(Sorry, but once again,
I better put a link for the book up
top -- and it's also available to read for
subscribers on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire).
I’m happy to say that I
got to serve as one of the guest live-bloggers at fivethirtyeight.com for Election
Day. I still want to provide some thoughts here, so I’m going to put up an
abbreviated (well, by past standards) Election Day post. Most of this will link
back to past coverage.
There are a number of outlets
to check for Election coverage and up to the minute numbers. Obviously
fivethirtyeight is one place I’d recommend checking out, and it has been a
go-to site for all recent elections. Taegan Goddard is probably the first place
I look at in the morning and he will almost certainly have a round-up of key
commentaries from across the spectrum.
There are tons of outlets covering the results, though once again, I have to
recommend Daily Kos’s incomparable Election Day Live coverage, which has been the
gold standard for the granular look at results. They are on the left, so fair warning if that’s
a problem for you (though the coverage is not cheerleading and if numbers look
bad for Democrats, they will say so unsparingly). After all these years, I’ve
never found an outlet that provides the same immediately hit on the level that
election junkies demand. I don’t have a
similar outlet on the right. If there is one that I’m missing, I’d be happy to
check it out (and please, let me know what that is). No judgment there – these blogs are hard to maintain in the best
of times.
What to Expect when
you’re expecting a Recall Election – California Reboot edition
California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing the voters again on September 14th. I’ve said a lot on this, but more important
than my guesses, predictions and opinions are the facts. A lot of
this summary will be links to past blog posts – otherwise, it’ll just be the
book. But let’s check out the background, history and facts on the use of the
recall and what it means for September 14 and beyond:
You have selected Regicide: Past
Governors' facing recalls:
Newsom is only the fourth Governor in US History to face a recall vote. The
first was in 1921, when North
Dakota's Lynn Frazier (Non-Partisan League)
was ousted (the linked article by Fresno State Professor David Schecter has an
excellent discussion of the Frazier recall). The second was against California
Governor Gray Davis (Democrat) in 2003. And the third was Scott Walker (Republican)
in 2012.
Additionally, a recall
was approved against Arizona Governor Evan Meacham (Republican) in 1988, but
Meacham was impeached and removed by the legislature on the day the signatures
were verified.
Despite the fact that gubernatorial recalls rarely get on the ballot, there
have been tons of attempts to recall Governors. There have been 55 attempts in
California, including six alone against Newsom. Last year 15 Governors faced
recall attempts.
Just
Win Baby – the recall’s Reversal of Fortune:
As a general rule, recalls are very successful. There's no hard and fast
numbers, but most politicians seeking reelection win -- it may be at a 75-85%
clip. Obviously, that is a self-selecting group of people who are popular
enough to run for reelection, but it is still a powerful statistic. Recalls
turn that number on its head.
Over the last 10 years,
60 percent of recalls have resulted in removal, with another 6 percent
resulting in a resignation. California is even more extreme – 78% of officials
are kicked out.
Among the governors, we
have 2 out of 3 losing their seats so far. Among the 39 state legislative
recalls, 21 were successful. That number is much worse when you realize the
heavy skew caused by the recalls in Wisconsin in 2011-2012, where 10 of the 13
state senate recalls failed.
But…perhaps
for governors it’s what price you have to pay to get out of going through all
these things twice:
Many recalls get very
different results than the original election. But so far, this has not been the
case with gubernatorial recalls. Walker finished a little less than a point
above his 2010 race. Davis finished 3 points behind his 2002 performance. And
Lynn Frazier in 1921 went from 51-49% in his favor to 51-49 against.
Perhaps we can see a
result mimic 2018?
Is the Newsom recall
like 2003 or 2012?
Nearly all the
comparisons for the Newsom recall have been with the 2003 Gray Davis one –
California, lots of candidates and celebrity names. But the reality is that
2003 was a strange event that seemed to lack much of a partisan feel (though
Davis did pull in 76% of the Democratic vote) and the circus angle and weird
crop of candidates topped all other subjects.
