...but Ahhhnuld would give Californians a raw deal.
California voters poised to get a raw deal
T here is a flaw in the California Constitution, and power-hungry Californians, most notably testosterone-film star Arnold Schwarzenegger, are climbing over each other to exploit it.
Mostly it's a Republican thing to do an end run around the democratic process, to find any loopholes that might get you into office when you couldn't get enough votes to win office, or to even downright cheat -- as we saw vividly in Florida in 2000 -- but even good people like progressive columnist Arianna Huffington seem to be OK with exploiting the flaw in the provisions of the California Constitution regarding the recall process.
The recall provisions were drawn up in 1911 and have been untested -- the gubernatorial recall election scheduled for Oct. 7 is the first in California's history. Therefore, the flaw has remained in the state constitution for more than 90 years.
The flaw in the California Constitution is in Article 2 (Voting, Initiative and Referendum and Recall), Section 15(c), which reads:
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.
"The officer may not be a candidate" -- those seven words can easily hand the governorship to a candidate whom the most number of California voters do not want as governor.
Democratic California Gov. Gray Davis filed suit in the California Supreme Court to have his name put on the recall ballot, but the state Supreme Court last week refused to intervene in the recall process. That process is that on Oct. 7 a special statewide election will be held and California voters will decide on a two-part question: First, whether or not Davis should be recalled, and second, which candidate should replace Davis should he be recalled. (Those who vote to retain Davis can still pick a replacement candidate just in case he is recalled, which appears likely to happen.)
A Time/CNN poll of more than 500 registered California voters conducted on Friday showed that 54 percent of those polled would vote to remove Davis from office and 35 percent would vote to keep him. Eleven percent were unsure. (Unsurprisingly, 75 percent of the Republicans polled and 39 percent of the Democrats polled would remove Davis, and 51 percent of Democrats and 18 percent of Republicans would keep him.)
When asked which replacement candidate for whom they would vote, 25 percent of those polled said they would vote for Schwarzenegger (31 percent of the Republicans and 13 percent of the Democrats picked Ahhnuld). Fifteen percent said they'd vote for Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (24 percent of the Democrats and 10 percent of the Republicans picked him).
Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock came in third, with 9 percent; Davis' Republican challenger in November, Bill Simon, came in fourth, with 7 percent. Huffington, former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt and California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, a Democrat, all tied with only 4 percent. (Garamendi, however, pulled out of the race on Saturday, after the poll was conducted.)
Twenty-three percent of those who participated in the Time/CNN poll were unsure as to which replacement candidate for whom they'd vote.
The Time/CNN poll clearly indicates that the highest number of California voters want to keep Davis. Yet if Davis is recalled, the California Constitution, because it prevents Davis from appearing on the ballot, would make Schwarzenegger the next governor of California -- even though, the poll indicates, he is the voters' second choice.
Was there anything that the California Supreme Court could have done to prevent this gross injustice, this blow to democracy? Is the court's power limited to only enforcing the state constitution as it is written, even if it is flawed? Or is the makeup of the state Supreme Court -- six Republican justices and only one Democratic justice -- the reason the court refused to intervene in the grossly unfair recall process that looks like it's going to hand the governorship over to Schwarzenegger against the will of the voters? (Ah, memories of Florida in 2000...)
Now, only a federal court can prevent Californian voters from getting royally screwed. Let's hope and pray that happens.
Ironically, the way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, the way to fix the flaw in the California Constitution, is found in the same part of the state constitution where the recall provision is found. The way to fix the flaw is the recall's cousin, the initiative.
Article 2, Section 8(a) and (b) of the California Constitution reads:
(a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election.
Someone has to do it, so I'm going to send a letter to various progressive California groups that have the resources to see if they will support the difficult and expensive process of securing a ballot initiative to fix the flaw, the loophole, in the state constitution.
A Republican might succeed in stealing the governorship of California less than two months from now, but we can't let that happen ever again.
7:01:06 AM 
|
