I support this recall election

because if I didn't, it would make me a hypocryte. I remember when Arizona Republican Governor Evan Mecham was facing Imprisonment, Impeachment, and a recall, I was a 100% for it. He was not well liked, he made comments that offended hispanics, jews, women, and orientals. He also choose to rescind the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday as one of his first acts of Governor. By November 1987 enough signatures were valid to force a recall election by May 1988, but... a story broke out that he recieved a $350,000 campaign loan and went under investigation by the Attorney General. He later charged him with 6 felony counts starting with the loan, a week later the House voted 46-14 to impeach him, therefore making the recall election unnecessary. But I do not agree with the reasons to recall Gray Davis but if I lived in California, I would probaly vote for someone else, maybe Ariana Huffington.

:kick:

Can't compare Davis to Evan Mecham. This recall is a spit in the face of Democracy, much like the 2000 selection.

I just stated that I don't agree with the reasons to recall Gray Davis. But I stated that If I supported one recall, I should back another recall just because I don't agree with the reasons, but because I feel recalls are necessary because at times, you can end up having an idiot running your state such as Evan Mecham.

After all, breaking the law is breaking the law, n'est-ce pas?

Why can't you just say you support the right of the people to take the matter of removing a crooked official into their own hunds if the legislature does not remove him first?

In the case of Arizona, the legislature did its duty.

In the case of California, there is no duty to do.

Gray Davis has done nothing to warrent him being taken out of office. He's Governor of CA during economic bad times, that's all.
Repukes don't like playing by the rules.
Davis won- get over it Republicans!!

The people have been disenchanted with him. That's enough to warrant a recall.

"Disenchancement" is not a reason for recall. Recall is correct when an elected official has committed a felony. The California recall is a negation of voter's choice. What is the point in voting if anyone with a lot of money can get someone recalled? The recall in California is another example of stealing a legal vote just like Florida was.

There is a recall provision. I didn't see where they can't get rid of a governor they don't like.

I'm sure there are plenty of 100 year old laws that you can find on the books that will make you smile.

As long as it remains on the books. If you don't like that, lobby to have it removed.

Do you agree with them too?

Using the "it's legal so it's ok" argument is ridiculous.

Don't have to. One was legal, the other was not.

and they come only so often as to promote continuity. The recall is a farce. We should be able to recall * with only 10% of the vote? This is dangerous to Democracy

And yes, disenchantment is a perfectly valid reason for recall. The governor is a public servant and an elected official; if the constituency that elected him wants him replaced now then it should have the option of kicking him out.

Muddleoftheroad is technically correct. In fact, the California state conctitution specifically states the the reasons for a recall are not subject to review. An official may be recalled for less good reason than having a bad haircut.

The point of the prohibition of review is to prevent a desperate public official from dragging the process out with frivolous lawsuits.

However, I do not agree that "disenchantment" is valid reason to recall a official. It might be a good enough reason to give a prime minister a vote of no confidence; in in our system of separation of powers, a official is elected to a fixed term and should be allowed to complete it unless there is serious wrongdoing. Whether there is serious wrongdoing is up the the judgment of each individual voter.

The Recall was written into the state constitution in 1911 as a remedy for a plague of high level corruption. The railroads were running the state and were passing on the cost of bribing public officials in higher shiupping rates. The idea of the Recall, Referendum and Intiative is to allow the people to take matters into their own hands if the poiliticians do not. Thus, the Recall should be used to remove a statewide officer who should be impeached by an unwilling state legislature.

Therefore, while I might be disenchanted with Davis, I will vote to retain him. If those backing the recall show some real malfeasance on his part between now and October 7, I might change my mind.

Hell we probably have a million of them here in Riverside County, This looks like its going to be the biggest farce since them cops went of trail for beating up on Rodney King

Them law and order State Supreme Court Judges will deserve every piece of flack that comes their way when this thing turns bad. Judges sometimes need to supersede laws with rulings when the publics better interests are involved, these folks are well derelict.

It probably would be no surprise if it was to found out that most of them have been appointed during the sixteen years of GOP governors prior

"Disenchancement" is not a reason for recall. Recall is correct when an elected official has committed a felony."

Legally, though, there doesn't need to be a reason for a recall. The law was written so as to allow a recall with or without a basis. It sucks, but it's the law. Maybe the people of California will change the law after this thing is over, but I doubt it. California seems to be going through a serious governmental crisis these days.

in every state in the union ?