But 2012, which has been
overlooked, seems like a much clearer comparison. The Walker recall was seen as
very partisan and was originally focused on a wedge issue that is popular with
one party – at that time labor relations. Much as in this year, the original
issue was effectively sidelined by the time the campaign started in high gear.
In “More Than They Bargained For,” reporters Jason Stein and Patrick Marley
note that the Democrats focused on corruption and Walker looked to job
creation. The recall really became a rerun of the election, much to Walker’s
benefit. I’d say we are seeing similar results in 2021, as Covid has been
dropped as issue by Republicans (but most certainly not by Democrats), and
right now it feels like it may be a rerun.
"The
dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!"
There’s another
similarity to 2012. Larry Elder and Donald Trump have decided to preemptively
cry fraud over the results of the recall before any results have come in. This
is not a new development – and I’m not referring to previous Trump claims of
fraud by both parties. The Wisconsin recall saw the same issue. Scott
Walker expressed concerns on voter fraud,
claiming that he needs to win 53% of the vote (exactly the amount he ended up
receiving), and claiming that voter fraud is responsible for 1-2 points, which
is borne out by absolutely no statistics whatsoever. Future Speaker of the
Assembly Robin Vos also claiming fraud in a Senate recall. In 2016, Roger Stone
would claim that Walker won due to fraud, though that was a one-off claim. Vos’
estranged wife faced charges that she voted despite being a resident of Idaho.
And the one fraud charge was for a Walker supporter who voted five times.
Come
on up for the rising: Can Turnout be overrated?
Once again, turnout is the order of
the day. The fabled ground game is being discussed
with the usual reverence. Going into the recall, there was a belief
among many commentators that turnout would plummet. This is belied by the
history of gubernatorial and high profile mayoral recalls, where turnout has
actually shot up – notably in the Gray Davis one. You can read the post for thedetails.
In 2012, with the Walker
recall, I threw some cold water on the discussion of turnout. I believe (and
still do) that turnout was not the determining factor in that one. But
California in 2021 is much different and the mail-in ballot makes it even more of a question.
Because of the Democrats
overwhelming registered voter advantage, turnout for Newsom is key. If the
Democrats show up in enough force, they should win. In the Davis recall,
Democrats did not come out to play, but those that did were overwhelmingly in
Davis’ corner (76% according to the exit poll). That was in a less partisan
environment. What would happen today?
The
Plurality Conundrum:
California’s recall procedure – what we can call the one-day/two-step process –
has come under heavy fire over the possibility that Newsom could get millions
more votes in losing the Yes/No vote than the replacement can get in winning
that seat. With 46 listed challengers (not even including the write-in
candidates), Newsom can lose with 49.9%, while the replacement gets under 3%.
This didn’t happen in
2003, but in five separate California recall elections since 2011 (including
the State Senator Josh Newman recall in 2018) the replacement winner finished
with fewer votes than the recalled individual.
Many states have a
version of the plurality issue, though a good number use the two-day/two-step
process. Others use replacement by law (Lieutenant Governor) and still others
use a new election. Here’s much more on the subject.
The end of the beginning or just the closing credits?
Will the recall of governors spread to other states? The recall appears to have
grown heavily in use, at least on the state-level (see below), but a look at
the laws of the different states suggest that gubernatorial recalls
will remain a rare occurrence. Only 19 or 20 states have the recall for governor
(Virginia is the 20th, but a likely no) and seven (or now, maybe
six, thanks to an Alaska decision) of those states have a "judicial
recall" or malfeasance standard, which demands some misdeeds by
the official.
So, we are just looking at 11 or 12 states. Recall laws differ greatly
by jurisdiction. Some of those differences make
a gubernatorial recall both more difficult and potential
counterproductive.
Note also that the recall has operated as a Bermuda Triangle
of politics (and academia).
Second
verse, same as the first?
