Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Four reasons why the California recall is a ruse

Opinion

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

Everyone should see the campaign to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom for what it really is: an effort to put someone in office with far less than 50 percent of the votes cast, according to the authors.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Brown is the former speaker of the California Assembly and former mayor of San Francisco. Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco.


Mail-in voting is underway for California's Sept. 14 special recall election. It's a horse race with surveys showing the incumbent, Gov. Gavin Newsom, with a bit of a lead. But polling in recent years has been really far off.

The recall is clearly not what observers have called the Jan. 6 events in Washington, D.C. – an attempted "coup" to overturn an election. But everyone should see the recall for what it is: an effort to do what cannot be done in a general election, namely putting someone in office with far less than 50 percent of the votes cast.

Nice work if you can get it!

Here are four reasons why the recall is an anti-democratic ruse.

1. The rules favor those who want to upset the apple cart of democracy.

None of the 46 candidates running to replace Newsom has to win half the votes. Only the first question on the ballot requires majority approval: Should Newsom be recalled? Opposing the recall requires a "No" vote. If a majority of voters answer "Yes," the candidate with the most votes becomes governor, even if they garner only 25 percent support. Or less.

2. The folks behind it can't win the normal way.

Most of the 46 candidates to replace Newsom, a Democrat, are Republicans. John Cox, who lost to Newsom for governor in 2018, has pumped at least $5 million into TV ad-buys to support the recall and his current candidacy.

Unsuccessful Republican candidates for Congress in Southern California led two of the three groups who initiated the recall.

Orrin Heatlie, a retired Yolo County sheriff's sergeant and leading recall proponent, describes himself as mainstream. But he has major support from the fringes, including the Proud Boys, the militant group whose members are charged with assaulting Capitol Police on Jan. 6.

Heatlie had a 2019 Facebook post that read: "Microchip all illegal immigrants. It works! Just ask Animal control." He has since walked it back as not intended to be taken literally.

On that front, leading Republican candidate Larry Elder mentored Donald Trump's feverish anti-immigration guru, Stephen Miller, and in 2016 emailed him: "I hope to live to see when you are elected President."

3. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on an election that would have happened the right way a year later.

Seven of 10 California voters say it's a waste to spend the estimated $215 million that the special election will cost taxpayers. Newsom would need to face voters in November 2022 anyway if he wants a second term.

Most voters would limit recalls to situations where a governor committed a crime or engaged in indisputably unethical conduct. Newsom did neither. His misstep that energized this recall's backers was his visit to a luxury restaurant during severe Covid restrictions.

Bad optics, for sure, but not a crime or unethical. A vote against the recall would send a message that Californians think the $215 million was misspent and that recall elections should be limited to special circumstances.

4. It could be a stealth way to shift power in the federal government.

We're all vulnerable to accident or illness, including U.S. senators. If a Republican becomes governor through the recall, and a new senator were needed before November 2022, a Republican appointee would swing the chamber to a GOP majority, completely changing control of Congress' legislative branch. Mitch McConnell would be re-anointed majority leader.

That could occur legitimately, of course, if the country votes in 2022 for more Republican Senate candidates than Democratic candidates. But democracy would be undermined if that result were to follow from substantially less than half of California's voters selecting the winning candidate for governor.

The recall can be justified only as a partisan maneuver. Every vote counts, for California and for the nation.


Read More

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

Donkey and elephant

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

#1. Deep Dive: Is it Realistic to Make Parties Great Again?

There’s intriguing new energy for advancing party-based forms of proportional representation (PR) in the United States, along with substantial legal efforts to win fusion voting where candidates earn the right to be nominated by more than one party. The underlying theory of the case for this new energy is that American political parties should be both strengthened and allowed to multiply. But is that what either the voters or elected leaders want? Here’s a longer “Deep Think” than usual to explore that question.

First, here’s new evidence of this energy and the intellectual case around stronger parties behind it:

Keep ReadingShow less
A person at a voting booth.

Independent voters now make up the largest voting bloc in the U.S., yet many are excluded from primaries and debates. Why reforming primary elections requires empowering independents.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Empowering Independent Voters Can Fix Primary Elections

Not long ago, almost no one talked about the rules and culture of primary elections. Today, there is a growing recognition that the way we run primary elections isn’t working. They’re too partisan. Too low turnout. Too dominated by ideological activists. My organization, Open Primaries, has spent years pushing this conversation into the mainstream.

But we won’t fix primaries purely by tweaking rules. Their dysfunction is a symptom of a larger problem: the systemic exclusion of independent voters from our political life. To truly reform them, we have to start with an honest discussion about why so many Americans are leaving the parties- and what it would take to empower them as full participants in our democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Liberty and Justice for Some

Stephanie Toliver examines book bans, transgender rights in Kansas, the impacts of ICE detentions, and the history of conditional equality in America’s schools, libraries, and churches.

Getty Images, Catherine McQueen

Liberty and Justice for Some

Late February brought two stories that most Americans filed under separate categories. In Kansas, the state government invalidated the driver's licenses and birth certificates of transgender residents, erasing legal identities with the stroke of a pen. In New York, a Columbia University neuroscience student named Ellie Aghayeva was taken from her campus apartment by federal agents who misrepresented themselves to get through the door and held by ICE until the city's mayor personally petitioned for her release. Different people, different states, different mechanisms. The same message: for some of us, the promises of this nation were always conditional.

And yet, many Americans hold onto the lie of equality because acknowledging the truth would mean that the foundational promise we have repeated since childhood — liberty and justice for all — was never meant for all of us. It is far easier to accept comfortable fictions than to reckon with a truth that destabilizes everything you thought you knew. That meritocracy is real. That all are equal. That the documents we carry and the institutions we enter will protect us the same way they protect everyone else. But for many of us, there was never a fiction to hold onto. We were born into the conditions the lie was designed to obscure.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michael B. Jordan standing next to Delroy Lindo

Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the 41st Annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

Getty Images, Phillip Faraone

Not OK: Curb Slurs and Hate Speech To Avoid The Monstrous

John Davidson shouted out the n-word while Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo presented a prize recently at the British Academy Film Awards.

Was it hate speech or a mistake made due to a disability?

Keep ReadingShow less