If the entire basis for the recall election is the budget deficit, we should be getting 50 new Governors. More importantly, should we be neck deep in the impeachment of AWOL.

Hypocrits

Cheers
Drifter

don't you get it? The Repub neo-cons want the 54 electoral votes.

I was talking about this recall at a restaurant with an expatriate from California the other day. We were looking at the energy scandal aspects (Davis seems to want to get to the bottom of it), when an American university professor who was sitting at the next table chimed in "If any Republican wins, no matter who, it will be much easier for Bush to get those 54 electoral votes."

He will have not coattails and no mandate. and A completely deomcratic cabinet and Statehouse. He has no appartus to deleiver the 54 electoral vores.

That is the stupidity of what they are doing.

Sorry, rethugs, that is NO way to snatch 54 electoral votes.

The stuff you are citing is criminal and abuse of office, etc. From what I understand of the CA recall, it's a case of We Really Don't Like This Guy Because He's a Dem Even Though He Won An Election Fair And Square. A recall isn't supposed to be a "do over" like in kickball.

eileen from OH

I don't like the results of a fair election, I want to vote again.. Whine!!!

This guy before governor, made campaign promises after campaign promises. He ran for governor 4 times before he actually became governor so I don't think he expected to win, he was just an idiot who couldn't run the state. Also a bigot. I don't agree with the reasons to recall Gray Davis though.

from what I heard, 300+ candidates are expected to run, that is bound to spread votes around like crazy.

The question on Davis is merely a Yes or No question on removing him. The second question on the ballot will be who replaces him if he is removed. The first question passes if the Yes votes receives a simple majority. Davis cannot be a candidate to replace himself on the second issue.

sort of like trying to impeach over semantics over sex compared to abuse of power in an attempt to subvert the election process.

this incident took place, so Arizonans didn't want to recall him because he was a crook, they wanted him recalled because he was not well liked and he did a terrible job of running the state. The reasons why I support this recall is because I hear Democrats saying (can't cite a source) that they want to get rid of recalls once and for all, all I am is saying that recalls are useful because if there is a governor doing a terrible job of running your state, you need to a recall for the sake of the state and the people that live in it.

if someone hadn't PAID MILLIONS TO PROFESSIONAL OUT OF STATE SIGNATURE GATHERERS, there would be no recall today.

I guess this is acceptable strategy to you? Signature gatherers who told us "hey man, I'm from Missouri, I'm just getting paid?"

The law was never intended to be used by paid signature gatherers ($1 per signature) to overthrow a governor who has not been accused of any crime.

This is nothing less than a scam by the right wingers to try to undo a legal election.

the signatures reached the minimum and were all valid just before this incident took place.

The law is doing what it was designed to do. It will losen special interest. Gray has broken no law, because bribery in America is legal. Gray wouldn't reregulate the power industry because he is beholden to special interests. A right winger will not be his replacement.

Thanks...

So what you are saying is that the recall is entirely legal.

Personally, I don't like it, but it's legit. Now it's up to the people of California to decide whether to go through with it or not.

This recall effort is nothing less than the opening salvo of the 2004 campaign and all its inherent coming ugliness.

I guess you still don't get it: These guys want to erase us from the landsacpe permanently.

California is but the first in nationwide effort to disenfranchise voters. Look at the math of this. If they succeed here, they're coming to YOUR town next my friend.

The name of this game is distraction , to minimize what a democratic governor can accomplish.

Stop being so naive.
:nuke:

the same as Gray or more to the left than Gray. Why, because California isn't a right wing state. The only republican that could win is Arnold and he is a Rockefeller type, which is what most New Democrats like Gray used to be before the Goldwater contingent took over the republicans.

I've heard people from Vermont might be logically challenged.

and I like how you commented on what I said. I am just saying I support recalls because of the situation in Arizona, recalls are useful in case you have a governor who has no clue on how to run a state and must be recalled for the sake of the state, and the sake of the people in it.

What makes you think that any of the current problems in California are because of Davis?