In 2018, Gavin Newsom torched Republican standard-bearer John Cox. Cox is one
of the replacement candidates once again. Cox is running again, but he seems
like an also ran. However, we have a long history of recall reruns. Milwaukee
Mayor Tom Barrett, the losing Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2010, lost
to Walker again in 2012. In 2018, California Democratic Senator Josh Newman was
ousted by Ling Ling Chang, who Newman beat in 2016 – and came back to top in
2020. 191
There may be a few reasons for the lack of rematches, which
I discuss here. Perhaps the best is that it
allows the incumbent to tag the election under the "sore loser"
designation, that being said, there are enough examples of recall rematches.
Party Line -- Is one party more likely to use recalls?:
I constantly get asked about the party breakdowns of the recall. Most of the
recalls are on the local level, where the position is elected on a nonpartisan
basis. When there is a partisan position, the party label is frequently a
misleading method to judge recall use, as many are not based on D v. R partisan
motivations. Sometimes Republicans recall Republicans, and Democrats recall Democrats.
However, you would see both parties are not shy about using recalls (for
example of the 14 state legislative recalls from 1981-2008, most were launched
against Democrats, and ethics played very little role in those recalls).
Democrats have launched the majority of the recalls last year on the state
level, which makes sense as the lost power in 2010.
Republicans or their backers have not been shy about using the recall for
partisan gain (for example, Michigan, 1983, California, 1994, 1995 and 2003). Same
thing with Democrats (Wisconsin and Michigan in 2010, 2008 California).
So, which party is most likely to launch a recall? Simple -- the one that is
not in office.
Recall Explosion?
There has been a lot of talk of a recall boom, especially in California. Well,
not yet. There is a very good chance that Idaho ends up having more recalls
than California this year (Idaho is at 8, California will be 6 after today). 2021
may see the least amount of recalls get to the ballot of any year since I
started the blog in 2011. What we have seen is an explosion of recall attempts,
with other 500 attempts already. This is mainly due to the pandemic and steps taken to mitigate
it. The big target – school board
members. At least 177 school board members have been targeted – which is much
less than your average year (50-70).
Automan and the technological revolution that may be driving the recall:
I see technological
changes as a major driver in the recalls
growth. The Internet, email and social media allow unconnected voters to
be drawn into a fight over a politician's alleged misdeeds and raise funds.
Smartphones, spreadsheets and demographic data can maximize signature-gathering
efforts. Even basic items like printers and word processing programs have made
it simpler and cheaper to make high-quality fliers and other basic documents
over the past several decades. This may be that why the recalls seem to have
started taking off in the 1980s. Look at 1983 as one example, which featured
prominent recalls against two Michigan Senators and San Francisco Mayor Dianne
Feinstein, in the same year that saw the introduction of Lotus 1,2,3, Microsoft
Word and, of course, Automan.
Ain’t Misbehaving: Why Corruption was not the motivating factor for the
adoption of the recall
Despite the widespread belief that the recall is only suppose to be used for
criminal conduct and malfeasance, only four of the state legislative
recalls, and none of the gubernatorial ones, history could claim to be based on
conduct. The rest were on policy votes and politics. Despite the allegations
against Scott Walker (or really, his aides) in the John Doe investigations, the
Walker recall was clearly not about corruption. Neither was the Gray Davis
one.
How important was the corruption issue in the adoption of the recall? I think
it is hard to argue that it was really the motivating factor for the creators
of the recall (especially the Father of the Recall, John Randolph Haynes). I
can't link to the original articles, but here's a great write by Rod
Farmer on the Progressive Era recall debates.
Get ready, cause this ain't funny, I'm Gavin N. and I'm about to get some
money:
California, like Wisconsin, has an unusual campaign finance law for the recall
– no
limit on donations (California’s is even
more permissive, as Wisconsin’s no limit period ends with the certification of
the recall).
The result is that
Newsom and the recall campaign raised over $70 million. Is that a lot? Maybe it
sounds like a lot, but in a world in which longshot Senate candidates raise $100M+,
it feels kind of light. Scott
Walker raised $58.7M 10 years ago, before campaign finance really took off.
The state legislative recalls in Wisconsin raised $45M. The 2011-2012 recalls
combined spent over $135M. California is also more than six times Wisconsin’s
size. It feels like Newsom could have raised a bit more money.
