The Problem Begins

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
-James Madison, Federalist Papers #51b

On October 7th, 2003, Governor Grey Davis was written into the history books by the California electorate; for the first time in the history of the state, a Governor had been recalled from office. This was possible as a result of the Progressives of California in 1911 who instituted legislation for direct democracy; this included the ability to recall, to create referendums, and to create ballot initiatives. Each of these play a role in the move towards direct democracy; the ability to create initiatives allows citizen to use petitions to get proposed laws on the ballot with no involvement by a legislature, the ability to create referendums allows voters to reject legislation that has been passed by the legislature and the ability to recall an official forces citizens to vote on whether to oust an elected official or not.
The special election, on October 10th 1911, that included an amendment providing the right to “recall by the electors of public officials” was passed by almost two thirds of the electorate (178,115). Hiram Johnson utilized a tactful analogy in a public speech on the eve of the special elections which showed the practical applications and need of the legislation, “If you employ a man in your private business and find that he is corrupt or not satisfactory, you will discharge him. What you do in your private capacity as individuals you ought to be able to do in your public capacity as citizens.” Hiram saw the need for direct democracy; he saw an era of political dishonesty and a general feeling of helplessness in the face of powerful legislators.
Today California is one of 18 states which currently have constitutional amendments which allow for recalls. In California, in order to institute a recall, a petition must be signed by electors numbering at least 12% of the number of people who voted in the previous election. This, when compared to other states which require 15% (South Dakota), 20% (South Carolina), 25% (Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey, Wyoming), 33% (Louisiana), and 75% (Illinois) seems rather low. On march 25, 2003, the Secretary of State of California, Kevin Shelly, certified the recall petition for circulation and on July 11th the petition was turned in with more than enough signatures to have the recall election.
This recall, combined with the passing of Proposition 140 in 1990 which calls for term limits of legislators, and the passing of Proposition 13 in 1978 shows a new era of direct democracy. Proposition 13 cut the property taxes of Californians and, by it’s passing, it showed that the public had the right and the ability to participate in tax decisions. This event encouraged interest groups to use the initiative and referendum process and triggered other measures of similar quality in other states. The question remains of whether or not there is a need or a right for direct democracy; the California recall brings many aspects of the voting procedure into question. It would seem that an examination of the ramifications of direct democracy are necessary and that an examination of the California recall election as a whole is needed in order to truly understand the need for this privilege to play a more active role in the government.






Part One: Approaches to Referendums, Recalls and Initiatives

A successful and permanent government, must rest primarily upon the recognition of the rights of men and the absolute sovereignty of the people.
- Hiram Johnson in his First Inaugural Address.

When asked why there was a need for the electorate to have this direct democracy legislation, the Progressives of this country replied, “Who can govern better than themselves?” Their theory was that the electorate deserved the right to have a larger participatory role in government because of the fundamental need to change the current system.
Their belief was that the fundamental defect in the current system was the lack of adequate popular control. The Progressives believed that the “lack of adequate popular control of results is not only a defect but is the fundamental defect in our legislative mechanism. Its correction is therefore essential, and is logically the first step in the modernization of our political machinery.” (Johnson, Lewis 142) In a republican democracy such as the United States, the government was in the hand of the representatives who were only truly accountable to their constituents during elections, the legislation that was passed into law was out of the hands of the constituents and the electorate had no way of revoking legislation without becoming a legislator or utilizing the long and costly process of lobbying the legislation. The Progressive argument claimed that the need for direct democracy legislation, such as the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, came from the fact that the electorate held only a modicum of power.
Another argument that seems to be valid is that direct democracy allows legislation to be passed by the people without the red tape and governmental congestion of the current system. “The initiative enables the people to enact desirable measures by direct popular vote, when such measures have been or are like to be ignored, pigeon-holed, amended out of shape or defeated by the legislature.”( Johnson, Lewis 141) By being able to side step the system certain needed and popular initiatives would be placed to become law, without going to the legislature. The beauty of this, according to the Progressives, is that it works without partisanship in legislature, there are no selfish and self-serving trailer bills or amendments nor is it able to be killed by corrupt politicians that would rather see the bill die. The Progressive argument suggests that this sidestepping will empower the electorate and have less room for the ills of the current system.
Another interesting argument in favor of empowering the electorate is that the electorate knows what it wants. “The referendum enables the people, by direct popular vote, to veto recent enactments of their representatives.” (Johnson, Lewis 142) This process, as seen in the case of Proposition 13 in California, allows the electorate to repeal anything that they deem unneeded or harmful to them. As a result the people become the final word in how they are governed and treated, and, according to the Progressives, “[the people] are the best judges of their own self-interest and have a right as sovereign citizens to determine the policies of their government. They will, at least, act honestly, which cannot always be said for city councils influenced by the power of a public service corporation and protected by the silence or active defense of a subsidized press.” (Bourne Jr., Jonathan 200)
This brings us to the recall. The Progressive theory suggests that recalls can counter corruption and makes elected officials more responsible to the electorate. As Hiram Johnson said the eve before the 1911 election, “The recall will be a pistol in the hands of the people.” To begin this analysis one must first familiarize his or herself with the Progressive concept of what a legislator or public official actually is and what their duty is to the electorate. According to the Progressives “elected officers are merely the agent of popular will, and that the electors should have an opportunity at all times to pass upon the conduct of their representatives.” (Beard, Charles 52) Elected officials are in office by the whims of the people. They ought be held responsible for their actions to their constituents and they truly are there to serve the public. “[Office holders] are simply the instruments for carrying on the business of the public, and if they are faithless in performing their duties the law should provide adequate means for getting rid of them and putting others in their place.”’ (Davis Thomas A. 314) The recall itself is needed, as the progressives suggest, as a reminder to the elected officials of what could happen if their go against the will of the public. “The recall is perhaps most valuable as a potential club to wield over recalcitrant officials… threatening the use of recall has on several occasions caused councilmen to abandon measures objectionable to their constituents.” (Swan, Herbert S. 301) The recall is not only seem as a threat (or reminder of consequences to voting against the interests of the public), it is also seen as a necessary device as part of the election process;
The establishment of the recall, which is the properly guarded power of removal of unsatisfactory officeholders before the expiration of their terms. Thus the people gain the power of removal, the logical supplement to their already existing power of election. (Johnson, Lewis 143)

