And clingers whine about it, ignoring the point that others — prominently including obsolete Republicans — use power they possess, too.

    1. The Master has entered the discussion…
      Would you be willing to help me with my above comment, Master? I was trying to somehow incorporate how woke, mollycoddled, educationally crippled dead ends of evolution will continue to stomp, moan and twitch while free Americans outside of California will continue to display their individual and economic freedoms with a smile on their face, against the will of progressive misfits. However, I couldn’t find the proper place for throat-forcing. Can you help me with that?

  15. I’m no Democrat but I’m certainly in favor of amending the state recall law to prevent further clown shows like this- 46 candidates, only a couple with any working knowledge of state government, the favorite of whom could be elected with less than half as many votes as the incumbent, and who quaintly believes that climate change is unreal and that women are less competent than men at making political decisions. The solution is simple – if the recall succeeds, replace the incumbent with the Lieutenant Governor. And if not, dare I suggest having the recall proponents pay the tab? ????

    1. Can the Lieutenant Governor compete on the Ballot? Because what you are suggesting right now is, of course, a little nepotistic, considering how the Lieutenant Governor relates to the Governor, kind of? But I get that Democrats are fans of political incest, so in that sense the suggestion is suitable.

      Again, the real Clown here is Newsom. If he is defeated by an oh so horrible guy, maybe it’s not the horrible guys fault? Also love how you use your own beliefs on climate change to discredit the favorite. Spoiler: some people hold beliefs different from yours. It’s a form of diversity. Get over it.

      1. Yes, they run independently, and have sometimes been of different parties.
        No elected official anywhere has done more to advance gay rights and marijuana legalization than Newsom.
        And some people are more informed than others about climate change. 45 years ago I staffed Congressional hearings on climate research. The predictions of increased global warming that expert climatologists warned of then proved exactly accurate. In the meantime I’ve witnessed glaciers retreating, 2000 year old redwood forests burning, record temperatures and drought here in No. Cal.

        1. “Yes, they run independently, and have sometimes been of different parties.”

          Well, then if they win because they are most popular out of the replacements, I think it’s gonna be fine. What are you whining about?

          “No elected official anywhere has done more to advance gay rights and marijuana legalization than Newsom.”

          It should be noted that not everyone agrees that these are positive things (I do, however, agree they are positive, even though I think weed can make you unproductive and useless. But that’s your choice).

          Did Newsom ‘advance’ gay rights though? Or did he force positive rights at the cost of the economy and general social tolerance? Because, mind you, when Democrats talk about ‘advancing’ a groups rights, this might mean things that aren’t immediately manifest to someone who is not familiar with the workings of the sociopathic mind.

          “And some people are more informed than others about climate change.”

          Problem of the oh so venerable experts is that they are too autistic and machiavellian to convey their oh so informed messages. Or be consistent about it. And they are totally not ready cancel and hurt real existences and lives for questioning their views. And they also totally never lick political boots to advance their own careers. They would never consider any of the numerous ways data can be re-interpreted and filtered to fit certain desired results. Yeah, people being oh so right about a subject matter really means loads in 2021. Good job, folks. And now mollycoddled, bigoted elitists whine about public distrust. Lol.

          “The predictions of increased global warming that expert climatologists warned of then proved exactly accurate.”

          This is not a scientific publication, so I genuinely hate to do this, but… ‘cite’? And if they were right, could it have something to do with them not being hysterical crybabies? Well, let’s be optimistic. I also heard California has problems burning their old wood because ‘muh nature! Muh green image! Muh solar energy! I need a progressive green cock I can suck!’

    2. Same way with POTUS: Once he leaves, you get Harris as a replacement. So the Hydra just got a new head or two. It’s kind of futile. And the takeaway for a corrupt administration would be: “next time, be a little less blunt with your strategies”.

      See, the difference is that in California, replacing Newsom – despite being easier and “leakier” – wouldn’t even have as much political impact as replacing POTUS would, because CA is not politically competitive.

  16. Where is all the bile and venom directed at all the Republican efforts to restrict voting rights? Particularly the idea floating around about how state assemblies should be allowed to overturn presidential election results in a given state based on an “audit” conducted by a clutch of unqualified hack-a-doodle-doos.

  17. Democrats made no attempt to amend the state constitution after the recall of Gray Davis. What makes you think they will do any different now?

    I would prefer a simpler recall system where the ousted governor gets replaced by the lieutenant governor, but regardless, no one is going to push that because the Democrat belief system (which is is synchrony with the Republican belief system) is that once in power then always in power. The idea that they could lose is 2022 is beyond their comprehension. And they will probably be right. So why bother tinkering with the system when there’s district boundaries to tinker with instead?

    What needs to change here is not the recall system, but the demographics. 48% of registered voters are Democrat, only 24% are Republican. The fastest growing party is Decline to State, and they’ve been siphoning off almost entirely from the Republicans. In short, the Republicans need to get their act together and stop fighting a culture war that has already been lost (gay marriage and pot are not only legal, but fully accepted, deal with it). They need to stop being the old white dude party, and stop being aggressively hostile to immigrants. Cry as much as you want but those issues don’t play in California.

    p.s. There are numerous exceptions of course, but the Republican Party has a major image problem in California, and whining about election fraud isn’t helping. They need to either adapt or continue dwindling.

  18. CA hasn’t increased the size of their legislature since the 1880 Constitution. 80 assembly critters for a population of 860,000 then – one critter for every 10,000 peeps. Now 80 critters for a population of 39 million – one critter for every 500,000 peeps.

    Changing recall stuff is the least of their problems. If in 1880, CA had believed that one critter for every 500,000 peeps was ok, then they would have had two critters in their assembly. With one of the least representative legislatures in the world CA no longer has res publica – a republican form of government.

  19. An overwhelmingly democrat electorate is not enough. They need insurance so they can keep their job even when they fail miserably.

  20. A recallee who gets 49% of the vote can cede his job to some nutbar who gets 20% of the vote. Sounds a little undemocratic to me.

    Don’t let that stop you from defending any and every screwball means by which Republicans try to steal power.

Please to post comments