Over the past century, Californians have used ballot initiatives to cut property taxes, improve literacy, protect air quality and limit nuclear plants.
Now, voters may write a new chapter in California’s history by taking the unusual step of recalling a governor — Gray Davis — re-elected just 10 months ago. Chief among the multitude of would-be successors are actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante.
While the date of the recall is uncertain — on Sept. 15, a federal appeals court postponed the recall election on the grounds that some votes would be cast using outmoded punch-card ballot machines — when it does happen, the event will prove historic. Since 1911, Californians have voted on 275 law-changing initiatives — but until now, never a governor’s recall.
While gathering petition signatures and using referendums to change laws is almost as much a part of life in California as eating healthy cuisine or sitting in traffic, this unprecedented effort at recalling a sitting governor in California has drawn significant interest from experts and pundits across the nation.
At UC Davis, faculty members are carefully watching the recall as well. Here’s a sampling of faculty viewpoints, ranging from the historical, political, psychological to the cultural.
Recall as a corruption-buster
Eric Rauchway, a history professor, says the original point of the recall was to democratize government. “The recall gave Americans something like the vote of no confidence that can topple (British) Parliamentary ministers.”
He explained that in the early 20th Century California adopted the idea of direct democracy through ballot initiatives as a way to circumvent a corrupt legislature controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad. To some, it seemed the tracks of the railroad ran right through the front doors of the state capitol.
Rauchway noted that other Western states, where railroad, mining and timber businesses held sway, were the first to enact direct democracy reforms including the initiative, referendum and recall. South Dakota, Utah, Oregon, Nevada and Montana adopted direct-democracy measures for their constitutions between 1898 and 1906. Localities also adopted the recall — Berkeley and Los Angeles had it before the state of California did.
“In at least one of its earliest uses it worked more or less as intended,” Rauchway said. “Mayor Arthur Harper of Los Angeles stood accused of corruption in 1909. He was supposed to be in bed with the Southern Pacific Railroad, one of the chief corporate villains of California legend. And so the Municipal League, a voluntary organization of reformers, got together sufficient signatures for a recall.”
Harper resigned and the reformers’ candidate was subsequently elected. In the early days, Rauchway says that Progressives had a “touchingly naïve faith” that if they made politics more democratic, citizens would become more involved and more responsible for their own affairs. But that didn’t happen. “Turnout dropped in the era of direct democracy and after,” he said.
Elections also became increasingly expensive, he said, and modern media combined with big money created referendum campaigns that “became the projects of precisely the corporate interests the Progressives wanted to drum out of politics.”
As for California’s current recall, he described it as “a little paradoxical” project that began like a “nightmare from the Progressive standpoint” with the funding of a rich businessman, Congressman Darrell Issa.
Now it looks as though there might indeed be “extremely high” turnout, Rauchway said. “Whether the citizenry will be well-educated by the media coverage of the election is another question.”
A threat to effectiveness?
Walter Stone, chair and professor of political science, says a number of problems exist in the recall.
“One major problem is that it violates the American fixed-term tradition without appropriate safeguards,” he wrote in a column for the San Francisco Chronicle. “Democracy does not require that elected leaders live in fear of being thrown out of office at any time. Rather, it requires them to be held accountable for their decisions and actions in regularly scheduled elections. A fixed-term gives leaders time to get something done, knowing that they will have to explain themselves, especially if they wish to get re-elected,” he said.
Stone believes that impeachment and recall with appropriate safeguards are perfectly consistent with democratic practice, but only in “extreme cases.” He suggests increasing the number of signatures needed to force a recall. While California’s constitution requires that petitioners collect signatures equal to 12 percent of the vote cast in the previous election, most of the 14 other states with recall require 25 percent or more. “The problem with a low threshold is that it is too easy for a small group or an individual to finance a recall movement and compel an election,” Stone said.
Stone also finds the ballot itself problematic. “It contains two very different questions on a single ballot.” Those are whether the governor should be recalled, and if so, who should be his replacement.
“With so many candidates, there is a strong possibility that a second-stage winner will have a small plurality. Our new governor could lack a mandate, and be less popular and weaker politically than Davis is now. That, in turn, could make the problems the new governor faces even more difficult, increasing frustration and generating future recalls,” Stone said.
He thinks that separate elections for the recall and successor would be a better approach. “Much more is at stake here than the fate of one struggling politician.”
Political science professor Robert Huckfeldt has similar concerns about the ballot. “I doubt whether James Madison and the other participants at the Constitutional Convention would think that our recall provision is a well-designed political institution.”
Huckfeldt noted that simply filling out a ballot doesn’t guarantee democracy. “One cannot simply call an election and assume that the will of the people will be realized.”
A trio of leadership factors
Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor, says whoever is elected governor of California will face “highly diverse” problems that will make it hard to govern. “You can’t satisfy one block of voters without alienating another block.” he added.
Sometimes the problems facing a political unit become so complex that the system becomes, in a sense, ungovernable, he said. “A classic case is the U.S. just prior to the break out of the Civil War. It’s possible that California is in the same condition right now.”
The way Simonton sees it, political leaders — whether a California governor or U.S. president — are judged on strength, competence and integrity.
“Schwarzenegger can project strength, for sure, but what about competence?” Simonton said. “The poor governor has formed a bad impression on all three criteria. Bustamante may claim high standing in competence and integrity, but his image regarding strength would suffer a contrast effect relative to Schwarzenegger.”
For Latinos, the recall may provide a unique opportunity. If voted in, Bustamante would be the first Mexican-American governor in California.
Adela de la Torre, professor of Chicana/o studies, said, “I do not sense the issue of the recall itself will push Latinos to the poll. Rather it is the confluence of these two very unique candidates who clearly represent diametrically opposed perspectives that can be clearly delineated by Latino voters.”
An issue de la Torre said will be of interest to the more educated Latino sectors will be the Connerly initiative — Proposition 54 — on collecting data on race and ethnicity. “This will draw younger and more educated Latinos, who realize the practical implications of forced homogenization of California.”
The paradoxical nature of leading
Kimberly Elsbach, associate professor of management, said images, identities and reputations — such as legitimacy and trustworthiness — factor into how voters perceive leadership. She observed that the gubernatorial candidates face the challenge of appearing as “idealized leaders,” which in itself presents many paradoxes.
“On the one hand, we expect leaders to be unfailingly competent and to never make a mistake,” said Elsbach. “On the other hand, leaders will inevitably make mistakes, and if they aren’t due to human incompetence, then they must be due to malevolence.”
Elsbach said the same holds true for candidates in how we expect leaders to be consistent in their stances on issues and never admit they were wrong in the past. Yet as new information becomes available, she said, it’s often in followers’ best interests for a leader to change his or her stance. The public also expects leaders to demonstrate that they are in complete control and that they, alone, are responsible for their decisions.
Credibility, Elsbach said, also is central to whether elected candidates fulfill their campaign promises. Still, such thinking often leads to the “token” fulfillment of some promises.
Ultimately, Elsbach said candidates who best deal with these paradoxes will have the best chance of being perceived as good leaders.
Meanwhile, political science assistant professor Ben Highton puts it this way: “Cruz Bustamante has two significant advantages over Arnold Schwarzenegger. There are many more Democrats than Republicans in California. And, there are many more Latinos than Austrians in California.”