Two Suggested Changes to California’s Recall Law

Two Suggested Changes to California’s Recall Law By Chris Micheli

            When I read about another recall effort being launched against California Governor Gavin Newsom, it prompted me to review the provisions of Article II of the state Constitution that provides for the three forms of direct democracy, including the recall. That review prompted me to recommend two changes to our state Constitution to limit the potential for abuse and hopefully save considerable taxpayer funds, while also preserving the ability to recall state officers.

            To put things in context, Article II, Section 13 provides: “Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.” As readers will remember, a recall effort was successfully placed on a special election ballot held on September 14, 2021. That recall effort, which failed miserably by a margin of 62% to 38%, cost state and local governments in excess of $200 million to conduct. Of course, Governor Newsom went on to win a second and final term in November 2022 with 59% of the statewide vote.

            With reports of another recall effort being launched recently, I was reminded of the current six-month rule that is contained in Article II, Section 18, which was added in June 1976 by Prop. 14:

 

A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by the State for the officer’s recall election expenses legally and personally incurred. Another recall may not be initiated against the officer until six months after the election.

            This particular section of Article II only applies to statewide officers – the nine constitutional offices (including the State Board of Equalization). It is the second sentence contained in Section 18 that should be amended in my view. I would make three changes:

First, the current six-month prohibition should be repealed. Otherwise, a statewide officer could face multiple recall special elections over the course of their term because the current provision allows repeated recall attempts regardless of their likelihood of success or their costs to the state and local governments.

Second, in order to address this concern, a new provision should be added to provide a new limitation that a recall could only occur once per 4-year term for a state officer. In other words, during a state officer’s four years in office, he or she should only have to face one recall ballot. This would balance the recall rights of the People with costs of potentially repeated recall attempts.

Third, a new provision should be added to provide that a recall cannot occur if less than half of the state officer’s term is remaining. In other words, if the state officer has already served over half of their term, and the officer is either facing re-election or a term limit, there is really no justification for a recall to be on the ballot at that time. That is because the voters will have their say soon (if the officer is standing for re-election) or the state official will be out of office soon enough to not warrant the time and costs of a recall ballot.

            As a result, my proposed changes to Section 18 of Article II would look like this:

(a) A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by the State for the officer’s recall election expenses legally and personally incurred. Another recall may not be initiated against the officer until six months after the election. (b) A recall of a state officer shall not be initiated more than once during the term of that officer. (c) A recall of a state officer shall not be initiated if the state officer has served more than half of that officer’s term.

            Of course, these changes would have to be placed before the voters for their approval, either by a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or by an initiative measure, in order to amend Section 18. Also, this proposal would not affect impeachment provisions for state officers under Article IV, Section 18, which apply for alleged misconduct in office.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Reason to Limit Bill Introductions?

Another Reason to Limit Bill Introductions?  By Chris Micheli             As I did my final review of Governor Newsom’s actions on the 1,046 bills sent to him after the 2023 Legislative Session, I noticed that some of the Governor’s veto messages provide additional rationales for limiting bill introductions.             Out of 156 vetoes from the 2023 Session, the number one reason for the Governor’s veto was budget concerns or cost pressures. In fact, 41% of the vetoes used that basis. That by itself is not a reason to limit bill introductions, but another statistic may provide such a reason…             By my count, just over 1/3 of the bills vetoed by Governor Newsom likely should not have been sent to his Desk and, arguably, should not have made it through the process at all. In fact, perhaps they should not h...
Read more

Frequently Asked Questions about California’s Budget Process

Frequently Asked Questions about California’s Budget Process  By Chris Micheli             What are the main parts of the California state budget? They are the Budget Bill, Budget Bill Junior, Trailer Bills, and Supplemental Reports.             What is the Budget Bill? This bill contains the appropriations and “Budget Bill Language”. Note that only a Budget Bill (or BBJ) can contain multiple appropriations. It requires a majority vote for passage and the bill takes effect immediately. There is just one Budget Bill. What is the “Budget Bill Jr.”? This is the bill that amends the main Budget Bill by making changes to multiple appropriations. There are often multiple BBJs. What is a Trailer Bill? This bill makes the statutory changes needed to implement the budget. It is the same as any other bill, but it takes effect immediately with a majority vote if it contain...
Read more

Can Any Bill Call an Election?

Can Any Bill Call an Election?  By Chris Micheli             In June 2024, we saw two bills that contain a provision to call an election.             Both bills contain a “plus” section at the end of the bill, which is an uncodified statute, stating the following: “this act calls an election within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.” Such a measure only requires a majority vote, unless some other constitutional provision requires a higher vote threshold (e.g., a tax increase). What is the basis for this statement? Section 8(c)(3) of Article IV of the state Constitution provides: “ Statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.” However, there is no further gui...
Read more