These changes could include raising standards to demand wrongdoing by the officeholder, increasing signatures required to force a recall vote, and changing the process that could allow someone with a small number of votes to replace the top state elected official.
Newsom stated Wednesday that he believed the recall process had been manipulated, just a day after his victory.
He said that the recall rules also affected school boards, city councils and county supervisors. This is particularly true in Los Angeles and San Francisco where reform-oriented prosecutors are being recalled.
The governor pointed out that California has the lowest threshold for recall elections. Newsom’s recall campaign required nearly 1.5 million signatures from 22 million voters to get rid of him. This is 12% of his electorate. By contrast, Kansas requires 40%.
However, Newsom’s organizers resisted the effort and asked questions about experts. They said California’s law was better than others because it has fewer requirements that make recalling politicians more difficult.
Orrin Heatlie, the chief proponent of recall efforts, stated that “they’re working against the will of people when they take actions like that to limit us ability to self-govern.”
Democrats are not benefiting from pushing for changes that could anger voters, according to Joshua Spivak, an expert in recalls and senior fellow at The Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform, New York.
Spivak stated that it was “crazy from a political standpoint, and I cannot imagine why they would invest political capital on this.” Are you going to tell the voters, “Well, we didn’t address the homeless problem, but yes, we fixed recall?” It doesn’t seem like a smart decision.
State Senator Josh Newman, who was recalled in 2018, before regaining the seat two years later, stated that he would propose two constitutional amendments to increase the required signatures, and to allow the lieutenant governor to complete the governor’s term, if necessary.
Marc Berman, Democratic Assemblyman, stated that “we need to create a system in which a small, tiny, small minority” of Californians cannot create, can’t start a recall that California taxpayers spent nearly $300 million on. This distracts from our ability to govern for nine more months and really impacts our ability to govern.”
On Tuesday, Newsom became the second governor to defeat a recall in American history. The other was Scott Walker of Wisconsin in 2012. This win makes Newsom a prominent figure within national Democratic politics. It also ensures that the nation’s most populous state continues to be a laboratory for progressive policy ideas.
An estimated 74% of the ballots were counted. This result put Newsom’s “no” answer to the question about recalling him ahead by 28 points.
Berman and Steven Glazer, the heads of the Legislature’s election panels, spoke at the Capitol promising bipartisan hearings in coming months with the goal to propose constitutional changes after January’s legislative reconvene. Voters must approve any changes to the recall law.
Vice chairman of the elections committee and GOP Assemblyman Kelly Seyarto said that Republicans would work to ensure the proposals safeguard voters’ right to hold politicians responsible.
These two election committees will examine recall laws from other states and hear from experts about California’s process.
Glazer stated that 19 states have some form of recall process. Only Colorado has a comparable two-stage process. California’s system first asks voters whether they would like to see the incumbent removed. If a majority supports removal, then the candidate with the highest number of votes on the second question becomes the governor. This week, there were 46 candidates on the ballot.
He said that in most other recall states the only question on the poll is whether or not the official should be recalled. If the majority of voters vote yes, then the office is declared vacant and can be filled either by appointment or in a special election.
Both Democrats and the leaders of the California Legislature have backed the changes. Their party has two-thirds majority in both chambers. The recall process was established in the state Constitution in 1911. However, the final decision will be made by the voters.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon stated, “This is an old system and it still works in its current form. It needs to be looked at.”
A July Public Policy Institute of California Survey found that 86% of California’s likely voters support the possibility of recalling elected officials. This sentiment transcends political parties and regions as well as demographic groups. Two-thirds of voters supported minor or major changes, although Republicans and Democrats differed on the extent of these changes.
