ON OCTOBER 7, California voters will decide two questions. The first is whether Gov. Gray Davis, re-elected a year ago to a second term, should be removed from office. The second is who should replace him, if a majority votes for his removal. Whoever gets the most votes–and a plurality suffices–would become governor. And then? Who knows? But it would be ironic if a progressive reform–the recall–eventually led to more limited government. Ironic but laudable. Progressivism was the national reform movement of the early 20th century that sought to check the influence of the railroads and other emerging corporate powers. Its leaders pushed for (among other things) measures of direct democracy to ensure that the will of the people–whom they assumed would demand regulation of the corporations–prevailed. Those measures included the initiative and the referendum–and also the recall of elected officers, which, it was theorized, would be used to remove corrupt officers, such as those in the pockets of big business.

California’s most famous Progressive was Hiram Johnson, a Republican who served first as governor and then as a U.S. senator. Under Johnson’s prodding, California amended its constitution to include a recall provision in 1911.