Last week I gave a two-hour nonpartisan presentation to a group explaining the details of the 14 statewide propositions on the Nov. 3 ballot. Because of the propositions’ complexity, I spent over 40 hours preparing for that presentation and have concluded that our initiative process is out of control.Â
I recently received a 175-page Official Voter Information Guide that was published by the Secretary of State. It was voluminous and difficult to read and understand.
Many of the measures are sponsored by special interests and are placed on the ballot through the initiative process, which involves circulating a petition signed by registered voters. At some point California must make it more difficult for measures to get on the ballot. Perhaps the signature threshold for placing measures on the ballot should be increased.
Proposition 5 would take a step in this direction by modifying the process of recalling state officials. The procedures employed are similar to how some propositions are placed on the ballot. To qualify a recall for the ballot, supporters of the recall effort must obtain a requisite number of signatures from registered voters.
Our current process was created at the turn of the 20th century when several cities, including Los Angeles, initiated numerous recall processes.
In 1910, Hiram Johnson, a San Francisco assistant district attorney, was elected governor on a campaign to curtail the power of the Southern Pacific Railroad. At that time, the Southern Pacific Railroad was called the “Octopus” because it had its tentacles around many government officials to control California’s economy and politics.
The following year, Johnson led an effort to amend the existing state constitution to provide for a simultaneous two-pronged recall election process. The first prong is to determine whether the official should be recalled. The second prong is to elect a successor in the event that the recall vote was successful.
This was done so that a recalled official would not be replaced with another railroad crony.
For example, if the governor was recalled prior to 1911, he would be replaced by the lieutenant governor. But the pre-existing problem was that the railroad had its tentacles around both officials, rendering the recall useless. This necessitated the second prong.
According to the California Secretary of State’s office, since 1911 there have been 182 recall attempts, of which 11 gathered sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. Of those 11, six resulted in recalling the official.
There were several successful recalls of state legislators in the years after changing the recall process. There have been two gubernatorial recall efforts that made the ballot. In 2003 Gray Davis was removed from office while Gavin Newsom was not successfully recalled in 2021.
Today, the Octopus no longer exists. The state has grown exponentially since 1911 and the likelihood of another octopus emerging is remote.
But the signature threshold for removing an official is relatively low and contemporary recall efforts are driven largely by politics rather than by whether an official has engaged in corrupt actions.
A large number of candidates typically run to be the official’s replacement, which means that, in the absence of rank choice voting, the successor is unlikely to obtain a majority of the votes.
For example, in the 2021 recall, the second-prong candidate with the most votes received only 28% of the vote.
The 2021 Newsom recall election cost state and local governments about $200 million. That is a lot of taxpayer money wasted on political theatrics.
In California, statewide politics are dominated by one party, so the opposition sometimes views the recall process as their best chance of gaining power.
Regardless of your politics, the recall process is not only expensive, but also it can cause a relatively small minority of voters to elect a replacement official. This existing political paradigm encourages recalls, which are very expensive. The 1911 changes to the recall process served their purpose and are no longer needed.
Proposition 5 modifies the state constitution to eliminate the second prong of the process. If the governor is successfully recalled, the normal succession provisions of the state constitution will control and the lieutenant governor will replace the governor.
If any other official is successfully recalled, depending on the office, either the office will remain vacant until filled by a subsequent special election, or the governor will select a replacement.
I am voting in favor of Proposition 5 because it reduces the political incentives for implementing the recall process while retaining the electorate’s ability to recall a corrupt politician.
Jim de Bree is a Valencia resident.