Without the power to recall, according to the Progressives, the rights of the voter are not complete. “So long as the voter may not at any time recall his chosen representatives his franchise is only a remnant. The right to elect and the right to recall – each complements of the other. A full and complete electoral franchise includes both.” (Swan, Herbert S. 306) To the Progressives, the recall was a natural and needed process in the political arena; it serves as a device which empowers the people against corruption and disenfranchisement. It allows the governed to combat what they see as a faulty and often destructive force in government. In Hiram Johnson’s inaugural speech 1911 he admitted; “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.” The fact remains that the recall device is seen as a very influential and very useful tool for the governed. Even if it is not used, it is effective. “[There is] no doubt that administrative officers have been influenced to some extent by the fact that they are subject to recall. That is the purpose of the recall.” (Bourne Jr., Jonathan 205) The recall device, according to the Progressives, provides another check in the system of checks and balances that all of government should be held to.
Another very compelling argument is that direct democracy legislation gives more access to the government to the electorate than they ever had before. With the enactment of direct democracy legislation, new practices are taken up by the governed; “The new task proposed for the voter…is deliberation, discussion and the registry of his decision.” (Johnson, Lewis 149). This process forces the individual to participate in the governmental system much more than he or she has been used to in the past. It also creates a system where more individuals are encouraged to learn more about the government and the issues in order to participate. Senator Jonathan Bourne writes;
The [direct legislation] system, not only encourages the development of each individual, but tends to elevate the entire electorate to the plane of those who are most advanced. How different from the system so generally in force which tends to discourage and suppress the individual! (Bourne Jr. Jonathan 203)

It seems logical that in such a new and motivated system that the average voter would be led to educate him or herself more on the process as a whole; it would enable the voter to become more invigorated by the entire process to such an extent that these “public-spirited citizens, without dislocation of business or profession … will devote a much larger share of their time than now to the consideration of public questions.” (Johnson, Lewis 151) The logical extension of this is that the people as a whole will begin to take a more active and participatory role in government as a result of the new freedoms and rights. This mass movement of the voter base will cause changes in the voter turnout. McHugh Professor of American Institutions and Leadership at The Colorado College Thomas Cronin writes; “Direct Democracy increases voter interest and election-day turnout. Perhaps, too, giving the citizen more of a role in governmental processes might lessen alienation and apathy.” (Cronin, Thomas 11 “Direct”)
The Progressives, over all, find that these direct democracy devices; the referendum, the initiative, and the recall, are not only beneficial to the masses, but are needed as part of the political processes. The benefits of such devises would include less corruption; a more fluid, and therefore more reactive and helpful, bill system; and invigoration of the electorate.
The opponents to direct democracy initiatives, usually known as the Elitists , tend to think that such initiatives provide too much democracy to the electorate. As 1920’s Congressman Samuel McCall wrote; “We are in danger of forgetting the essential purpose of government: that it is not an end but a means, that the people do not exist for the government, but the government exists for the people.” (McCall, Samuel W. 168) The fact that we have a government where a representative group of the people is elected shows that the role of the people is not in policy making, but in representative choosing. The opposition argument shows many reasons as to why this is.
The main argument is that if the mass of the people have too much control over the system it creates mob rule. The concept of pure “Democracy,” which is what the Progressives seem to want to move towards, was “rule by the mob.” If the total populace in such a large nation become more and more directly active in government, in lieu of the republican system that is currently in place, mob rule will ensue. “[The framers of our constitution] knew that, if the governmental energy became too much diluted and dissolved, the evils of anarchy would result, and that there would follow a reaction to the other extreme, with the resulting overthrow of popular rights.” (McCall, Samuel W. 168) The concept of popular rights brings up another argument in regards to mob rule; with a direct democracy, what becomes of the protections over the minorities? What becomes of minority rights? It becomes conceivable that under such a system the rights of the minority could become ignored and the minority of the population would be “voted out of existence” as a result of these protections evaporating from direct democracy.
The Elitists point out that the legislative process is necessary. The legislative procedure creates safeguards that protect the electorate and the nation as a whole. If the direct democracy devices were used, especially the aspect of referendums, this process would be sidestepped.
Bills are introduced and referred to appropriate committees; these committees take such bills under consideration, revise and amend or re-write…. This procedure, with its numerous safeguards, would seem to insure as satisfactory legislation as can ordinarily be expected.” (Sutherland, George 33)

This process ensures that the bills and legislation will be given the appropriate and necessary examination that they need. The fact of the matter is that though the constituency may know what they want but not necessarily what is best. As Alexander Hamilton stated in 1787, “The voice of the people have been said to be the voice of G-d: and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” Like young children who only want to eat candy and watch television, the mass of the electorate is not competent to make important decisions on legislation. The mass of the voter population lacks the resources or the time to gather and analyze all of the pertinent information that pertains to the issues being addressed. “It is scarcely conceivable that the voters at large can in the first place possess the information required for a proper understanding of the merits of the measure to the same degree that was true of the legislators.” (Sutherland, George 34) The job of legislators is to write, analyze and ratify legislation. They hired experts in fields, listen to panels on subjects pertinent to the issues at hand and devote their lives to “the calling.” Even if the electorate could obtain the necessary information, they, for the most part, do not have the resources, monetary or educational, to properly understand such legislation. For the most part the electorate would remain ignorant of any, let alone the full, ramifications of legislation that they were asked to examine and vote on. The masses are subject to panic and frenzy and in those states they are willing to take up initiatives that do more harm than good; that would not remedy the problem, but would make it even worse. The people themselves do not trust their abilities to cast informed, rational and intelligent votes on such subjects. Thomas Cronin writes;
My national sample in 1987 found that an overwhelming number of citizens, 76 percent, insisted that voters should have a direct say and hence they should have the rights of direct participation… These same respondents … Fifty-five percent of this 1987 sample agreed that ‘voters might not be able to cast informed votes on complicated issues’…Thirty-eight percent believe voters would be able to cast informed votes. (Cronin, Thomas 616 “Public”)

Not only are the voters not well informed, if at all, in regards to the issues, they can be easily misled. The initiative device allows people to be taken advantage of and misled by issue activists and special interest groups. In a passage written in 1920, Congressman Samuel McCall paints a pretty accurate picture of his future;
[A] man may have some selfish project, which, like most selfish projects, may be concealed under specious word. The beautiful idea or selfish scheme is written by its author in the form of law, and he proceeds to get the due requisite number of signers to a petition. With a due amount of energy and the payment of canvassers, these signatures can be secured by the carload, and the proposed law then goes to the people for enactment, and the great mass of us, on the farm, or the hillside, and in the city, proceed to take the first step in making a law which nine out of ten of us have never read. And this is called securing popular rights and giving the people a larger share in their government! (McCall, Samuel W. 171)

