With the failure of the Newsom recall, you can expect Democrats and their media allies to gang up and question the very validity of California’s recall process. Ironically, the recall is a Progressive Era reform embedded in the state’s constitution for 110 years and designed to allow citizens to express themselves if special interests or a one-party state come to dominate state government.
You can now expect the One Party Empire to strike back and ensure its continued control.
“The recall process is crazy,’ intones New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. The Los Angeles Times attacks the forces “who are exploiting this outdated law to seize power.”
California Sen. Alex Padilla calls the recall “partisan, reckless, dangerous.” An Atlantic magazine columnist reports Newsom told him that if he survives the recall “he’ll consider changing the law in order to make recalls harder.”
Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who was herself appointed by Newsom earlier this year, has questioned whether it should be possible for someone to become governor without winning a majority of votes. She also suggested that the signature threshold required to force a gubernatorial recall election might be too low. State lawmakers have already sent to Newsom’s desk a bill to ban paying professional signature-gatherers to collect signatures to put recalls, initiatives and referendums on the ballot.
State Sen. Ben Allen, a Santa Monica Democrat, has introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow a politician facing a recall to also run as a replacement candidate. The top vote-getter, whether incumbent or challenger, would serve for the remainder of the term. In practical terms, such a change would make recalls almost impossible.
Another idea would have California’s lieutenant governor automatically advance to the governor’s office, which would likely negate the chance that voters could use the recall to move in a different ideological direction. Yet another proposal would dramatically narrow the allowable reasons for a recall.