One other point – Newsom
could get reimbursed for spending. California law allows for officials who
survive a recall vote to get reimbursed for their spending. This article by
Chuck McFadden in Capitol Weekly claims that it will only cover certain
expenses, not including TV ads and the like (which was clearly the bulk of the
spending). However, the statute has only been tried once, by Michael Machado in
1995. His reimbursement (for $889,000) was rejected, but Machado never pursued
it in court.
Newsom’s not going to
try for the reimbursement – the political cost is too high to bother. But it
would be an interesting postscript.
Man is opposed to fair play, he wants it all, and he wants it his way:
We have heard, and will continue to hear complaints about the unfair use of the
recall (see the post above on corruption). But these complaints can generally
be dismissed out of hand. Why? There have been a number of principled opponents
of the recall. Alexander
Hamilton and William
Howard Taft lead the pack in US history with
their great dislike for the recall. Among modern commentators, the only one
that I can think of is George
Will. But they are few and far between.
Most of the people who complain about the recall are just really complaining
about the recall being used against their side. Scott
Walker signed petitions seeking
policy-focused recalls. Bill
Clinton was certainly not supporting the
Gray Davis recall.
Polls have repeatedly
shown most voters want a limited recall, as in both Wisconsin in 2012 and
California in 2021, there are polls that 60% of voters want a malfeasance
standard recall law (and 10% in Wisconsin want no recall whatsoever). But 47
percent voters in Wisconsin cast ballots to kick out Scott Walker. So, at the
end of the day, cognitive dissonance rules.
Newsom's Great Campaign move:
Democrats came under criticism for not backing a safety replacement candidate. You can check here to see why that does not work.
Newsom’s odd
campaign strategies:
Newsom has made a number of
surprising campaign (and personal) decisions in the recall effort, that may not
cost him anything, but should be look at. The French Laundry dinner was not the
most important moment in the recall effort. The difference was really a
Superior Court decision granting petitioners an extra 120 days to gather
signatures. This was the reason the recall got on the ballot.
What is odd is that there was no
appeal of this ruling. The Secretary of State (Alex Padilla, who Newsom later
selected to replace Kamala Harris as U.S. Senator) had previously filed no
opposition to the extension requests for the two ballot initiatives, so the
judge allowed the signature extension for all of the matters. There is no
official reason why there was no appeal (it may be because of support for one
of the initiatives), though Democratic
consultant Garry South suggested that “…it got lost in the shuffle.”
Newsom also came under fire for
sending his kids to school during the pandemic and recently for selling his
house, which maybe could have waited a couple of months?
On the strategy front, Newsom could
have delayed the recall vote as much as two months. During the Senator Josh
Newman recall effort in 2017-2018, Democrats pushed forward a number of changes
in the law that had the effect of allowing the party in power to effectively
delay recall votes by a few months (and also added in a strike law, which
allows a counter-signature collection strategy). When the going was good, the
Democrats basically waived a few provisions of this law (they had to do with
budgeting) and that pushed the recall months forward. It may work, but I don’t
like it as a strategy. Newsom needs to get turnout up and he gave up a chance
to get more of his voters to the polls, as well as risk the blowback from a
potential bad school re-opening. Additionally, thanks the campaign fundraising
law that allows Newsom to donations in unlimited amounts, you would imagine he
could use these two months to blanket the market. Instead, they decided to roll
the dice on the earlier date and the good numbers they were seeing.
The other odd development is the
lack of mail. In most California elections, voters are flooded with campaign
mailers. I’m still throwing stuff out from 2018. Most of these are due to
initiatives, but they really are for all types of races (except the presidency
– neither party is wasting a dime on that one). In this election, I’ve gotten
one solitary piece from Newsom. David Nir of the Daily Kos pointed out that it
is particularly strange because everyone is getting a mail ballot. You may
think that the day I got that ballot there should have been 10 pieces telling
me to vote No (the Yes side had a very logical reason to not send mail to
anyone in the Bay Area). The strategy may have worked, but I don’t get it.