A person with enough political, or monetary backing could, hypothetically, spear-head an issue, misinform the voters and pass legislation. Legislation that would not normally have been passed or enacted in the regular modes of the legislature because it was for the makers own benefit at the cost of the electorate could be past. This fear is also held by the people in general;
The Field Institute found in 1982 that Californians believe ‘special interest groups would gain power by spending money to promote only their side of an issue’ (86 percent agreed). And: ‘In those proposition races where only one side of an issue has enough money to pay for expensive campaign advertising, the outcome does not usually represent the will of the people but the interest of the big contributors’ (82 percent agreed) (Cronin, Thomas 616 “Public”)

Not only could such groups or individuals confuse the voters and spend money to create selfish legislation that is a detriment to the people, but the process can also be utilized by such groups for ulterior motives. “By using the initiative device, issue activists have a powerful agenda-setting tool. Just getting on the ballot allows sponsors to attempt to focus public attention on their issue. The campaign is often a contest to see which side can define the ballot issue in terms best suited to their electoral objectives.” (Magleby, David 604) Some groups only want recognition to be “pick up” issues to be taken up by major candidates and do even care to have their initiatives passed. They waste tax-payer dollars for their own selfish ends.
Now we move on to the heated issue of the recall. One should keep in mind that most states that have the ability to recall also have term limits on their elected officials. The Elitists believe, and perhaps rightly so, that recalls limit the efficiency of the legislature, especially when this device is compounded by term limits. Like term limits, recalls create the process of whole staffing and governing entities moving into offices in governing bodies without knowing the processes and techniques of efficiency until they are about to leave. This creates many problems. To begin, the staff of the elected officials usually get passed onto, or traded off to other offices within the governing bodies. Some of the staff in the California legislature have been working under different elected officials for 20 to 30 years. This process of a rotation staff gives the power not to the people, nor the elected officials, but the real power in these circumstances lay with the bureaucracy and the lobbyists. It is power, which is derived from the knowledge of how to get the job done, the bureaucracy knows the hard details and the lobbyists are knowledgeable about the more fluid aspects of the system; the elected officials are frequently the least knowledgeable of the players and therefore more dependent on the more experienced staff and lobbyists that surround them.
Another potent aspect concerning the recall is that the confusion and fear of a recall from making a single mistake creates legislative deadlock. The fact of the matter is that if a spiteful and wealthy defeated opponent so desired, he or she could effectively cause trouble for the electorate and the elected official. Congressman Samuel McCall wrote;
It would be a matter of no difficulty for [defeated candidate] to initiate a recall and practically to have the election over again; and so we should have perpetual warfare over the holding of office. That result has already clearly developed where the recall is in force. (McCall, Samuel W. 182)

This could dwindle down into a never ending cycle of recall after recall and create a level of uncertainty that would successfully make every elected official, for all intents and purposes, a “lame duck.” Taking it a little further, the fact that an official has this dark word “recall” looming over his or her head creates a stressed and inefficient environment for the elected person. The effect of this would be that the official would no longer act out of the best interests of his constituents, but out of his own. Again, Congressman McCall chimes in;
[A public officer] will be likely to do the thing most pleasing to the prevailing fancy and which will adapt itself most easily to the momentary condition of the public mind. His political interests will lead him to do the plausible and easily advertised thing, and it may be the thing that will really injure the people. (McCall, Samuel W. 183)

The ironic outcome is that the recall device, which (according to the Progressives) was meant to have the elected official more responsible to the needs of his constituency backfires (according to the Elitists ); he, or she, now votes to keep his constituents happy and to keep himself in office even though the legislation he is enacting could be very harmful in the long run for the people as a whole.
What the Elitists suggest is to repair the defective system in lieu of supplementing it. In a 1911 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled (correctly enough), “California May Become the Laughing Stock of the Country” it states that; “A state will be well governed when its people desire to be well governed and are willing to exercise the necessary vigilance. We can elect competent and honest legislatures.” The Elitists felt that to usurp and effectively castrate the governmental system, such is the case with direct democracy devices, was the wrong path to go down and that the system ought be reformed in such a way that it remains a government for the people and not an impotent pantomime.
The constitutional aspects of direct democracy are another major aspect which has become subject to theoretical debate. In regard to the argument over referendum versus representative government there are two camps; those that argue that direct democracy was the path that we were set on from the founding of the United States and the camp that argues that the entire concept of direct democracy is completely unconstitutional.
The camp that believes that direct democracy is “what the founders wanted” cite the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as their main evidence that the founding fathers were in favor of a general move towards a more democratic system. They say that articles V. VII. And VIII of the Commonwealth’s Constitutions, because this Commonwealth was founded by many of the drafters of the United State’s Constitution, that it accurately depicts the wishes of these individuals on the whole. Article V states that; “All power residing originally in the people, and derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.” The interpretation is that this article gives the right of recall to the citizens since the “magistrates and officers… are at all times accountable to” the people. Article VII states that “Government is instituted for the common good; for protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.” The belief is that this article allows for the furthering of the right of recall and allows for the right of referendums and initiatives. Article VIII states that “In order to prevent those who are vested with authority from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to gill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.” This article clearly establishes the right of recall by causing the “public officers to return to private life.” Since the Constitution of the United States was based off of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it seems reasonable that the same intentions would be passed on to the later document.
The other side of the coin, however, believes that the concept of direct legislation is not only against the original intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, it is also plainly unconstitutional. This camp cites Article IV of the US Constitution for a main and strong argument. It reads; “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.” The whole concept of a “republican form of government” is contradictory to the edicts of direct democracy; it is a one or the other issue, according to this camp. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit, - government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves.”
This “non-direct democracy” camp claims that the framers knew that Legislators should not be slaves to the shortsightedness of the people and that such direct democracy provisions would cause such enslavement and that the rule of popular majorities in a direct democracy system would create legislation that would only create legislature that was not based on what was right and needed for the society. Professor Thomas Cronin writes;
“The framers of the Constitution, of course, had no use for direct action by the people to govern themselves through plebiscites, referendums, or straw polls. Many of them even worried about rule by popular majorities. The framers considered there was often a distinction between public opinion and public interest. Prudent judgment about the national interest, they held, should be shaped by debate and deliberation among highly informed representatives of the people. (Cronin, Thomas 615 “Public”)


The framers of the Constitution also felt that in such a large civilization that it was impossible not to be a republic. John Adams wrote that “In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to delegate power from the many to a few of the most wise and good.” (Adams, John 194-195)
The camp with the most resounding evidence on its side appears to be that which believes in the unconstitutionality of direct democracy. The fact that so many of the framers of our society wrote out against the concept of a more democratic society indicates that they thought it would never be a good idea; that the legislature and governmental instructions it included were necessary and should not be usurped. As for the Progressives and the Elitists, it seems that they both had equally valid arguments and excellent theoretical proof so perhaps the best way to gain insight into those arguments is through a case study.

