CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR Gray Davis is now the target of at least two voter recall drives that could bring an abrupt end to his second term, which Davis barely eked out last November. Admittedly, the idea that he might be recalled sounds ludicrous when you first hear it. Voter recalls have proven effective in local referenda–voters in South Gate, a Los Angeles suburb, recently dumped three city officials. But previous recall efforts against Davis (frustrated anti-illegal immigration activists) and his predecessor Pete Wilson (angry state workers) went nowhere fast.
However, these are not ordinary times in California, what with a $35 billion budget deficit, a sluggish economy, and the uncertainty of war. And Davis, to be charitable, is anything but an ordinary governor. In fact, the one extraordinary thing he has achieved is stockpiling a diverse array of political enemies–and surprisingly few loyalists willing to do battle for him. How so? Democratic legislators loathe Davis for his imperious style; lately, they particularly despise him for defying them on tax policy (Davis said no to a Democratic plan to raise the state’s vehicle license fee–i.e., car tax–to help close the deficit). Republican legislators likewise have no reservoir of good will, not after Davis soft-pedaled the severity of California’s fiscal troubles during last year’s election.
Even traditionally Democratic-leaning special interests aren’t much of a help. Public employee unions are poised to fight Davis over state-workforce reductions. The California Teachers Association, which Davis unsuccessfully hit up for $1 million during his reelection campaign, is threatening an initiative campaign to raise taxes for public education. California Indian tribes are offended by Davis’s suggestion that they tithe an additional $1.5 billion to the state from their casinos. The group theoretically most loyal to Davis–California’s prison-guard union, which donated heavily to his campaign and received a hefty pay raise–is angry with the governor for not wanting to build a women’s prison.
Toss in Sacramento’s other “usual suspects” in the budget debate–fiscal watchdogs who are anti-tax; advocacy groups who are pro-spending–and Gray Davis is California’s version of the “Simpsons'” “Who Shot Mr. Burns?”: a town despot staggering around wounded, with the locals cheering on his plight. Notes GOP strategist Dan Schnur: “It takes a lot to get a welfare mom, a soccer mom, and a CEO to agree on anything, but Gray Davis seems to have pulled it off.”
So how would a recall campaign hand the term-limited Davis his walking papers?
First, understand that it won’t happen overnight. Under state law, recall organizers have up to 160 days to collect and file the 900,000 signatures necessary to trigger a recall. Once the signatures are certified, the state has 80 days to declare a special election. Odds are any referendum on Davis’s future won’t happen before November.
Second, neither of the two current recall efforts should be mistaken for a silver bullet. One campaign is led by former Republican Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian; the other, by conservative activist Ted Costa, head of People’s Advocate (founded by Proposition 13 co-author Paul Gann). They accuse Davis of mismanaging state finances and threatening public safety by proposing cuts in local government funding (they can throw in slacking off on the job: Davis went two years without holding a Cabinet meeting). However, among Sacramento insiders, Kaloogian is dismissed as too partisan; Costa is seen as too much of a bomb-thrower to forge bipartisan support.
Democratic help could come in the form of Pat Caddell (of Carter administration and “West Wing” fame). The pollster-turned-screenwriter has taken to the airwaves in recent weeks to talk up the recall concept. However, Caddell, who changed his mind about appearing at the unveiling of Costa’s recall effort, is mainly motivated by Davis’s ethics (or lack thereof). He may or may not end up a recall player.
What has Sacramento buzzing is persistent talk that the recall efforts–though still at an infant stage–could develop into something far more serious. That’s because both Republican and Democratic insiders–both lawmakers and their handlers–have huddled in private to discuss whether taking out a sitting governor is feasible.
Why the sudden spirit of cooperation, so soon after the last election? Part of it has to do with prevailing winds: private polls being circulated around Sacramento show Davis with an approval rating in the mid-20s, and his negatives in the mid-70s. Republicans sense a wounded lame duck; Democrats sense a repeat of 1982, when eight long years of Jerry Brown opened the door to 16 years of Republican governors.
But a more compelling reason would be that a Davis recall is that rare moment in California politics when a changing of the guard benefits both parties.
First, the Democratic factor. Since Davis is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term, the line of Democrats looking to replace him already forms to the rear. That includes Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamente, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, and State Controller Steve Westly. Toss in a pair of wild cards–Sen. Barbara Boxer, actor/activist Rob Reiner–and the ’06 Democratic gubernatorial primary is almost assured of being a costly, contentious affair.
A recall vote could change that. In such an election, Californians would be asked two questions: do they wish to replace Davis; and, if so, to please choose a successor from the candidates listed on the recall ballot. Getting on that ballot as an alternative to Davis might be attractive to a Democrat otherwise looking at a crowded primary. And it’s a cheaper alternative to a more traditional two-year campaign. Bonus added: the new governor could serve a total of 11 years (the remainder of Davis’ term, plus two four-year terms). The only downsides: the issue of party loyalty, and the threat of a vengeful governor. Then again, California Democrats don’t fear the term-limited Davis these days, which is one reason why the recall talk persists.
That may explain why Davis, surprisingly enough, has chosen to acknowledge this threat to his existence: He needs to nip recall in the bud, by dismissing it as partisan shenanigans. A formal response signed by the governor and filed Thursday with California’s secretary of state attributes the recall movement to “a handful of right-wing politicians” and says this of Costa’s recall: “They couldn’t beat him fair and square, so now they’re trying another trick to remove him from office.” Ironically, at a time when Democratic legislators in Sacramento are pushing for mandated health care, Davis chose a different page out of the Hillary playbook–blame his problems on a “vast right-wing conspriacy”.
As for California Republicans, the upside is obvious: recall is the quickest, easiest ticket to regaining power in Sacramento, as opposed to a longer-term strategy based on President Bush carrying the state in 2004, or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Condoleezza Rice running for governor in 2006.
Suppose a Davis recall included a handful of Democrats, but only one GOP alternative. It’s safe to assume that it would be a low-turnout race, and in California the lower the turnout, the better Republicans’ chances (Bill Simon lost by only 5 percent amidst a record-low turnout). With rival Democrats dividing the vote, all that would be required of the lone Republican is a solid plurality–say, 30 percent of the vote–to win the contest. That sounds easy enough for Schwarzenegger, who already enjoys a strong presence among Republicans and moderate swing voters.
To think, after an exodus from Sacramento and years wandering through the California desert, Republicans might have stumbled onto an easy path to California’s Promised Land. Maybe it involves the “Terminator.” Most likely, it hinges upon “Total Recall.”
Bill Whalen is a Hoover Institution research fellow and former speechwriter for California Gov. Pete Wilson.