Do show us something that Davis did -
-a mistake or an instance of any kind that can show us that Davis is the problem-
anything-

This is a just republikkin ploy to undermine things here.
They didn't get their corporate candidate elected(Simon) so now it's recall time.

most of it is because of Bush. Enron for example, plus many more energy companies deserve most of the blame for the budget crisis. Also, Bush is underfunding Homeland Security and States have to make up for it with their own $$. I should of said I support recalls, because I don't like the reasoning for recalling Gray Davis. The point I was trying to make is, in some cases recalls are necessary.

the same thing"you are a Dean supporter?" thanks for warning me

...that they're committing an extended analogy. Your point is that initating a recall vote when teh people don't like the governor is a good thing. The extended anlaogy is that since Davis is not exactly like Mecham, the analogy is flawed; this extended analogy is a known logical fallacy.

The governor should do what the people want him to do. If the people don't like him anymore, they should have a procedure to kick him out before time, especially when he's term limited so he can do whatever he wants to and fear no feedback from the people because he can't run in 2006.

The people of Arizona wanted to recall Mecham so they gathered up enough signatures to force a recall. I just included the scandal to explain why their wasn't a recall vote. I seen Dems on tv wanting to get rid of recalls once and for all, but recalls are necessary to get out a moron who has no clue on how to run your state, recalls are necessary for the sake of the state, and of the people.

I wonder how many DUers would support a recall attempt against Bush if it were possible to start one. My guess: all, including those who now say that the recall is undemocratic and other BS.

To compare Meacham's situation with that of Gray Davis is palpably absurd. Meacham was recalled because he was accused of specific crimes which he was later impeached by the Arizona legislature for.
No eveidence that Gray Davis has committed such crimes has been proffered.

The California recall is nothing but a thinly veiled coup de tat by a group of Pukes who couldn't win an election through conventional means.

As far as I know, recall elections are meant to be 'vote of confidence' elections, nothing more. 'Gross malfeasance' is a criminal offence, not a political one.

It's pretty clear to me, reading some of these responses, that the pukes are not the only ones who like actual democracy only when it favors them! :(

Being governor is a job, not a throne. If the person in the job isn't doing it to the satisfaction of the majority of voters, then s/he should be sacked. That's how democracy should work!

If the people of California think Davis is getting a bum rap, all they need do is vote 'no'. Case closed.

The idea that some rich corporate and religious backed fanatic paying $1 per signature to exploit a 100 year old law to overthrow a legal election is democracy is no better than saying that the impeachment of Bill Clinton or Florida 2000 was about Democracy.

Look, it was our elected leaders who impeached Clinton, so it was just democracy at work.

Look, it was just the Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents elected by the people overturning the election results, so it was democracy.

Everything is just "democracy" if you spin it the right way.

This is the exact opposite of democracy. It is the corporate right wing funded overthrow of a legally elected governor by using a lot of money and a 100 year old law in a way in which it was never intended to be used.

The idea that what's going on in California has anything to do with democracy is ridiculous.

It is an attack on democracy, just like the impeachment and just like Florida.

If you can't see that, you are part of the problem with the Democratic Party.

Democracy is what happens when the people vote. The House is not the people, and Florida2000 was the opposite of democracy, since it involved disenfranchising and hoodwinking the people.

But a fair election open to all and with the votes accurately counted? That is democracy. And the more it's used, the better it gets and the better we get.

I'd urge you to think harder about why you believe democracy is a 'problem' for the Democrats.

The people did vote and voted for Gray Davis. Case closed.

There has been a legal recall petition. Now they get to vote again.

Case closed.

The recall was triggered by exploiting an ancient law that allowed a rich right winger to pay $1 per signature to some companies to convince a tiny percentage of voters to trigger a new election right after a fully legal election.

When the law was written it was never intended to be used in this way, and once a Republican steals the office, it will be changed so it can never be used against them.

That is not democracy any more than what happened in Florida or when Clinton was impeached.

If General Electric could buy a recall anytime they wanted to get rid of a politician they personally didn't like, would you say that was democracy?

Your arguments are absolutely off base and you are supporting the undermining of democracy. What is going on in California is the opposite of democracy.

Look at Florida, look at Clinton's impeachment, look at California. These are no isolated events. These are part of a strategy by the right wing to undermine democracy.

The fact that any Democrats are fooled by this is almost more disheartening than the recall itself.

> The fact that any Democrats are fooled by this is almost more
> disheartening than the recall itself.

I don't believe we're fooled. I know that I'm not.

As I mentioned elsewhere, this is just the way "American" democracy
was designed to work. It has ALWAYS favored the wealthy over
the poor; the loud amplified voices over the quieter folks.


> If General Electric could buy a recall anytime they wanted to get
> rid of a politician they personally didn't like, would you say that
> was democracy?