The Republican Downside: Is it “When you got nothing, you got nothing to
lose” or “when you think you lost everything, you find out you can always lose
a little more”
Republicans have acted
like the recall can be viewed through as it’s a "when you got nothing, you
got nothing to lose" event. The party has been driven so low in the state
that it might as well roll on the dice on the recall. However, there's another,
more recent Bob Dylan quote that may be applicable, namely: "when you
think that you lost everything, you find out you can always lose a little
more."
I don’t think a recall
loss will have any real impact on the national level. It can just be shrugged
off as an expected resulted in a blue state. But for Republicans in California,
already at the bottom, they may have discovered that rather than try another
option, the party’s strategy is to keep digging.
The problem for the GOP
is that the loss comes after a surprisingly good 2020. Trump lost by 29%, but
Republicans captured four house seats, the first time they ousted an incumbent
Democrat since 1994. Instead of looking at this as green shoots to grow on for
future races, they decided to immediately bet it all on a wild card. And if
they lose, and lose by a good amount, what will the impact be on 2022? Will the
Republicans have any hope of attracting a decent candidate to run as the
standard-bearer? Could they be shut out of the top-two – as they were in the
Senate race in 2018? And could this impact those four (let’s say three after
the reapportionment loss) house seats that they just recaptured?
The Republicans can look
at the 2003 recall as a positive moment, but in reality, it was barely a last
hurrah. They have faded to irrelevance in the state. Trying to copy that past
moment may cost them years in getting back in the nation’s biggest electoral
prize.
Why the Democrats
should celebrate recalls:
Democrats have been the primary target of
recalls and now they are looking for changes in the process. The focus has been
on the two Democratic Governors, but the party has a bigger claim. Since 1994,
when the recall was used against a legislator for the first time in 80 years,
six legislators have gone to voters early. And five of the six who have faced a
recall have either been Democrats or were targeted because they supported
Democrats.
Democrats may look at this information and feel that seven of eight recalls is
the relevant information. It is not. The key point that should be looked at is
the year 1994.
1994 was a great year for Republicans in California. Pete Wilson won
re-election as governor, the fourth straight term for Republicans. No surprise
there – the Democrats only had control of the governor’s mansion for 22 years
in the entire 20th Century. In that same election, the Republicans
took control of the California Assembly for the first time in 25 years. The
Congressional delegation coming out of November was split 26-26.
In the senate race, Dianne Feinstein barely
beat back a challenge from Michael Huffington. The surprise there may be that
Feinstein won at all. Republicans held at least one of California’s US
Senate seats for all but 14 years of the 20th Century. And if
we go back a little further, to 1988, we see George H.W. Bush won California’s
Electoral College vote. No surprise here as well – Bush’s victory was the sixth
straight for Republicans and the 10th over the last 11
elections. The party could rely on California. Its two biggest Presidential
triumphs came from Californians Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan leading the
ticket. In modern parlance, California may have been a purple state, but it was
one with a decided red tinge.
Three decades and seven recalls later, we see a new world, one that calls into
question any value that Republicans may have received from the recall. Gavin
Newsom may be facing a recall, but his 2018 victory was the third straight by a
Democrat – the first time the Democrats won three straight gubernatorial
elections in California since before the Civil War and the longest stretch of
continual Democratic control in the state’s history. The Democrats hold
veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and Assembly. Since the 2003 recall,
the party’s registration advantage has gone from less than 9% to over 22%.
On the federal level, the numbers are just
as stark. Democrats have a three-quarters majority in the House Delegation –
more than three times their overall majority in the chamber. This strong
showing has given California’s Nancy Pelosi the Speakership. The US Senate
seats are so safely ensconced in Democratic hands that in the last two
elections in 2016 and 2018, the Republicans did not have a candidate make the
run-off. It is not too extreme to say that right now, nobody thinks a
Republican is going to capture Vice President Kamala Harris’ old seat in 2022.