Part Two: The California Recall

California is no ordinary state; it is an anomaly, a freak, the great exception among the American states.
- Carey McWilliams
from his 1949 book “California: The Great Exception”

Governor Grey Davis, less than 1 year after being reelected to the Governorship of California, was thrown out by a massive movement angry with state of the state. Davis had never lost an election before this. The recall was an attempt to remedy what the electorate viewed as the problems caused by the Davis administration. The recall itself didn’t rectify any of the problems but it drew up all sorts of questions; What events and circumstances lead to the recall happen in California, why did it happen the way it did? What are the ramifications of it on state and national elections and the republican and democratic parties in the future?
There are many substantial reasons for why the recall happened in the first place, ranging from an unpopular governor facing tough issues and challenges with poor spin to an aggressive media. Many political scientists feel that feel that it was like the tumblers in a key just falling into the right place at the right time.
Grey Davis was one of the most unpopular governors in the country. His constituency was disenfranchised and unwilling to rally around him in his time of need. In the political arena, mainly because of the abrasive he handled himself with other elected officials, he could find no real loyal relationships. Even though California Senator Dianne Feinstein campaigned against the recall, there were still rumors that flying around that she would be willing to run for his seat and even vocalized requests from party members for her to run, but she ultimately refused. This is probably as a result of her own experience with recall when she was mayor of San Francisco. There was a strong move from the Democratic “higher-ups” to not have a democratic in the race to try and ensure that the recall would fail but there was a problem with this; no alternative. If the recall went through then there was no option for Democrats. Understanding this, Bustamante ran with the “No on recall, Yes on Bustamante” even after Davis requested him not to. At the same time State Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi entered the race but dropped out shortly after. But Davis’ lack of popularity was more powerful than that, the people were tired of the Democrat in power. Steve Schier, Professor at Carleton College in Minnesota is quoted in the Knight Ridder Newspapers; “when people decide they dislike the incumbent, they will look widely for replacements. When people really dislike you, they’re willing to take risks, the outsider becomes appealing because established politicians become unpopular and untrustworthy.” (Thomma, Steve, 10/08/03) The problem is that all of this could have been avoided with good spin. If Davis could handle the press at all then his image would have not faltered and his support would have remained. It seems that Davis’ lack of popularity, his lack of loyal relationships, and his lack of good spin split his administration at the seams.
But why was the Governor so unpopular? The answer lies in the fact that Davis slipped up on a few key issues, and the majority of that slippage was as a result the aforementioned bad spin. The biggest hit to the Davis administration was the budget crisis. During Grey Davis’ reelection campaign in 2002 the Davis administration was originally anticipating a $12.3 billion dollar deficit that, as a result of miscalculation, unexpected stock market depreciation and the energy crisis the surplus disappeared to be replaced by a $35 billion budget deficit turning the situation into an official “crisis.” This drop started almost immediately after Davis reclaimed his office. The population wanted to know “where did this deficit come from?” and, more importantly, “who can we blame for this.” Fingers were pointed and they pointed at Davis. However, the truth behind the matter is that there were uncontrollable factors which lead to the deficit. The fact that the majority of California’s economy is technology based means that when the technology market does poor, so does the economy of California. The truth of the matter is that California’s economy is so tightly connected to the Stock market that if it falters, then California goes into financial trouble. Another factor in the poor economy is the energy crisis. The business of California faced uncertainty and poor out put as a result of not having any power and being able to rely on the steady flow and availability of energy. This caused a downturn in the economy of California overall. The energy crisis itself was also a major factor in Davis’ unpopularity. The fact that Davis could not get a hold on the situation showed him as a poor manager and, therefore, a poor governor. The electorate, again needing someone to blame, were caught up in the smear campaign that the media was showing and blamed Davis; he was seen as ineffective with the energy companies. As Michael Lerner writes in Tikkun Magazine;
Grey Davis was … a weakling… Faced with the Enron-generated energy crisis, he was willing to tell the truth that the crisis had been manipulated by the energy companies, but then, in astounding cowardice, capitulated to their demands and saddled Californians with a huge bill to pay the scoundrels off
(Lerner, Michael 11/2003)

