The Bermuda Triangle of politics: The mysterious disappearances of the recall in politics, history and academy

There is an assumption – one that I share – that the Wisconsin recalls will serve as the start of a new role for the recall in electoral government. It fits in with some of the major trends of representative democracy – namely that engaged (and enraged) voters insist on taking an increasingly active role in policy making and refuse to accept the “trustee” form of government. However, you can also take a more cautious view on the longer term prospects for the recall. The recall frequently disappears from view, and it could happen again. From the very beginning, I’ve found that the recall is the Bermuda Triangle of politics.

My introduction to the academic side of the recall was an article (that is not available online) by Lawrence Sych. If I remember correctly, one of the footnotes noted the dearth of writing on the recall. Of course, once I was finishing up my thesis, this book came out on the recall in 1997. However, as far as I can tell, despite a few very big newsworthy recalls in the ensuing years, neither of these authors ever wrote about the recall again, nor did their most immediate predecessor.

That seems to be a theme with the recall, both in academy and in politics.  The coverage of the subject, the long term trends, and even the basic history of the device quickly disappears from public view. Unsurprisingly, we know little about the use of the recall and its effects.

Take one of the big stats – before Wisconsin there have been 20 (Edit -- actually 21) state legislative recalls in U.S. History. This statistic dates to this article I wrote in 2009. If you look at the other scholars on the subject, you will find that they are missing all of the Oregon recalls. I only found out about the Oregon ones because an editor looked into it. Might there be others? It’s possible. In the Arizona, the early reports of the Russell Pearce recall couldn't say for sure whether the state ever had a legislative recall.

There are a number of other strange stats. Some places cite Michigan as adopting the recall in 1908. You would think this guy would have mentioned it in his contemporary article on the subject for the Michigan Law Review. The closest I've seen to a definitive account of the recall cites 1913 as the year for Michigan.

The same page claims that 3/4 of all recalls have been used at the city council or school board level. What does that mean? Are mayors and county officials excluded from that stat? They can’t possibly be using that to mean all local officials, right? Because then the statistics should be closer to 99%.

That’s the statistics. We also have big historical questions about the subject. Why did the recall disappear from view for over a century? I go back to 1631 with the recall, and it was definitely in the Articles of Confederation. The inclusion of the recall was a big topic for debate in the Ratification Conventions, but it wasn’t included by Madison in the proposed Amendments. After a couple of attempts to adopt the device, it was lost to headquarters until the end of the nineteenth century. Why? The idea of Instruction for Senators was certainly popular. So why was the recall forgotten?

When did it reappear? Thomas Cronin mentions the recall returned in some small cities before LA adopted it in 1903, but we don’t know the names of any of those municipalities (I asked him in an email, but understandably, he didn’t have the 20+ year information at his disposal).

Then there is the harder question for us. Why did the recall fall out of favor? On the political front, the recall has burned brightly during its adoption in the Progressive Era. But then, it disappeared from the scene. Between 1929 and 1976, the only state to add the recall was Alaska (in its new constitution). From 1935 to 1971 there appears to be no record of a state legislative recall. Why? We can throw out guesses (good economic climates, one-party domination, power of local political organizations) but that’s not a solid answer. And why did it return and stay active over the last 30 years (14 of the 21 state legislative recalls have been in that time, plus California Governor, Miami-Dade, San Francisco and two Omaha Mayors)? Was it technology or something else?

There’s also the judiciary, perhaps the most controversial of the recall issues. The recall of judicial decisions played a large role in the 1912 election. But that subject disappeared off the map after an adverse Colorado Supreme Court ruling in 1930. Why did no one bring it back? And why have Judges so uniformly escaped the threat of the recall (In case you were wondering, California Chief Justice Rose Bird was not recalled – she was voted out in a mandatory retention election)?

As Michigan, Arizona, South Carolina and even Australia, Canada and the UK are all showing, the recall is definitely enjoying another moment in the sun. But as history has shown, that doesn’t mean it will stay there.

What to Expect When You're Expecting a Recall -- Wisconsin Gubernatorial/Legislative edition

June 5 is D-Day for the recall. Governor Scott Walker, currently leading in the polls, is facing off against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch is facing firefighter union leader Mahlon Mitchell. Four Republican state Senate seats are up -- three are recall votes, one is replacing a Senator who resigned instead of facing a recall. These aren't the only recalls taking place on Tuesday -- there will be at least 17 recalls nationwide -- but they are by far the most prominent.

The Wisconsin recall could have national ramifications for the 2012 election and beyond. If Walker wins, the Democrats and the unions are facing a potential serious backlash in November in a state that they certainly want to win (despite the political chatter and my own best interests, I doubt that the impact will be much beyond Wisconsin). Well, I could say I don't want to say I told you so, but obviously I'd be lying. Here's my early warning oped from last year about the dangers of the recall and here's my more recent article.