In certain parts of our American democracy, that's exactly how it
is allowed to work; GE COULD fund a recall of any politician
they don't like. However, it's usually cheaper just to (pre-)buy the
politicians "retail" with campaign contributions than to pay to eject
the ones you don't like afterwards.

Atlant

That it was an 'ancient law'? That the guy was rich? That he is a right-winger? That it only cost him $1 per signature? That it only took a tiny percentage?

Or do you object to democracy itself? Because that schmuck had to pay more and jump through more hoops to get this election than it cost Davis to stand for election in the first place. And all people have to do to give him a flea in his ear is to vote 'no'. Do you not trust them to do that?

What's your objection, exactly? And I'd like a cite of the language, please, as evidence that the law 'was never intended to be used in this way'.

Which part do you like best? The rich guy manipulating the system? The dollar per vote? The tiny percentage overruling the majority? The legal election being overturned by a loophole in a 100 year old law?

If that's your definition of democracy, there are some nice countries in South America you might want to check out. :)

That's why they are having a recall election.

your perception of what democracy means. I note also that you've chosen to try to deflect rather than admit you 'misspoke' on the law.

Democracy is when every citizen in good standing votes, and all the votes are fairly counted. That's what democracy is. If you think it isn't, that it's 'my guy gets in' or 'my guy got in so he gets to stay in', then you are no better than any other two-bit banana-republic totalitarian. Don't go there.

Have you read your own posts lately? Try it.

> Then the Clinton impeachment and Florida 2000 were democracy.

Actually, the Clinton impeachment WAS democracy, at least
as it's defined here in America. Essentially everything the
Republicans did was perfectly legal and valid under our form
of constitutional democracy.

It's just that some parties know how to exercise raw political
power and some parties don't.

Florida was different. Plenty of laws were broken on the way
to THAT particular situation. And the corrupt officials
who benefited from the law breaking aren't going to do anything
to catch themselves.

But the recall election election in California IS democracy
and VermontDem2004 is right. And if you don't like it, refer to my
second paragraph or change the system.

Atlant

I can respect that opinion because you are consistent about the impeachment.

The Florida situation can also be spun as democracy if you want to see if that way.

In fact, anything to do with politics can be seen as democracy if you want to see if that way.

What's happening in California is part of a pattern of behavior by rich right wing groups to try to undermine democracy in America.

It is part of a strategy that goes exactly against the principle of democracy.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that Florida can be construed as 'democracy'. Disenfranchising voters is ANTI-democratic. Creating misleading ballots is ANTI-democratic. Refusing to allow all the votes to be counted and re-counted til everyone is satisfied is ANTI-democratic.

For pity's sake, at least study the meaning of the word first!

The Supreme Court justices are appointed by those elected by voters who happened to decide they didn't want a recount, so they decided to vote for who would be president.

It's legal, and they are voters, so it must be democracy.

I'm using your ridiculous logic on what democracy is.

because you clearly haven't the faintest idea what democracy means, and you're so hostile to it that you can't even bring yourself to accept a neutral definition.

So have fun with your temper-tantrum about the 'illegitimate' recall. Whether you're able to acknowledge it or not, that is democracy.

Very funny post.

But that doesn't seem to concern most recall supporters. Gross malfeasence? I think not. This is a disruption of the democratic election cycle.

Since Dan "I'm a freakin' CAR THRIEF" Issa paid for the signatures I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black...

Money and signatures. Why should they be held to a higher standard?

There is no comparison here. Mecham was not only virulently disliked, it was proven he broke campaign laws and gave kickbacks to his business.

Enron engineered the power crisis in CA, and Davis is being made the scapegoat.

Recall is a political punishment, not a criminal one. It's a 'vote of (no) confidence'.

is being violated in this instance. It was for gross malfeasance in office not unpopularity.

If a candidate becomes unpopular we defeat him or her at election times. That's what they are for.

If you think you're not, then cite the language that says it's only for criminal conduct.

that has the potential of being rejected by 80% of the voters be called a legitimately elected democratic leader.

As Jerry Brown, who knows a thing or two about CA politics said the fact you can have a situation where the winner is rejected by a super majority of the voters demonstrates the infirmities of the system.

And you are obviously confused between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

In any case, I'll defer to Jerry Brown before I defer to you.