However, the truth of the matter is that Davis can only be blamed with getting the butcher’s bill of the energy deregulation which happened in the previous administration. Davis was only trying to make the best of a bad situation and found only resistance in every direction. Stephanie Salter writes in the San Francisco Chronicle; the energy fiasco, now offered as an example of Davis’ gross incompetence, was set in motion by his GOP predecessor, Pete Wilson, and the deregulating California Legislator that begat this one. (Salter, Stephanie 8/17/2003) As a result of all of these problems, the budget deficit soared and Davis had to find a way to fix the problem. Here we come to the so called “Car Tax.” This was called a “Tax” because it raised the vehicle licensing fees. The Californians were outraged that they had to pay even more for their cars when they already had to pay some of the highest gas prices in the country. The electorate, thinking only through opinion and not about what the best policy was, blamed Davis for this raise and for any ramifications of it. However, the issue again was misunderstood by the electorate. The fee for licensing vehicle in California, in 1998 was much higher than it is today. At the time the state was flush with money, so, in these good times the legislature passed legislation that reduced these fees to 1/3 of what they were, provided that in a deficit situation, the California Government would certify that state was in financial trouble, and then the fees would be reinstated. It wasn’t really raising taxes, it was removing discounted tax. Davis, in fact, vetoed legislation that would repeal this discounted tax several times in much stronger versions, but the electorate failed to look at this. The issue that irritated the electorate in a non-monetary related issue was the driver’s licenses for undocumented workers bill. Otherwise known as the “illegal immigrant driving bill,” sb60 would allow illegal immigrants working in California to have the ability to drive cars to and from work; a temporary license while they were working in California. It was generally meant to be for the period before these migrant workers would attempt to gain citizenship. The right painted this as allowing terrorists to register in California and giving illegal immigrants more opportunity to take American jobs. This issue was a public relations nightmare for anyone but pretty much the Latino vote. Over all, Davis’ public relations handling and the handling of the spin on these key issues caused in popularity to falter. Even though certain aspects were out of his control or done out of necessity, the populous judged him, and he came up short.
Even though Davis’ popularity was low and he wasn’t handling issues very well, this wasn’t the main reason for the recall. The main reason that the recall took place was as a result of money; money going towards the Davis administration and money going against it. Davis has been know to have a fairly shady money raising history. Many times he has been accused of a “quid-pro-quo” practice that doesn’t sit well with the voters. His unseemly fundraising techniques have been questioned for years, especially with the big labor unions, but most recently an issue was raised with the fact that he received a quarter of a million dollars in a campaign contribution from the prison guards and correctional workers union about three months after giving state prison guards a three year pay raise at a rate of 33.7%. Another monetary issue with the Davis administration was with contributions going to lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante from Indian tribes. The main issues with this that tribes don’t have to pay taxes on the money they make at their casinos and the electorate didn’t see that as right, even though our country slaughtered their nation and stole their land. The donations looked very dirty to the California onlooker and seemed to be another example of a Davis “quid-pro-quo” with Bustamante campaigning against Proposition 5 on the 1998 ballot and Propositions 1a and 29 on the 2000 ballot (all to limit Indian gaming). The money going towards the Davis administration was not seem by the public as honorable or good, but the money going against the administration was explosive. These funds were going to support the recall drive against Governor Grey Davis and they come from three main sources, the Republican Party, the business community, and Darrell Issa. The republican party, who wanted a change in the party of the administration gave as much as it deemed necessary; a few hundred thousands dollars, the business community, who were angry with Davis’ ties to labor unions gave a little more, but neither the party nor the business community gave as much as the man who spearheaded the recall campaign, Darrell Issa, the Republican looser in the 2002 election against Davis who infused 2 million of his own money. This scenario is reminiscent of some of the theoretical fears mentioned earlier; the fear that a wealthy individual who has a “selfish project” as voiced by Congressman McCall. The big chunk of the funds goes to pay for signature gathering; the campaign spent up to $1.80 per signature in order to boot Davis. The issue of signature gathering has been hotly debated since the early 1900’s, and, even though attempts have been made to make it illegal. Bob Keefe writes in the Austin Statesman;
“There’s nothing illegal about paying for signatures. In 1988, n fact the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Colorado statute that prohibited sponsers of balloth measures from using paid signature gatherers. But without Issa’s money, recall organizers admit, it’s unlikely they would have collected the 897,000 signatures needed to qualify for a ballot initiative.” (Keefe, Bob 8/3/03)

It would be worthwhile to examine the fact that out of the 32 attempts to recall a Californian governor since 1911, that this is the only one to even qualify for the ballot. The difference between this and the other 31, besides some small nuances, is the fact that there is such a huge monetary backing of this recall. It seems that if you have enough money, you can just buy another election if you are not happy with the results of the first, but this should be no real surprise to anyone, as University of Southern California law professor, Elizabeth Garret is quoted as saying; “Once you can use paid signature gatherers, you can pretty much qualify anything for the ballot.” (Keefe, Bob 8/3/03)
As Thomas Cronin writes; “Effective use of the media may often make the difference between failure and success at the polls, and effective use of media is often a function of money.” (Cronin, Thomas 116 “Direct”) The fairly new advent of the “shock jock” played a key role in this election and it was used effectively. No one would argue that the majority of the talk-radio shows lean to the right side of the spectrum and love to point out problems with administrations headed by the left. These radio hosts gave out a call to action and helped get signatures for the recall. Without them the needed amount of signatures probably wouldn’t have been gathered to qualify for the October deadline. The day Secretary of State Kevin Shelly certified the recall there was a barrage of talk radio hosts swarming Mr. Shelly, hyping up the event, making it a frenzy and a much larger issue that it would have been without their input. Senior lecturer at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, Susan Rasky stated her opinion in the U.C. Berkley News ; “I think it’s important for the political scientists to help us understand the contemporary media and its impact on electioneering and the most important condition academia can make to this is to devise a sound methodology for tracking Internet use, talk radio and local broadcast media – which is where modern campaigns are played.” (Maclay, Kathleen 10/20/03) this importance of the supposed “underground” news sources such as talk radio, and the internet have shown in this election how important they can be at mobilizing the electorate.
Whenever you have a recall election, it is going to be unique, and a gubernatorial recall is something very special in itself. The issue of time is always an important one, no matter the election and the timing of a recall election is always very tight. Thomas Cronin writes; “Time limitations and costs, especially in large states, make the collection of thousands of hundreds of thousands of signatures a serious problem.” (Cronin, Thomas E. 207 “Direct”) The fact that this recall election collected enough signatures, and collected them by the deadline shows that this particular recall was unique from the beginning. An election happening this quickly usually means that the electorate would not have enough time to mobilize effectively. As Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University, political analyst for NBC11 and co-writer of the upcoming book, RECALL!, wrote in his Editorial “Recall Surprise; Maybe Less is Best”; “County registrars feared that the ballots would not be distributed on time; the secretary of state worried that absentee ballots overseas might arrive too late; most pundits fidgeted that the historic event would produce an abysmally low turnout commonly found in special elections.” (Gerston, Larry 10/12/03) However, more accordingly to Senator Bourne’s theories, the opposite was true. As Professor Gerston continues; “…turnout was the highest for a non-presidential election since 1982… just 11 months after a 50 percent turnout at the last regularly scheduled gubernatorial election, voter participation for Tuesday’s election was a stunning 65 percent.” (Gerston, Larry 10/12/03) Even though the election was quick, the electorate mobilized quickly, which has a major important effect that will be addressed later; the quickness of voters deciding on a candidate. The recall qualified for ballot and a very short campaign came about that advantaged those who could gain free media. Any candidate of importance, or glamour that could attract the attention of the cameras would become the front runner.
John F. Kennedy, the president elected by the television once said; “Today the challenge of Political courage looms larger than ever before. For our everyday life is becoming so saturated with the tremendous power of mass communications that any unpopular or unorthodox course arouses a storm of protests which could never have been envisioned.” The effect that the media had on the actual campaign is incomprehensible, in the shortness of this election, the candidate with the best image seemed to have the best chances in the image run election. Richard Riordan, who lost in the Republican gubernatorial primary last year, told United Press International that; “It will be very interesting, the media is going to play a big part because there isn’t time to run a more traditional campaign.” (Anderson, Hil 7/24/02) One of the most interesting aspects of this race is the candidates involved. On the ballot there were 135 candidates including the normal political-world candidates, a Superstar Candidate, many unknowns, and many has-beens in the entertainment industry. The Republican golden-boy was a national phenomenon, the Republican Party felt so confident in this candidate that they asked the traditional republican candidates to step down. The Superstar status of this candidate allowed the electorate to ignore the fact that he never had any true substantive answers to the questions posed to him and that the one debate he participated in he was given the questions before the actual debate so he could script out his answers and perform them. The strangeness of the majority of the rest of the candidates created a kind of circus out of the election. There were two from the adult entertainment industry; a porn-star actress and the porn king, Larry Flynt. The child-star actor Gary Colman, who had a mock debate on The GameShow Network, and the melon-smashing comedian Gallegher were on the ballot. These are a few of the “band wagon” candidates who, along with the various college students and sumo-wrestlers who ran, joined on either for the humor involved in it or to jumpstart their dead careers with a chance for free publicity. This phenomenon seems like it could only happen in a state like California where one of the major industries is the entertainment industry.
The issue of image holds true in the domain of the media; as established earlier, without the time to develop issues and stances on issues the main impetus for voting behavior is image. Schwarzenegger, as this election’s Superstar candidate seemed as invincible as one of his movie characters in the domain of image. Towards the end of the campaign, many negative allegations were made against Arnold and other candidates;
“Voters are learning about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s youthful escapades with sex, drugs, and body modification, about Arianna Huffinton’s revolting political principles, about Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante’s flirtation with Hispanic separatism, about Governor Davis’ high school sports career. The focus on personalities is not surprising. California is the heart of the entertainment industry and America’s celebrity-dominated political culture, and the characters in the recall are certainly colorful. Except perhaps for the one known as Gray.” (Tyson, Laura D’Andrea 9/22/03)