And after almost a half century of losses, the Democrats have won California’s
Electoral College vote for the eighth straight election, winning it by 29
percent. Once again, virtually nobody believes that whomever the Republicans
nominate in 2024, they have a chance at capturing California’s vote. This means
that one-fifth of the margin needed for the presidential victory – larger than
the smallest fourteen states combined – can be tattooed into the Democratic
column.
California is not the Democratic equivalent
of Texas or Ohio or Florida. It’s not even Mississippi or Kansas. It is far
bluer than any of those states are red. California is now the Democrats own
Private Idaho.
Republicans have not come up with any
response to this takeover of their party’s former electoral rock. Republicans
actually had a good 2020 in California. Despite losing the top of the ticket by
historic blowout margins, the Republicans managed to capture four house seats.
It was the first time since 1994 that they ousted a Democratic incumbent.
But once again, instead of incrementally
building on this success and tilling the voter soil, the Republicans have
looked to a weapon of the weak and the easy fix of recalls. Much as the 2003
recall did not result in any long term benefits to the Republicans, we may see
similar problems for the party here. Even ousting Newsom is unlikely to result
in lasting change in the most valuable state in the country.
Republicans have succeeded in using the recall to oust people, including in the
shocking Arnold Schwarzenegger triumph in 2003. They may succeed again. But the
stagnation of the party suggests that they are paying a heavy price for trying
the recall shortcut rather than working on building the party.
For the Democrats, there is a separate question. Why change any political laws
whatsoever? If the price of complete domination of the state – a state that was
the cause of so much heartache before the Republicans settled on the recall as
a weapon– is that the party has to face a recall every so often, shouldn’t they
be happy to write that check?
Changed the locks on my frontdoor? The inevitable post-recall reform act:
After major recalls, the first action by the recall opponents is to propose a
reform to the law. We saw this in 1914 in California after the Senator E.E,
Grant recall, as well as in 2017, with the Senator Josh Newman recall. Michigan changed
its laws in 2012 following the
successful Paul Scott recall). And occasionally, they do succeed in making
an important change. Wisconsin future Speaker
Robin Vos proposed
an amendment to limit the recall to elected official misbehavior (the malfeasance standard/judicial recall standard). We
are already seeing similar discussion in California, let’s see if they follow
through. As I noted in the Hill, “we didn’t do anything about homelessness, but
we handled the recall” is not a great campaign slogan.
Recall Survivors: Risin' up, straight to the top?
Surviving a recall can boost a career. Scott Walker instantly moved up to real
contender status for the president. Dianne Feinstein won the San Francisco Mayoral
recall against her in 1983. By 1984 she was being talked about for the VP and
was the US Senator by 1992. California State Senator Jeff Denham survived a
recall in 2008, and was then elected to Congress. Scott Fitzgerald in Wisconsin
pulled the same trick.
Comeback, Baby, Comeback: How a Resurrection Really Feels
Is a recall loss the end of a career? Not always. The most obvious example
is North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier was the first Governor to be
recalled back in 192 as well as his fellow losers Attorney General William
Lemke (five terms in Congress and ran for president in 1936, coming in 3rd
on the Union Ticket) and Agriculture and Labor Commissioner John Hagan, who
eventually got his job back and got the Republican nomination for governor in
1938 (though he lost). He was elected to the first of the three US Senate terms
18 months later. Seattle Mayor Hiram Gill lost a recall in 1914 and was back in
office the following term. We also have recent examples: State Senator Josh
Newman lost a recall in 2018 (to Ling Ling Chang, the candidate he beat in
2016). 2020 saw Newman come back and retake the seat.
No future, no future for you?
Another big question that I'm constantly asked: Will we see a cycle of recall
revenge? Who knows. I remember similar questions after Gray Davis and Scott
Walker were recalled, and in fact this has been a constant warning cry of
recall opponents since the recall was first adopted over a century ago.
However, I think we will see the recall continue to expand, as voters realize
that "hey, I can use that thing" and try to take out vulnerable
incumbents on their own (or with party or interest group backing). The recall
is having its moment in the sun, and it doesn't look like it wants to relinquish the
spotlight so quickly.