A recall election is a vote of confidence. It's political, just as an ordinary election is. If the people who voted then are the only ones who vote now, and those who put him in office are still satisfied by his performance, then they'll vote 'no' and that will be that. If he can't muster more 'no' votes than yesses, then he'll be sacked. That's how democracy should work.

People who want to get rid of democratic institutions when it's their ox being gored are not really democrats.

That's a bastardization of the political process.

Sadaam got 98% of the vote. I guess that was a legitimate election too.

What else could it possibly mean???

.

There is a paradox in a recall election. True, those who initiate the recall don't need a good reason. However, what is the criteria that the voters should use in voting on a recall.

For reasons given in post number 88, I believe a recall is life an impeachment. While some of the reasons given to recall Davis are better than he got a BJ from an intern, I still believe they fall short of what is needed to remove him from office. I will vote to retain.

You're exercising your democratic right, and if everyone does the same then Davis is all set.

As to the criteria that should be used in deciding whether to try it on -- I think 'dissatisfaction' is perfectly fine. I personally don't know much about his tenure, but, from whatever I can determine, he has failed to recover satisfactorily from the energy scam, so the citizens are still totally vulnerable. That seems like a huge mark against him, but I'm sure the nitwit who started this had a completely different motive.

If you believe that his failure to recover from the energy scam is a defficiency worthy of recall, then you, too, are exercising your right as a citizen.

I'm for public power. I would put the state government in the business of proudicing and delivering gas and electricity to homes and businesses throughout the state. The market was shown to be dysfunctional, so the free market purists have no case here. This is just something I believe that government can do better than private industry.

Davis didn't opt for that (I wrote him a letter about it in 2001). Should I vote to recall over that? No. He's the Governor, not me. If, on the other hand, one were to show that Davis negotiated the longterm contracts with an eye to personal profit, then I would vote to recall and regret that I had only one vote to throw the bum out. That would not be the proper exercise of his judgment. That would be malfeasance.

Malfeasance, though, is a criminal offence, and should be the subject of prosecution, not recall (recall, and subsequent disability, should be automatic. Imo, it's a gross violation of democratic principles for someone who has committed an ordinary felony to be barred from voting once freed, while someone who violates their oath of office can actually even run for office again while in prison!)

Mecham was a crook and a bigot, the people sensed this and took action when their represenitives were slow on the uptake. This helped push the impeachment process along. The California impeachment is driven solely by the whiny politics of the 'Pugs who lost the gubinatorial election, and are wanting to get in through the back door. This can, and probably lead to a Pandora's box of recall insanity. I've already seen posts on this board advancing the position that if the 'Pugs win the recall then the Dems should do a recall deal themselvesl. And on and on and on. This is not a good idea both for California, whom it is costing $35 million plus and paralyzing state goverenment, nor good for our country as a whole, since California is a large part of America's economic engine. Having that enging continously paralyzed in partisan political circuses will drag down the rest of the country. My suggestion for the Dems in California is to suck it up, take whatever lumps come out of this recall fiasco, and then work hard and repeal this recall law. It is a good idea for both California and the nation as a whole.

God forbid that this recall madness ever comes to Missouri.

If a Republican steals the office from the legally elected Democrat governor, then Democrats must start a recall immediately and recall the Republican thief.

That is the only way to respond to thugs. You must hit them back twice as hard as they hit you. Once the Republican thief is recalled, the laws will probably be changed.

If we let them do this without an equal or greater response, the people of California will lose more than just a governor, they will lose respect for Democrats.

If you mount a successful recall against a 'Pug govenor, then the 'Pugs will run a recall against the Dem and around and around California goes chasing it's own tail, while the state sinks deeper and deeper into an economic morass brought about by endless recalls, thus putting a serious drag on the rest of the nations economy.

Think with your head, not your heart. If the 'Pugs successfully pull off this recall, take your lumps for the next three years under a 'Pug govenor. Meanwhile work like hell to repeal the recall law so that when you do elect a Dem govenor in '06 he can actually govern without having to worry about a recall.

It is the logical and most effective long term idea.

Please think about what you're advocating. Step back from partisanship.

You don't just take your lumps and cower in the corner. You throw them out.

Look what Bush has done in 2 years. Look how many people have died, how many have lost their jobs.

Do you really think that people in California want to suffer through an illegitimate Republican governor just so we can look nice?

The damage that a Republicans governor could do is far worse than the damage that a recall of the person who stole the state in a recall would do.