Though the attacks affected the image of some of the other candidates, the negatives against Arnold had no impact what so ever. Arnold was such a “Teflon” candidate that he was seen as the perfect candidate to replace Grey Davis; “Grey Davis was… a recipe for macho candidates like the Terminator to appear on the scene and play to the discontent that these Democrats have generated.” (Lerner, Michael 11/2003). This strong and immovable image was the perfect contrast to Davis’ image of being “easily manipulated” and weak. Image was important as a result of the timing of the election, but the timing showed something else; the voters decided early who they were going to vote for. There has been no poll work done, but there ought be a poll asking questions regarding when sample members of the electorate made their decision.
With this, like any election, there are some major dilemmas. The percentage of the vote that was needed was only a simple majority, with all 135 candidates running, the percentage is ludicrously small. Larry Gerston points out in his Editorial “Gov. Comejo?”; “…dozens of candidates – perhaps as many as 100 or more – will file for an opportunity to become captain of the California Titanic. With so many candidates, someone could win with as little as 10 or 12 percent of the vote.” (Gerston, Larry 7/29/03) This, added with the fast pace of the race and elections meant that it was hypothetically anybody’s race. The other main issue was that you have one ballot that had two questions (not including propositions); asking if the governor should be recalled and who should replace him, there was a lot of confusion over this and many ballots only had one vote when you could vote “no” on the recall and still yes on a replacement candidate as harkened by the Bustamante campaign.
Probably the most interesting aspect of this election is the outcome; who won and by how much. Arnold won the election with almost half of the total votes, this total is more votes that were cast for the recall, which means that people who voted “no” on the recall voted “yes” on the Superstar candidate. As Alan Maass points out in his article “Was the Recall a Shift to the Right?”; “in a state where only about one-third of voters are registered Republicans, Schwarzenegger and McClintock together got nearly two-thirds of the vote.” (Maass, Alan 10/17/03)
After such an interesting and powerful event, we must try to analyze and hypothesize about the effects of such an election. The local effects would seem to be that there was an erosion of Democratic Base and swing voters and a rapid loss or erosion in Democratic voter registration. This seems to be the case In this one election, the Democratic base stayed the same number with maybe a small amount of swing voting. The registered democrats made up 46 percent of all voters yet only 25 percent of the democrats voted to recall the governor. While it seems that it was the independents that had the control in this election, their 12% of the total vote was split almost down the middle, 50-50 (54 and 46). In totally the recall vote came to 55% in favor and 45% against. That 5-10 percent could have come from the democratic swing, but it probably came from the independents who 75 percent said were “liberal.” What is surprising is that Schwarzenegger gained 49 percent of the total vote.
As a result of this election there is now a new governor and “new” staff.. This staff is the restructured staff of Pete Wilson’s from pre-Davis, including Pete Wilson himself as Arnold’s Campaign advisor. Currently there appears to be major problems within the Governor's staff. His political people are from Wilson's and Bush's staffs and occupy the right-wing of the political spectrum where most of his operations people are more moderate and don't like the direction things are going. The recall put a group with no experience working with each other into a position with an immediate need for major action but no teamwork or advance preparation.
As amazing as his victory was and his image as “tough on government” his superstar status seems to only be able to take him so far. When Arnold was campaigning in regards to his “recovery plan around California he got interesting feedback from the populous. As said by State Senator Dean Florez; “It’s a tough sell, I’ve got the feeling that most of the people [at Arnold’s Bakersfield rally] were there to see a movie star. The crowd cheered at all the lines from his movies -- but when it came to his $15 billion bond package, I didn’t hear everybody roar for that part.” (Matier, Phillip 12/8/03) The interesting thing is that as a result of his Superstar status, Arnold has a parade of press following him around. This gives him all the free publicity for him and party candidates that he wants, where the democrats have to pay for press and media.
“Any new governor who can attract both foreign dignitaries and actor Danny DeVito to his inauguration, Republican legislative leaders are convinced, can campaign in legislative districts to enact his agenda or go straight to the ballot what he can’t do at the capitol.” (Chance, Amy 11/18/03)
However amazing and perfect his image may be, there are some basic facts that the electorate are eventually going to have to face. This is a man with no real experience in government or administration, it will be a very rough transition and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of a bipartisan movement currently. This new governor, though he ran as an “outsider” is still relying on Republican insiders, mainly from the Wilson administration. The inexperience of this governor has led him to the practice of proposing reforms and requiring immediate action with little details like a demanding child. This, again, will not gain him any time of friends in the Democratic party. This governor, with no real experience or knowledge of what he is doing is creating expectation with public that problems are easy to fix.
“California’s budget crisis, like similar crises that have engulfed the other states, stems primarily from a steep drop in tax revenues resulting from the stock market collapse of 2000-02 and the national recession and jobless recovery of the past three years. Since California was the hub of the ‘90’s technology bubble, its revenue base was hit especially hard. State revenues declined by about 17% in 2001-02 – the largest slump in more than a half-century.” (Tyson, Laura D’Andrea 9/22/03)

