В Калифорнии инициатива по отмене прямых выборов замещающих кандидатов при отзыве депутатов получила название «Мстительность Ньюмана»

When California Governor Gray Davis was the subject of a recall effort in 2003, he said in a televised speech at UCLA that he thought the recall would damage “the very fabric of our democracy.” It’s obviously no fun to be on the receiving end of a recall petition, but far from damaging democracy, the power to recall elected officials before their terms have expired is one of the direct democracy powers that California voters have had since 1911. The others are the power of initiative, allowing citizens to write and then enact laws by placing them on the ballot directly, and referendum, the power of voters to reject a law passed by the Legislature. All of these are tools of accountability. Elected officials may not like to see accountability arrive earlier than expected, but that doesn’t make Californians’ direct democracy powers a threat to democracy. Another elected official who faced a recall was state Senator Josh Newman. After narrowly defeating Republican Ling Ling Chang to win the 29th Senate District seat in 2016, Newman, a Democrat, voted in 2017 to increase the gas tax and vehicle registration fees. In 2018, furious voters recalled Newman by a vote of 58% to 42%. This editorial board opposed the recall of Newman at the time, arguing recalls should “be used sparingly.” On the same ballot, Chang, who we endorsed, won the race to replace him. Two years later, Newman ran for the seat again, defeated Chang to reclaim it, and served through 2024. Redistricting moved Newman into the new 37th Senate District, and he was narrowly defeated by Republican former Assemblyman Steven Choi. Before leaving the Senate, however, Newman led an effort to gut the recall. The vehicle was Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 1. The Legislature passed it in 2024 and placed it on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval. “Newman’s Revenge” is now Proposition 5, and voters should reject it. Proposition 5 would eliminate the election of a replacement candidate on the same ballot as a recall. Currently a recall ballot has two questions: 1) Should the elected official be removed, and 2) Choose a candidate to replace that official if the recall is successful. Prop. 5 would not allow a simultaneous election for a replacement. If a state official other than a governor was recalled, the office would become vacant and would be filled by special election or appointment, according to existing law. If a governor was recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over and serve until the end of the term or until a special election could be held, depending on timing. Under current law, a recalled official is barred from running as a replacement candidate in the special election to fill the seat. Proposition 5 changes that. In a special election to replace a recalled official, the recalled official could be on the ballot. These changes turn a process to remove officials from power into a cynical blueprint to keep power in the hands of the same officials. It makes a mockery of the recall, which was designed to empower voters to remove and immediately replace an officeholder for any reason, whether the officeholder thinks the reason is sufficient or not. Elected officials may not like it, but the recall is no attack on democracy. If anything, it’s democracy’s version of DoorDash, delivering accountability fast, and wherever it’s needed. It’s a tool for the people, not the politicians. Vote no on Proposition 5.