The greatest damage that can be done here is if Democrats are not willing to fight back and show Republicans that they will be punished for their actions.

Democrats are losers when they don't fight back.

I'm advocating that they fix the problem that started this mess permanetely by repealing the recall law. If instead Dems pull a successful recall on the incoming 'Pug govenor, then what will stop the 'Pugs from pulling another recall? And on and on?

It is called sacrificing the short term gratification for the long term greater goal. Thus California has a 'Pug govenor for the next three years, but afterwards the Dem govenor can actually govern without having to ever worry about a recall.

Yes the Dems in California need to fight back. But they need to choose their targets wisely, not simply flail about wildly because it feels good in the short term. That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

No. We should not repeal the Recall.

This may be an abuse of the Recall, but the Recall is a useful tool if used properly.

less democracy. Why do you think having even less democracy than we do now would be a good thing? Because the GOP misuses it? The secret to that is to educate people, not to disenfranchise them.

And I don't think that I live in a less democratic state than California. And while educating the voters is a noble goal and should be pursued, I think in this time and atmosphere it is a rather Quixotic one.

And how am I being partisan by advocating the repeal of what is evidently a bad law? And how is having a whole state(and an economically important one nationwide) tied up in endless recalls a good thing? If you have an evil, lawbreaking, crooked govenor they can always be gotten rid of through impeachment(see the Mecham example above). Having either 'Pugs or Dems cook up endless recalls because their candidate wasn't voted in to office paralyzes the whole state, drains it of finacial resources(at the tune of $35 million + a pop), and quite frankly makes a mockery of the very democratic principles you(and I) hold dear.

Endless tit for tat, eyeball for eyeball recall election are going to do nothing but make California blind and paralyzed. If the fallout from this mess was strictly limited to California, then I'd be all for this experiment in partisan democracy run amuck. But since California has the sixth largest economy in the world, having the state sinking into an economic quagmire while the partisans battle on effects every single one of us in the country adversely. Therefore this madness should be put to a stop. If you think this makes me undemocratic, oh well, I've been called worse. But if this recall madness isn't stopped, don't go crying about it when the economy tanks for everyone in this nation.

And one cannot always get rid of someone by impeachment. Smirky McCokespoon is a perfect example of that. If we had a national recall--as we should do!--we could get rid of him and all his merry band of murderous thugs.

Step back from your partisanship, please!

Any politician who has committed a crime should be able to be recalled, however the primaries and the general election is the time for voters to eliminate an upopular Gov. The deficits, engery crisis and homeland security cost are a direct result of DC policies. Davis should use the campaign to bring this to the voters attention. This recall is a flagrant abuse of money. There is no democracy when large amounts of money are used to distort the laws so that the majority is over ruled. Since the recall was centered on the budget and the engery costs of California then the reasons for these issues should be exposed as well, but the media would never point out that Enron and * has a hand in this.

being automatic!

Tell me why a political job should be treated with special deference? If we had national recall, we could have long ago sacked Smirky McCokespoon and his murderous band of thieves. Thousands of lives would have been saved along with our constitutional rights.

Democracy is a good thing. The more we have, the better off we are.

just as the will of 53% Californians is already being cancelled by 900,000 freepers because they didn't like the fact that they lost. That's what's fundmentally wrong with this recall. Just like the impeachment, the Florida selection, the Texas redistricting is a GOP attempt to undo a legal election. If you can't see this, you're watching too much TV.

There is a VOTE on this. It is up to that 49% to make sure they express their views. Who knows, many of them might be happy to see Davis gone. Maybe they will simply vote in another Democrat or even Gary Coleman. THAT is democracy.

will the repugnants and religious wackos immediately start another recall?
With some 400+ now running for Gov., its gonna be a hilarious circus with the blame for all the humor landing on the repugs. You all know how much they hate being the butts of jokes.
The problem of professional petition crews was handled here in Oregon by making them illegal.
To put the best face on the recall, Cruz Bustemonte will make a fine gov.

This thread has been VERY illuminating for me.

It tells me my "Stink-o-Meter" has been on and working very well.

Nice. :)

We'll be fighting it out here, that's all I know.

> Luckily you're (presumably) not a CA voter...

You understand that "supporting the recall ELECTION" does
not mean that VermontDem2004 supports the recall, right?

It's just that you have this silly little provision in your
state constitution that makes this a legal avenue to be
pursued by a political party that plans their strategies and
tactics to win everything and concede nothing. (Please
note that I'm definitely NOT talking about the Democrats,
especially the Democrats as led by Terry McAuliffe.)

