In 1865, a group of businessmen in San Francisco founded the Southern Pacific Railroad to connect San Francisco to San Diego. Eventually, the railroad would stretch over 13,000 miles and cover most of the Southwestern United States from the Pacific Northwest into Texas and New Orleans. As Southern Pacific grew, its affluent owners, known as the “Big Four,” gained great influence in California politics. They used their wealth to ensure that politicians protected their monopolies in railroad and shipping.
As the San Francisco Call reported at the time, “In every county in California, the railroad company maintained an expert political manager whose employment was to see that the right men were chosen as convention delegates, the right kind of candidates named and elected and the right things done by men in office.” In essence, so long as the railroad controlled candidate nominations, voters had no choice in the general election.
Southern Pacific not only handpicked and funded those in public office, but also the opponents of sitting incumbents. As the chief lawyer for Southern Pacific explained, the key to the railroad's success was, “its control of the reform movements” by denying them political power. By the end of the nineteenth century, Southern Pacific was the largest landowner in the state, the biggest employer and owned all transportation facilities. California was entirely dependent on Southern Pacific to move people and commerce.
Because Southern Pacific faced little to no competition, railroad rates were excessively high and both businesses and the public experienced financial distress. Californians increasingly felt that their government was not responsive to them and was solely looking out for railroad plutocrats. This frustration led to a populist uprising in the state and a progressive takeover of the California State Legislature.
California's new state legislature was a force to be reckoned with. In 1909, they passed the direct primary bill into law, which gave party members the power to vote on party nominees for public office. As a result, political bosses had their power diminished as nominations for public office were no longer chosen in smoke filled convention rooms. This change in the primary process had an immediate impact on campaigning and the makeup of candidates running for office.
The first governor nominated by direct primary in California was Hiram Johnson. Johnson campaigned around the state in a Model T Ford and promised to smash Southern Pacific’s control of the legislature and rid the political ranks of corruption. In his inaugural address on January 3, 1911, Johnson made the case that government is owned by the people and proposed three major populist reforms - the initiative, the referendum and the recall.
As Johnson explained, “While I do not by any means believe the initiative, the referendum and the recall are the panacea for all our political ills, yet they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves.”
Thanks to Johnson being ushered into office with a progressive legislature, within one month of his swearing-in, the State Senate and Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of a constitutional amendment allowing for the initiative, referendum, and recall. After being approved by the legislature, Governor Johnson called a special election in California for the people to vote on the proposed amendment. On October 10, 1911, by a vote of 168,744 to 52,093, Californians approved an amendment to the state’s constitution giving the people the power of initiative, referendum, and recall.
Johnson had great faith in Californians and believed in their ability to exercise good judgement in the use of these powerful new tools of governance. Since 1911, there have been 179 recall attempts against California state officeholders. 10 recall efforts garnered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and of those, 6 elected officials were recalled. Shockingly, every governor of California since 1960 has faced at least one recall attempt. And while the majority of these efforts eventually sputtered, they have distracted public servants and hampered their ability to govern. It is beyond evident that the political recall has outlived whatever usefulness it might have had and is now causing great damage to California.
On April 26 of this year, the effort to recall Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) became official when California’s Secretary of State certified that organizers had collected over 1.6 million signatures. You read that correctly. In a state with almost 40 million people and around 25 million eligible voters, only 1,495,709 million signatures are needed to recall the governor. Adding insult to injury, The Los Angeles Times has reported that Newsom’s recall election, to be held less than a year before the regularly scheduled governor’s race, will cost $400 million.
Why in the world would 1.6 million Californians believe that Governor Newsom should be recalled at such expense and only a year before he faces voters for reelection? In the face of major wildfires, blackouts that affected millions and of course the coronavirus pandemic, Newsom has delivered for the people of the Golden State.
Under the leadership of Newsom, California’s economy has outperformed its peers. Since 2019, the state’s gross domestic product has increased 5.68%, easily topping New York (0.68%) and Texas (2.86%). These gains have added over $174 billion to the California economy, compared to $12 billion in New York and $64 billion in Texas.
Over the past year, California, like all of the world, was hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic. Not surprisingly, the largest state in the nation lost more residents (64,000) due to COVID-19 than any other state. However, California has only the 33rd highest death rate of all 50 states and D.C. In March of 2020, Newsom became the first governor in the nation to issue a stay-at-home mandate. In addition, thanks to the hard work of Newsom and elected officials throughout the state, 49% of Californians are now fully vaccinated, surpassing that national average of 46%.
