Editorial endorsement: Vote “˜no’ on the recall and “˜no’ on Proposition 54

Gov. Gray Davis is an unpopular leader who places too much
emphasis on fund-raising and whose policy decisions deserve
criticism.

But, despite his unpopularity and his far-from-perfect
management, Davis has done nothing to warrant being booted from
office. The Daily Bruin endorses a “no” vote on the
attempt to recall California’s chief executive.

This past November, 3.1 million Californians hit the polls,
voting to keep Gov. Gray Davis in Sacramento. Ninety-two days
later, efforts were underway to oust him.

It is true that Davis presided over a boom in state revenue
during his first years in office but in 2003 saw the largest
deficit in state history. It is also true he was slow to address
the energy crisis in his first term (the deregulation bill was
signed in 1996 but blackouts didn’t hit until 2000). In his
current campaign, Davis is beholden to large donors and taken to
running attack ads, and he has long been slammed by the public
because of his cardboard character.

After all, Davis clung to office last November by only 5 percent
of the vote.

The trouble is, the recall wasn’t designed to be a
“do-over.” The time to take Davis out was last year
““ not now. To use the recall as a second chance subverts the
legitimacy of state elections. Its application under these
circumstances reflects a fickle, impatient public that swings
spasmodically between satisfaction and resentment, and upon whose
mood of the day rests the governor’s fate.

The recall, when used for legitimate reasons, isn’t a bad
idea: It is a safeguard against corruption and the misuse of public
office, and it shields the public from the blowback of political
favors. When it became law in 1910, the idea was to give people a
way to protect themselves ““ especially from the political
influence of hegemonic special interests like the Southern Pacific
Railroad.

But if the backers of this election have the same intention in
mind, their efforts have been wasted. The short-term satisfaction
of giving Davis the heave-ho will be replaced with long-term
disorder in the capital if the recall goes through. Meanshile, the
problems his foes say warrant his removal will remain
unresolved.

So, as exciting as it may sound to toss a sitting governor,
voters have to ask what they’re trying to accomplish. The
answers coming from recall advocates are often repeated: do away
with a leader who bungled the energy crisis, who was oblivious to
the dot-com over-speculation that aggravated the state’s
deficit, and who is so closely connected with big donors that he
favors when governing.

But these complaints, as justified as they may be, are not new.
By last November, Davis had largely settled the energy problems, he
had just emerged from negotiating a disastrous budget, and scandals
involving Oracle, prison guards, and the California Coastal
Commission plagued him all year.

But Davis was re-elected anyway.

Those who voted for him last year knew exactly whom they were
voting for. Recall advocates who argue that Davis “hid”
budget deficits should know that all state finances are public
““ open for investigation by democrats, republicans,
journalists and anyone else.

Nevertheless, the recall qualified and the election has taken
political campaigning to a new low. At a time when politics is
often driven by sound bites in favor of policy positions, Arnold
Schwarzenegger has controlled much of the media’s election
coverage. While getting his message out through Oprah Winfrey and
Jay Leno’s television programs, he has simultaneously ducked
serious discussion of state issues in conventional debates and
capitalized on his celebrity. He deliberately steered clear of
tough press questions and participated in only one debate, which
was scripted. When a campaign advisor made a substantive suggestion
about property taxes, Schwarzenegger threatened him with pushups.
And just days before the election, the debate focuses on
allegations about groping and Hitler, not state spending and social
issues.

In what could have been an opportunity to welcome statewide
political reform, the recall has instead been a circus.

Adding to the absurdity, there are already proposals to recall
Schwarzenegger if he takes office ““ a campaign which could
begin as soon as he arrives at the capitol. With the threat of
recall always looming, any governor will find it against his own
interests to make tough decisions.

This recall election sets a dangerous precedent. When the number
of signatures needed to compel a recall election ““ and
install a replacement ““ is less than the number needed to
elect the governor in the first place, it’s an appealing
opportunity for the loser. In fact, the recall campaign
didn’t take off until U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (with
gubernatorial ambitions himself) pulled out his checkbook to
essentially pay people to collect signatures.

The election Tuesday ““ to be held at a cost of
approximately $60 million in taxpayer money ““ is an
irresponsible attempt to express discontent with the state’s
leadership. If dissatisfaction is the public’s only
justification for removing a lawfully elected governor, voters must
be prepared for terrible political volatility.