Bill Is Proposed to Revise California's Recall Process

[Freddie Stubbs]

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 21 — California Democrats, for the time being at least, are no longer talking about the possibility of initiating a retaliatory recall against the governor-elect, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But a move is afoot to make it more difficult to pull off another recall of a governor if the citizenry is again seized with the desire to upend the established order in Sacramento.

Mark Ridley-Thomas, a Democratic member of the State Assembly from Los Angeles, has introduced an amendment to the California Constitution that would significantly increase the number of signatures needed to put a recall question on the ballot. The amendment would also provide for the lieutenant governor to automatically succeed a governor who is recalled, thus eliminating the replacement ballot that provided so much entertainment here during the recent recall vote.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, the Austrian-born bodybuilder and actor, won the replacement election, trouncing the Democratic lieutenant governor, Cruz M. Bustamante, who would have become governor under Mr. Ridley-Thomas's amendment.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/national/22CALI.html?ex=1067400000&en=f8c01c43fc4b4870&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Frodo]

1. This makes us look bad.

"If you can't win by the rules... change the rules"

[Democat]

3. How does it make us look bad?

Isn't this going to help Arnold not Democrats?

[Frodo]

5. These types of measures are very popular in California

The referendums, Constitutional amendments and such are quite popular. This looks too much like "we don't like your decision, so we're going to make sure you don't have that choice next time."

Don't you think the better choice is just to run better candidates?

[Democat]

11. I disagree

I think that some Democrats are stupid enough to try to get rid of the law to help Arnold feel better about himself, or to reach out to Republicans and make them like us more, or some idiotic thing.

There is no reason why Arnold shouldn't be held to the same standard as Davis.

Why would we even consider getting rid of it now?

Arnold should be aware that he can be recalled at any moment, just like Davis.

By getting rid of the recall, you are giving Arnold more power than Davis ever had.

This is typical Democratic stupidity.

[MadMan]

18. Agreed! Let Arnold sweat it out...

.. then consider amending the Constitution when a dem is in the gov's mansion.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi MadMan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MadMan]

22. Thank you newyawker99!

However, I previously went by Proud_American which went bye-bye when the login problems began and my email address changed - it was easier to just create a new login!!!

[Robin Hood]

20. I thought the same thing as well.

Typical Democratic stupidity. It's time to recall the new governor for letting Enron off the hook and further damaging California's economy.

[tom_paine]

23. I have to agree with you Democat

But as we all know, no amount of appeasement is going to turn Nazis into Jew-Lovers, so to speak.

(I'm Jewish myself, before you flame me with anti-Semitism)

[realFedUp]

14. I disagree also

12% of registered voters is too small in this day.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. No, the damned recall made us look bad

and the bad law with loopholes big enough for a 747 and used against the people of California who had already decided who their governor was going to be through 2006.

Oh, and let's not forget Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman, a couple of adult film stars and 140 others on that nightmare ballot.

But let's leave it just as it is so this nightmare can happen again so we won't "look bad." :eyes:

[Frodo]

16. "We" in this case is Democrats - not "Kaleefornians"

I'd think that spin was put to bed by the vote itself. The "people" of CA spoke pretty clearly and didn't seem to think they were having their choice taken away from them.

And the "nightmare" ballot didn't seem to be a problem. The vast majority of them got no more than what you might see on right-in ballots anyway. The "watering-down" effect of multiple candidates sure isn't what hurt Cruz B.

[shanti]

17. this dumb recall

shouldn't even have been voted into existence to begin with. i say get rid of it!

[eyesroll]

2. A good start...

I'm a firm believer in the premise that if someone with a designated successor is recalled, that the successor takes over -- just as if said someone resigned.

I am a teeny bit concerned about the fact that CA elects its governor and Lt. Gov. seperately, which could mean that if there's a Republican Lt. and a Democratic Gov., the Republicans could initiate a recall for the sole purpose of knocking the Democrats out of power (and without a second race to at least somewhat mitigate that possibility).
Still, I think I'd rather have it this way.

[Frodo]

4. Doesn't every state elect the Gov & Lt Gov seperate?

?

[eyesroll]

6. Wisconsin doesn't.

There are seperate primaries, but then the Gov and Lt Gov nominees from the same party run on the same ticket.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. PA does it the same way as WI

[M155Y_A1CH]

19. Kentucky doesn't

They run as teams.

[zanana]

7. This would guarantee that Arnold stays in office.

Dumb move. This is the same idea the Democrats had AFTER Bill Clinton was impeached; change the law so that Republicans will never have to taste their own medicine. Now we have a situation where Bush can do anything his heart desires without fear of an independent counsel investigation. It would also guarantee Schwarzenegger's reign. DUMB.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. The Independent Counsel Statute was killed by BOTH parties

The Democrats were upset at what happened with Whitewater and the Republicans were angry with the Iran-Contra investigation. The law had a sunset provision, which means it expires in a certain number of years unless Congress extends it. Niether party wanted to do so.

[Democat]

10. Democrat want to be "nice" to Arnold

It's not about winning or doing what's right for your supporters, we need to be nice to the Republicans and give them what they want.

A Democrat must never be seen as "not nice", no matter what the cost.

[tom_paine]

24. The original Tom Paine had something to say on this score:

"It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object..."

It's almost like Tom Paine forersaw the Busheviks and Imperial Amerika back in 1778.

[robbedvoter]

12. Like the Independent counsel: "Use only adainst Democrat- then discard"

What a stroke of genius! (not)

[Polemonium]

13. Revise -- no, eliminate this redicuous rule -- yes

This rule, is a slight to democracy and all that it stands for, and as divided as this country is right now, the current precedent invites more recalls, more frequently. From Monroe's work on the constitution it is clear that he felt strongly that the US president should only be impeached for an act of treason, or some other high crime. The same standard should apply to Goveners. The California rule was drafted in LA in the late 1800's early 1900's because a high number of quiet but unsavory folks were running around, and folks in LA were afraid they would elect a mayor, only to find out later he was a criminal. Those days are gone. Impeachment is a very serious action, with tremendous effects on the democratic process, it should be treated that way for the leader of the 5th largest economy in the world.

If Arnie is re-elected, then my faith in the values of democracy may just fall apart and therefore so would the above argument. I mean electing him in the first place has shaken my faith in Democracy, but re-electing a Nazi sypathizer, womanizing, body builder, actor, with the IQ of a poodle.... well standing up for democracy wouldn't make as much sense anymore.