Davis will be recalled!

[Ned]

Jack, I can see it what the Dems are trying to pull. They want the recall first. If Davis looses, then they run a candidate in the replacement election. Nice strategy if it is legal.

[mrmitchell]

Ahnold would be entertaining as, say, governor of Arkansas,

Hey now, Ahnold's a lot smarter than our current governor.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Davis is not the best example of a Democrat.

As MtG said, he's...basically a dumbass ****head.

In my opion the entire state is controlled by the far left of the Democratic party that is bent on socialism. The legislature also bares a huge part of the blame of the mess that we are in and the legislature is controlled by the far left. This just has to stop, when fanatics are in power it is never good.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned
Jack, I can see it what the Dems are trying to pull. They want the recall first. If Davis looses, then they run a candidate in the replacement election. Nice strategy if it is legal.

The problem is that its not legal, the recal was set up to have the recall and replacement elections on same ballot. Everyone except the lt. governor sees the law this way.

[Ned]

GePap, in a snap election on the Mercury News site, Davis and Schwazenegger are running neck and neck at 31-2%, with Riordan at 13% and the others trailing even farther behind.

As I said, if Arny runs among a field of Republicans, he wins.

I also think that if there is a round 2, that each party should field only one candidate.

[MichaeltheGreat]

IIRC, it was Lyndon Johnson who said the difference between liberals and cannibals is that cannibals only eat their enemies.

The Democratic party is offering Davis the dagger, a la the Romans. He can take his own life, or they can stab him. That's the private situation.

Publicly, they have to put the whole "party unity" face on and smile for the cameras for a number of reasons. First, Davis would be finished in 2006 anyway, and a new field of Dems would be running on a more or less equal basis to replace him. The winner in that process, of course, is the one who pays homage to the political powers that be within the state, and that keeps the special interest/pol machine running smoothly. It's really unseemly, and not at all good for the machine, if one of the likely 2006 Dems suddenly jumps into the governorship via the back door and creates an incumbancy advantage. The concern about pre-maneuvering among the contenders for 2006 was indicated when the state party powers started fishing for a "caretaker" governor who the party would endorse, if he or she agreed not to run in 2006.

The second, even bigger concern (to both parties, which explains part of why some Reps don't like the recall idea) is how you spin this whole recall thang anyway. If the common rabble get into their heads that a failing politician can be put out on his ear, the whole process might catch on, and for the whole incestuous mass of politicians / lobbyists / "consultants" / special interests, that would be bad news. Being accountable only every two or four years is great, and so is the power of the incumbency. Being able to be replaced according to the will of the electorate any time enough of them get riled up is nice in theory, so long as it never happens.

I expect party strategists on both sides of the aisle have crapped their pants now that it's really here, and I expect it will be a real concern, with both parties trying to preserve their unholy positions by trying to paint this whole episode as a one-time anomoly.

[Ned]

Huh? Here are the relevant provisions of the Constitution. The way I read it, there can be no separate election for a replacement.

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the
date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction
in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters
eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at
least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall
election.
(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.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 16. The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and
certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall
election.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is
initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the
Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Jack, I can see it what the Dems are trying to pull. They want the recall first. If Davis looses, then they run a candidate in the replacement election. Nice strategy if it is legal.

There is no replacement election, it's a single stage process.

[Ned]

If Davis does not resign promptly, but instead resigns on the eve of the election, I believe the Surpeme Court would order the election to proceed with the candidate receiving the most votes being the new governor. I do not believe the people will tolerate Davis resigning and appointing a succesor on the eve of a vote. They would literally lynch the bastar*.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There is no replacement election, it's a single stage process.

I agree now that I have read the constitution. However the Mercury News was quoting the Lt. Gov. as saying that he was unsure and that he had asked for the Atty. General's opinion.

However, I cannot see how the Constitution can be stretched to allow two separate elections.

This does put the Dems in a fix, doesn't it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jack_www

Are you sure you are right? My understanding is that if he resigns the replacement election still happens and the Lt. Governor steps in untill the a new governor is elected.

I checked the California Elections Code (section 11302). The recall does proceed, but a new governor is only elected IF the recall vote is more than 50% yes. Since the animosity is towards Davis specifically, and the Dems dominate the state, if Davis goes, and appoints anyone vaguely palatable to the Dem majority, the recall portion would almost certainly fail, and the appointed governor continue in office.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I checked the California Elections Code (section 11302). The recall does proceed, but a new governor is only elected IF the recall vote is more than 50% yes. Since the animosity is towards Davis specifically, and the Dems dominate the state, if Davis goes, and appoints anyone vaguely palatable to the Dem majority, the recall portion would almost certainly fail, and the appointed governor continue in office.

Only, MTG, if he does so promptly. If he forces the state to spend 50-100 million on printing and mailing, and if a number of candidates also spend millions on the election, I think a last minute switcharoo would be intoleralble and somehow the Supremes would order the election to go forward - the will of the people and all.

[mrmitchell]

Davis will be recalled! Shorts cover your asses!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


I agree now that I have read the constitution. However the Mercury News was quoting the Lt. Gov. as saying that he was unsure and that he had asked for the Atty. General's opinion.

However, I cannot see how the Constitution can be stretched to allow two separate elections.

This does put the Dems in a fix, doesn't it?

Strategically, it's a hot potato for either party. If Issa or another Rep wins a recall, and fails to solve the crisis reasonably well enough (a tough nut to crack with all the partisan animosity in both directions and all the entrenched interests both parties are whored to), then the Dems will use that in 2006, and it will also have an effect in the 2004 elections.

For the Dems, the least amount of damage for the party will be found in Davis stepping aside and appointing a replacement, so undoubtedly the party elites are trying to work that angle and figure out who, then work on defeating the up or down vote on the recall, using the Republican social conservative scare card, or the "dirty loser trying to buy an election he lost" card. What they don't want is an up vote on the recall, then a Rep governor if he turns out to be at least reasonably successful.

[Ned]

MtG, I think the recall is personal to Davis. So if he resigns and is succeeded by the Lt. Gov., I don't think there will be a recall election.