В Калифорнии выдвинули инициативу Proposition 5 для реформы системы отзыва губернаторов

Voices See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred Proposition 5 on the November ballot would prevent a governor’s replacement from taking office by winning just marginal support. It’s the first step toward a badly needed overhaul of California’s recall system. Is a hissy fit worth $200 million? That was the tab in 2021, when California held a recall election less than a year before Gov. Gavin Newsom was set to face voters. There was angst — the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. There was anger — the lifesaving restrictions imposed by Washington and Sacramento made daily living a chore and drove many small businesses to the brink. Others went clear over the edge. There was also no small amount of political opportunism at play. The recall gave Newsom’s critics, mainly on the right, a chance to try to chase the Democrat from an office that Republicans, under normal circumstances, stood little chance of winning. In the end, the recall effort amounted to scarcely more than a partisan tantrum. The result — 61.9% voting no, 38.1% voting yes — matched the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race down to the decimal. All that money and effort wasted on an election in which voters said pretty much, yep, we meant what we said. Not too long after, they gave Newsom a second term. The plebiscite, and its pointlessness, underscored the many flaws inherent in California’s recall system. In November, voters will get a chance to remedy at least one of them, eliminating the chance a candidate could take office with just marginal support from voters. Trigger warning: What follows is a somewhat wonky explanation of election rules and procedures. One choice, not two Currently, a recall election is conducted in two parts. Voters are asked whether a lawmaker should be removed and, if so, who their replacement should be. If the incumbent is ousted, whoever gets the most votes takes their place, even if they fall well shy of attaining majority support. (Which is not out of the question in a large multi-candidate field; in 2003, 135 people were on the ballot, vying to replace Gov. Gray Davis.) Among its provisions, Proposition 5 would amend the state Constitution so that voters would be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do you wish to recall the incumbent? If so, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor for the rest of the ousted executive’s term — unless the recall occurred during the first two years a governor was in office and before the filing deadline for the next statewide election. In that case, a special election would be held on the same date as the next primary and a candidate receiving a majority of votes would serve out the governor’s term. If no candidate received a majority, the top-two finishers would face each other in a November runoff, with the winner taking over as governor. Still there? Proposition 5 has two benefits. It would save taxpayer dollars by consolidating elections and it would enhance the legitimacy and political standing of a replacement governor by ensuring he or she assumed office with at least 50% support. But there’s still more to be done. Ending political promiscuity California makes it way too easy to qualify a gubernatorial recall measure. Of the 19 states that allow their governor to be booted, California is by far the most permissive. Forcing an election requires signatures reflecting just 12% of the ballots cast in the prior gubernatorial contest. In Newsom’s case, proponents needed just under 1.5 million signatures in a state with more than 22 million voters and nearly 40 million residents. Not exactly a thundering roar. The threshold should be higher and the reasons for kicking a governor out of office should be more serious, such as corruption, official malfeasance or conviction for a serious crime. Not just because a governor is a member of the opposite party, or people on the losing end of an election are unhappy with the result. “The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters,” Josh Newman of Fullerton and Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles said in advocating change. The two Democratic lawmakers authored the constitutional amendment, which was placed on November’s ballot by the Legislature. If you think overhauling the process is simply about protecting partisan interests, consider: Should Republican Steve Hilton pull off an epic upset and become California’s next governor, is there any doubt a recall effort would be underway before he and Mrs. Hilton even had the chance to start boxing their belongings for the move to Sacramento? The recall is a vestige of the Progressive-era good-government movement. But the process needs to be revamped to reflect today’s bad-faith political environment. The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent oversight agency, has recommended several changes, including raising the signature requirement and prohibiting recalls undertaken during the first 90 days and the last six months of an officeholder’s term. Elections, it’s said, have consequences. They also have — or should have — end dates and final results that are respected, not re-litigated until the losing side gets its way. Proposition 5 is a step in the right direction. More should follow. What else you should be reading Get smart: Trump’s economic record is working against him in the midterms The deep dive: Backlash over data centers hits California, and the midterms The L.A. Times Special: Integrity on the ballot: Election deniers target secretary of state races in key states Until next time, mzb — Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox. Insights L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles. Viewpoint This article generally aligns with a Center point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis Perspectives The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the piece The column contends that California’s gubernatorial recall process has become a costly outlet for partisan grievance, pointing to the 2021 effort against Gov. Gavin Newsom as an expensive, largely redundant re-litigation of the 2018 election rather than a meaningful exercise in accountability [5]. It suggests that such recalls siphon public money and attention from governance while merely confirming outcomes voters had already endorsed [5]. The article argues that the core structural flaw in California’s recall rules is the two-question ballot, which allows voters to remove an incumbent by majority vote while simultaneously electing a replacement who may win with only a small plurality [2] [6] [11]. It notes that in a crowded field this can produce a scenario where a governor receives far more votes than the successor yet still loses office, a result critics in other commentaries have labeled undemocratic and potentially unconstitutional [2] [6] [11]. Building on that critique, the piece supports Proposition 5, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot that would eliminate the simultaneous successor election and ask a single yes-or-no question about recalling the incumbent [4] [7] [12]. It explains that, under the measure, a recalled governor’s seat would be filled either by the lieutenant governor for the remainder of the term or, when the recall occurs early in a term, by a special election in which the winner must secure a majority, with a runoff if necessary, thereby ensuring the replacement takes office with broader voter support [4] [7] [12]. The column further maintains that California’s signature threshold for initiating a gubernatorial recall—12% of votes cast in the previous governor’s race, roughly 1.5 million signatures in Newsom’s case—makes it too easy for a relatively small, motivated minority to force a statewide election [9] [10]. It argues that the bar should be higher and that grounds for recall should be limited to serious misconduct such as corruption or criminal conviction, echoing concerns in oversight reports that the current open-ended standard invites overuse and abuse of the process [1] [8] [10]. In addition, the piece suggests that the recall has drifted from its Progressive-era good-government roots into a tool for “bad actors” who can target officials they simply dislike and potentially install successors lacking majority support [1] [8]. It cites reform recommendations from the Little Hoover Commission, which has urged changes such as raising the signature requirement and restricting recall timing, as evidence that independent watchdogs also see the existing framework as vulnerable to manipulation and in need of modernization [1] [8]. Different views on the topic A law review article argues that California’s recall system is not overpowered and, in fact, functions much as its Progressive-era designers intended: as a difficult but potent “voter weapon” to menace and remove public officials when necessary [3]. It notes that from 1911 to 2021, 179 recall petitions were filed against state officials, but only 11 qualified for the ballot and just six succeeded, a record the piece uses to contend that recalls are already rare and that fears of rampant abuse are overstated [3]. While sharing concerns about undemocratic outcomes, some reform advocates favor a different structural fix than Proposition 5, proposing a “snap” special recall election in which the incumbent appears on the ballot alongside all challengers rather than leaving the office temporarily vacant [8]. The Little Hoover Commission, for example, recommends replacing the two-part ballot with such a system and adjusting the signature requirement to 10% of registered voters, arguing that this approach both raises the bar for launching a recall and ensures that any successor must defeat the incumbent directly in a single election [1] [8]. The law review piece also emphasizes the historical role of the recall as a central Progressive innovation that gives voters a direct tool to check officials between regular election cycles, and it warns that sweeping restrictions on who can initiate recalls or on permissible reasons could blunt that instrument of accountability [3]. By stressing that recall attempts are frequently filed but rarely successful, the article suggests that the existing hurdles already filter out frivolous efforts and that tightening the rules further could unduly insulate incumbents from public pressure [3].