These types of problems are not easily fixable, they take time, and since he has given the public an expectation of a “quick fix” he is going to stop short of their expectations. Not only are the problems not easy to fix, they are getting worse. Terry Christen, San Jose State Professor and co-author of Recall! writes;
“While California focuses on the recall, the budget crisis worsens and we’ve made no progress in solving the larger structural problems that precipitated it. Once the recall is over, we could end up with pretty much what we had before (which bodes ill for progress) or an antagonistic governor and legislature (which guarantees no progress). Whatever its outcome, recall is not the solution. (Christensen, Terry 9/5/03)

Even with these problems the fundraising power of new governor is incredible, his image attracts money and approval like never before seen. His ability to hold a successful fundraiser will show up as just one of the many challenges that the Democratic Party will have to face. Since there has been a power shift, the Democratic legislature now has a Republican governor in stead of a Democratic one, there will be an almost immediate power struggle to show the dominance of one branch over the other. It should be noted that California is one of only two states mandating a two-thirds supermajority of both legislative bodies to pass a budget. This will cause problems for Arnold, Richard Brody; emeritus professor of political science at Stanford University suggests that;
“[Arnold’s] going to be trying to establish a record that would allow him to run for re-election but it appears highly unlikely that he’ll be able to develop any kind of legislative record at all. It’s more likely to be two armed camps just staring at each other – and if they do pass a budget at some point, they’re likely to do it in a way that he promises will be unmet and unfulfilled.” (Sawyer, Jon 10/5/03)

This will not only be problematic for Arnold, but this will also cause problems for the legislature. Because of the new antagonistic governor there is no guarantee the legitimacy of any legislation. Arnold could veto any legislation that the capitol sends him and could use line-item veto on the budget. This makes it almost impossible to move democratic values and agenda. and creates a loose-loose situation for the Democrats. There is the “damned if you do” situation where if the Democrats in the Legislature decide to work with Arnold on his polices and give in to his demands then it would repeal necessary and beneficial legislation and create spending caps that would be detrimental to the safety of the California economy. On the other hand there is the “damned if you don’t” situation which depends on the continued popularity of Arnold. If Arnold remains popular and the Democrats decide not to work with him at all, then it will tarnish their image amongst the electorate. The image that they will portray is of a party that refused to work with the new governor out of spite and party partisan ship and this will loose them votes and even streets. If the new governor’s popularity falters then it will be the California Democrat’s dream situation because it would ensure that recalls in the future would have a hard time working; “look what happened last time we had one.”
Probably the most strange and detrimental situations that could occur as a result of this situation would be that Arnold, if the legislature votes down a bill that he wants passed, then he could “take it to the streets” as an initiative or referendum, and, if his popularity continues, then he could easily pass such items. Arnold, in his short time in office has already attempted to alter the power and role of the governorship. He has already proposed a bill that would give the governor the ability to repeal any piece of legislature, there was a bipartisan move to vote that down. Currently there are two pieces of legislation that the Governor wants on the March ballot. One is the 15 billion dollar bond. The other is a constitutional amendment providing a spending cap on the state budget. The spending cap was presented as a dollar amount with provision for inflation adjustments but no relationship to revenue. This would force severe cuts in services going way into the future. He has even begun to talk about cuts in education which he swore he wouldn't do. The spending cap legislation also provides for the Governor to be able to make cuts and/or increase taxes without legislative approval when the legislature isn't in session. This has met with considerable opposition by both parties and is viewed as a gutting of legislative power. Could it be that this Superstar is letting his own image get to his head?
In California State elections there has been a ripple effect throughout the legislature, effecting three seats in particular. The California Journal stated that “of the 120 seats in the leg, 3 are competitive.” In the California State Senate, there is one race who’s outcome was decided by the governor’s victory. Rebecca Cohn and Abel Maldonado were both running for the newly open 15th Senate seat. Once Arnold won and it was apparent that Maldonado could ride his popularity coat tails, Mrs. Cohn decided to step out of the race and remain in the Assembly. In the California State Assembly, five of the incumbent democratic seats are considered competitive or vulnerable all five seats lost substantial democratic voter registration as a result of the recall. At the same time petitioners were gathering signatures in favor of the recall they were also offering to change someone’s voter registration from democrat to republican. Here are those numbers:
In Assembly District 1 Democrats lost 1.24% points in democratic registration improving a republicans chance of winning the seat in the next election by 1.09% improvement in republican registration.

In Assembly District 8 Democrats lost2.24% points in democratic registration and republicans gained 3.31% in republican registration.

In Assembly District 17 Democrats lost 3.59% points in voter registration and the republicans improved their margin by 7.75%.

In Assembly District 30 Democrats lost 1.03-% points in voter registration and republicans improved their numbers by 3.62%.

In Assembly District 61 Democrats lost 1.77-% points in voter registration and republicans improved registration by 2.18%.

In open Democratic Competitive Seats that Democrats want to hold onto the numbers

were as follows:

AD 31 democrats lost 2.82% and republicans gained 6.81%
AD 35 democrats lost 1.35% and republicans gained 2.08%
AD54 democrats lost 1.56% and republicans gained 1.46%
AD69 democrats lost 1.79% and republicans gained .81%
AD 76 democrats lost 1.80% and republicans gained 1.94%

In all but four of the ten seats mentioned theses districts voted yes for the recall.This data points to a problem for the Democratic Party on several levels. First they will, have to spend more money to hold onto the open democratic seats and defend the incumbents to maintain their majority in the house. Second, this will be harder to do in this election cycle compared to the last one because of Prop 34 which was a campaign finance reform measure that restricts contributions. Third, the democrats will have a difficult time reversing this voter registration disaster, because of the Federal Ruling on McCain –Feingold and the inability to use state Democratic Party money for voter registration like they have done in the past. This changes how money is showing up in elections and campaigning; you have an increase in independent expenditures and an increased role in the participation of party Committees.
In the Los Gatos and San Diego Races there exists competitive Democratic Races where there are many democratic candidates but only a single republican candidate in each race. This creates a situation where Arnold can easily support and raise money for the Republican candidate while the Democrats would fight it out in the primary.
On the National level, there could be many effects. In regards to the presidential race of 2004, some feel that this win for the republicans could effect the campaigning decisions of the Republicans and the Democrats. Jon Sawer’s article in the St. Louis Post calls upon this idea;
A honeymoon for Schwarzenegger, if it’s deep enough and persists, could put California… in play for next year’s presidential race. Perhaps not enough actually to tilt Republican… but enough to frighten Democrats into spending money on ads and travel that they would much prefer go to the Midwest and other battleground regions. (Sawyer, Jon 10/5/03)