Atlant

Not to millionaires who could up end legitimate elections. IF the intent were being upheld, then the governor should be recalled and a legitimate election with a majority winner would occur not a plurality.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right, moral or ethical. Once upon a time it was legal to rape your wife.

.

I don't live in California and have only heard bits and pieces of
how the recall developed. Someone help me, and maybe some others, out.

-With a population of over 35 million people, it takes less than 1 million signatures to enact a recall. How many registered voters are
there in Cali? It seems like an unrealistic law, on the surface, to
have such a low percentage of the voters start a recall.

-With so many people running for Governor now, could there be a runoff election? Or, will the person with largest percentage among hundreds of
candidates win? If this is the case, it is a disaster of a recall law.

Although I can't stand Gray Davis, it also seems unfair that the
candidate being recalled cannot run in the recall election. This also seems absurd since it allows a very small percentage of the voters, the ones signing the recall petition, to eliminate a candidate who won an election just months before. If I am wrong about some of these California laws, let me know.

-With a population of over 35 million people, it takes less than 1 million signatures to enact a recall. How many registered voters are
there in Cali? It seems like an unrealistic law, on the surface, to
have such a low percentage of the voters start a recall.

To initiate a recall against a statewide officer requires the valid signatures of 12% of the number of those who voted in the last election won by the officer.

-With so many people running for Governor now, could there be a runoff election? Or, will the person with largest percentage among hundreds of
candidates win? If this is the case, it is a disaster of a recall law.

There is no runoff. If there are four hundred candidates, the new governor, at least theoretically, be chosen with less than one-half of one percent of the vote.

Although I can't stand Gray Davis, it also seems unfair that the
candidate being recalled cannot run in the recall election. This also seems absurd since it allows a very small percentage of the voters, the ones signing the recall petition, to eliminate a candidate who won an election just months before. If I am wrong about some of these California laws, let me know.

That is to prevent the target of the recall from frustrating the will of the voters by taking advantage of a crowded field of replacement candidates, as is the case here. Imagine 60% voting to recall the target, yet the 40% who voted to retain him keeping him in office by voting for him as a replacement candidate (remember, there's no run off). There would be something wrong with that picture.

The total signatures needed was a percentage of those who voted in the 2002 Gubernatorial election -- not a percentage of registered voters or California population -- that is why the number is so low. From the Secretary of State's website:

How many signatures are required?

To qualify the recall for the ballot, proponents need a minimum of 897,158 valid signatures. This is equal to 12 percent of the votes cast for the office of Governor in 2002, the last time the office was on the ballot. History shows that some signatures are rejected as invalid during the verification process. Therefore, in order to obtain enough valid signatures to qualify the recall for the ballot, it is anticipated that the proponents will need to submit more than the minimum requirement.
top

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_recall_faqs.htm


The recall law has been on CA's books since 1911.

In 1998 there were 15 million Californians registered to vote.

There will be no run-off election -- it is a one shot deal. If the voters say "yes" to ousting Davis, then some butt with only 10% or 15% of the vote can become our next Governor.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE WHO DOES LIVE HERE THAT GRAY DAVIS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE FAMILY LEAVE ACT AND HEALTHY FAMILIES INSURANCE PROGRAMS TO COVER LOWER INCOME FAMILIES.

There, done shouting. I am so sick of people bagging Gray Davis who have no clue of the things he has done that are good - like fighting tooth and nail for my right to choose, extending the family leave period to six weeks from four, keeping my disabled son insured and in physical therapy when my husband got laid off, and keeping the fucking oil pricks off of the coast.

We are in a budget crisis because of three reasons: the power debacle three years ago when we were financially raped by Texas power companies who gouged our eyes out, former Repub. governor Pete Wilson's lousy budget planning which left Davis with impending doom, and Bush's outright lack of support for our states, including CA and many others, because all his attention was on tax cuts and killing Iraqi children. Davis is to blame for not handling those things well, and he has no charisma, but he has done right by many families, esp. those of us considered low income.

REV. MARIE JONES

What I meant is I support recalls because at times they are necessary to get someone out of office who doesn't know how to run it, but I don't think this applies to Gray Davis.

And for the moment I'm working in Cali too. Family leave won't be much use if the company you work for goes belly up or leaves the State. We can't continue to spend more than we take in.