Remarkably, even in the face of the pandemic, California was able to add 1.2 million to its non-farm payrolls - equal to the entire workforce of Mississippi - and easily surpassing non-farm payroll increases in New York, Texas and Florida. In addition, over the past year, Californians have seen their household income increase almost as much as the increases seen in Texas and Florida combined. In May, California’s unemployment rate improved to 7.9%, still above the national average of 5.8%, but a precipitous decline from over 15% a year ago.
On the fiscal front, California is the envy of the nation. Despite a plethora of headlines predicting that Newsom would destroy California financially, the state has accumulated an astonishing $75 billion budget surplus. Only one year ago, the Associated Press concluded, “California doom: Staggering $54 billion deficit looms.” Not only does California have a multi-billion dollar budget surplus, but the state recently received an additional $27 billion from the federal government’s coronavirus spending plan.
Legislatively, Newsom has not taken his foot off the gas since he began work in Sacramento. The governor has been focused on making California more affordable for all who live there. In 2020, Newsom increased California's paid family leave from six weeks to eight weeks. In 2019, Newsom signed legislation tripling the earned income tax credit, providing a $1,000 refund for families with children under 6 and expanding income eligibility. In addition, Newsom has successfully worked with the legislature to make the first two years of community college free for full time students.
With regard to housing affordability, Newsom increased low income housing tax credit funding to $500 million a year and capped how much many landlords can annually increase rent to 5% plus inflation.
The governor has also worked to make California safer for all by signing multiple bills aimed at reducing gun violence, including strengthening gun violence restraining orders and regulating the sale of firearms and ammunition. The governor has also signed legislation to phase out private prisons.
This is not to say that Newson has been a perfect governor. On the evening of November 6, 2020, as California was experiencing spiking covid cases, Newsom attended a celebratory dinner at the French Laundry. The dinner came less than two hours after the governor strongly discouraged residents from traveling or socializing with individuals not in their immediate family. After getting caught at the dinner, the governor said that he was dining outdoors and therefore the situation was not as bad as it seemed, but he should have “modeled better behavior.”
However, shortly after the governor issued his rather empty apology, photos obtained by the press revealed that the governor was actually dining indoors with multiple unmasked people who were not social-distancing. Two of those dining with the governor were the chief executive for the California Medical Association and the organization’s top lobbyist. Following these new revelations about the dinner party, Newsom issued another, more full-throated, apology.
“I made a bad mistake. Instead of sitting down, I should have stood up and walked back out to my car,” Newsom said at a press conference. “I need to preach and practice, not just preach.”
Newsom’s decision to go to the French Laundry after advising his constituents to not socialize, was arrogant and foolish. Not only did he paint himself as a hypocrite, but he gave his political opponents an opening to attack him for legitimately terrible behavior. Irrespective of how stupid the governor’s actions were, he did not commit a crime and likely caused no harm to anyone else. Newsom should not have to fight off a recall because his actions one night were ill conceived or because 1.6 million voters disapprove of his governance.
It is understandable that Californians might fear giving up a powerful tool to hold their elected leaders accountable and ensure responsive government. However, Californians should not forget that under their state’s constitution, statewide office holders can be impeached for “misconduct in office.” As Section 18 explains, statewide office holders can be impeached by a vote in the State Assembly and removed by a two thirds vote in the State Senate. Yes, it is not easy to impeach a public official and it should not be. Elected officials serve multi-year terms so that they can focus on governing and are not consumed by campaigning and the whims of the populace. If an elected official engages in misconduct, their colleagues in public office should have the courage to hold them accountable. The impeachment system is not perfect, but it quells constant disruption in governance and prioritizes continuity and stability.
When Californians approved the recall in the early nineteen-hundreds, progressives rightly believed that the allegiance of public officials lay at the feet of political machines and party bosses rather than the public. The recall allowed the public to wrestle control of their elected officials back from corporate interests and make politics responsive to their needs. Now, however, in the second decade of the 21st century, the recall has become a partisan political weapon that disrupts governance and wastes money. Instead of elected officials focusing on legislating, they spend an inordinate amount of time fighting off frivolous recall attempts that are based solely on hatred of those in the opposing political party. Now is the time for California to recall the recall and get back to governing.
Comments