This recall election in California could affect the presidential race. On how large the extent is, there is disagreement. There is also disagreement in regards to the question, “will this affect other states?” Some believe that this election will have the same effect as Proposition 13, and sweep across the nation. Thomas Mann, a Washington analyst tells The Knight Ridder News;
Now we’ve recalled a sitting governor, the temptation will be for Democrats to press this (as payback) elsewhere, in states with recall provisions, and seek other means of holding Republican chief executives responsible for governing in bad times. (Polman, Dick 10/13/03)

Some even feel that this election will redefine the way elections are held in the future, like Nathaniel Persily, an expert on voting law at University of Pennsylvania Law School, “[this situation] highlight[s] a new historical phase in which tools of American democracy, previously seen as off-limits or reserved for extraordinary circumstances, now exist as part of the normal tug-of-war of partisan politics.” (Polman, Dick 10/13/03) Yet there are those that believe that this is a situation unique to California, that it will not spread for there is no reason for it to spread. Larry Sabato the director of the Center for Politics, University of Virginia writes tells Knight Ridder News that, “It’s not going to happen in many other places, there’s a reason it hasn’t happened since 1921… Everyone saw California. They were enjoying it enormously, they found it entertaining, but the last thing they want is for their state to become a joke as well.” (Thomma, Steve 10/08/03).
The distant future is very hard to see and hard to predict since there are no real examples of an “archetypal gubernatorial recall.” What can be said is that this recall and election was very unique and has every political incumbent worry that it could happen to them next.

The Final Analysis

So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.
-Sir Winston Churchill

The over all question that needs to be answered is if this level of direct democracy is necessary and safe. When we are given these rights we have the responsibilities to utilize them with caution and honesty. The Elitists ignore the fact that humans are, by nature, fallible and, when given the chance, will abuse the power they have obtained. The Progressives forget that a mob can act ruthless and idiotic. The Elitists forget that government has to be responsible to the people and true executive and legislative power comes from the masses allowing the government to have that power. The Progressives ignore the fact that people will act selfishly and will take advantage of any system that they can get their hands upon. In the case of the California recall we have an electorate that was bought up and rallied around an image and probably manipulated by selfish and powerful forces. The masses in California felt disenfranchised and left out of the process of making important decisions about the budget. The people of California saw Grey Davis as incompetent and were willing to kick him out of office, only after a wealthy and self-interested individual financed the majority of the process. It becomes clear that none of the various theories are valid, on their own, but that there must be a synthesis of the theories in order to make sense in the real world.









Works Cited

Adams, John. Thoughts on Government in The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles
Francis Adams, Vol. 4 Boston: Little, Brown.

Anderson, Hil. “Analysis: Calif Dems’ Carpet-Bomb Strategy.” United Press
International 24 Jul. 2003.

Beard, Charles A. Initiative Referendum and Recall. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1912.

Chance, Amy. “Analysis: New Era Will Put Power of Charisma to the Test.” The
Sacramento Bee 18 Nov. 2003

Christensen, Terry. Editorial. “Recall Politics: A Natural Evolution.” Silicon Valley Biz
Ink. 5 Sept. 2003.

Cronin, Thomas E. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall
Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Cronin, Thomas E. “Public Opinion and Direct Democracy” PS: Political Science and
Politics Vol. 21, No. 3 (Summer, 1988), 612-619

Field, Mervin, quoted in Eugene C. Lee, “The Initiative and Referendum: How California
has Fared.” National Civic Review Feb 1979.

Gerston, Larry. “Gov. Camejo?” Editorial. San Jose Mercury News 29 Jul. 2003.

Gerston, Larry. “Recall Surprise: Maybe Less is Best” Editorial. San Jose Mercury News
12. Oct. 2003.

Johnson, Lewis J., Samuel W. McCall, Jonathan Bourne, Herbert Swan, Thomas A. Davis et al.
William Bennett Munro ed. The Initiative Referendum and Recall. New York: D.
Appleton and Company, 1920.

Keefe, Bob. “Is California Overdosing on Democracy?” The Austin American Statesman
3 Aug. 2003.

Lerner, Michael. Editorial. “Recall in California; Lessons for the 2004 Elections.” Tikkun
Magazine Nov 2003.

Maass, Alan. “Was the Recall a Shift to the Right?” Socialist Worker.org 17 Oct. 2003.


Maclay, Kathleen. “Professors Follow Pundits with Research on Recall’s Effects.” U.C.
Berkeley News 20 Oct. 2003.

Magleby, David B. “Taking the Initiative: Direct Legislation and Direct Democracy in
the 1980s.” PS: Political Science and Politics Vol. 21, No. 3 (Summer, 1988),
612-619

Matier, Phillip, Andrew Ross. “Turnout is Wild Card in Electing S.F. Mayor.” San
Francisco Chronicle 8 Dec. 2003.

Polman, Dick. “Partisan Animosity May Grow After Bitter Recall, Analysts Say.”
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service 13 Oct. 2003.

Salter, Stephanie. “Roots of Recall: The Crisis Erupted…” San Francisco Chronicle 17
Aug. 2003.

Sawyer, Jon. “Recall Could Open Pandora’s Box of Election Antics in California.” St.
Louis Post-Dispatch 5 Oct. 2003.

Sutherland, George, et al. Initiative and Referendum; Arguments Pro and Con by a
Special Committee of the National Economic League. Boston: National Economic
League, 1912.

Thomma, Steven. “Analysts Disagree on Recall’s Impact.” Knight Ridder Newspapers 8
Oct. 2003

Tyson, Laura D’Andrea. “A New Governor Won’t Fix What Ails California.” Editorial.
Business Week 22 Sep. 2003.

Works Referenced

Allswang, John M. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898-1998. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2000.

Crouch, Winston W. The Initiative and Referendum in California. Los Angeles: Haynes
Foundation, 1950.

Gerber, Elisabeth R. et. al. Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to
Direct Democracy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001.

McHenry, Dean. “The Pattern of California Politics” The Western Political Quarterly Vol
1. No. 1 (Mar. 1948) 44-53.

Meier, Kenneth. “I see My Opportunities and I Took ‘Em: Political Corruption in the
American States.” The Journal of Politics Vol. 54. No. 1 (Feb. 1992) 135-155.

Mowry, George E. The California Progressives. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1951.

Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. The Referendum in America. New York: Charles Scriber’s
Sons, 1911.