Of course, I have a history of being wrong about stuff like this. More important than my guesses, predictions and opinions are the facts. So let's take the deep dive in and check out the background, history and facts on the use of the recall and what it means for June 5 and beyond:

Three-peat? Past Governors' facing recalls:
Walker is only the third recall of a US Governor to get on the ballot in US history. 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. 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. Before Davis got on the ballot, there were 31 recall attempts against a California Governor (we are now up to 45 attempts). In the last few years, recalls have been started against Governors in Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada, Arizona and Louisiana.

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 (see below), but a look at the laws of the different states suggest that gubernatorial recalls will remain a rare occurrence. Only 18 states have the recall for state level officials (plus Illinois has it just for the Governor). 7 of those states have a "judicial recall" or malfeasance standard, which demands some misdeeds by the official.

So, we are just looking at 11 states. As my article in the Atlantic notes, recall laws differ greatly by jurisdiction. Some of those differences make a gubernatorial recall both more difficult and potential counterproductive. There are currently attempts to recall the governors of Michigan and Louisiana, but neither have the financial backing that was seen helping push the Walker recall. And a big part of the reason for this is that Michigan and Louisiana recall laws are significantly different. Note though that the Michigan recall got 500,000 last year. However, the disparity in rules (some having nothing to do with ease of getting a recall on the ballot) are a strong reason that Wisconsin might not be the start of a trend.

Note also that the recall has operated as a Bermuda Triangle of politics (and academia).

Second verse, same as the first? No Roger, Yes Rereun:
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the losing Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2010, is the Democratic nominee. One of the state Senate races features a rematch as well (Wanggaard v. Lehman), and another one features a rematch of a 2008 Assembly race (Moulton v. Dexter). However, most recalls are historically not reruns. Of the previous 32 state legislative recalls, only two were rematches, including one that took place last year (Jessica King v. Randy Hopper) -- the other was in 1914 under bizarre circumstances.

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. Note that this year's Sheboygan mayoral recall featured a rematch.

A true first for the number two:
Rebecca Kleefisch is the first Lieutenant Governor in the nation to face a recall vote. She will be only the fifth non-governor to face a recall vote on the state level (the others were the Attorney General and Agriculture Secretary in North Dakota in 1921 and two public service commissioners in Oregon in 1922. All of them were ousted).

Since Wisconsin has a same ticket Governor-LG (I prefer the split ticket regime), there was some real election law questions on whether the LG would be automatically included in a recall of the Governor (My thoughts on why it should automatically be a separate vote here). The Democrats did not play around with lawsuits, and instead got enough signatures. Notably, they got significantly more signatures for the Walker recall then the Kleefisch one.

Kleefisch did not face a primary vote. While the Republican voters came out in force for Governor Scott Walker, they skipped the LG race. Was this a potential missed opportunity for the Republicans? Did voters not fully appreciate that they could switch lines to vote (as oppose to most primaries in Wisconsin)? While I think tactical voting is mostly an empty threat, this is one glaring example of where it could have worked with a minimum of effort.

Disorder in the House: Flipping the Chamber
Four Senate seats are on the ballot. The Senate is currently tied 16-16 with one of the recall seats open. If just one of the four Republicans lose, the legislature will flip from Republican (before the resignation) to Democratic control. Based on past history, should we expect voters to shy away from switching party control of the Senate? Nope! Besides last year's recall extravaganza, there have been four recalls (or five or six if you want to count California in 1995 multiple times, which we won't) that could have switched the legislature (Washington 1981, Michigan 1983, California 1995, Wisconsin 1996). All but the recall in Washington and last year's recall extravaganza in Wisconsin succeeded in ousting the official.

Note that in addition to these four recalls, Republican supporters have targeted two northern Wisconsin senators, one Democrat, one Republican, in recall campaigns, though one is "suspended" (which just means that it's dropped), and I haven't heard anything about the other one.

Let's define our terms Gentlemen, are we talking about Redistricting or Reapportionment:
The Senators are running in the districts they were elected in in 2010 (this was the subject of much debate and litigation). However, the winner will have to run in a fiercely (Republican) gerrymandered district. The result could be very difficult for any victorious Democrats (especially Lehman, a district that has flipped numerous times in the past).

You have selected Regicide: Legislative leaders edition
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald is the fourth state legislative leader to face a recall. The first was California President Pro Tempore David Roberti in 1994. The second was Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon in 2008. Both men triumphed. See the details here.

The third was Arizona Majority Leader Russell Pearce, who was kicked out of office on November 8 in a bitter recall battle. Perhaps worth noting is that Pearce lost to a Republican (Arizona does not have a primary, and the recall was just an all-in affair on election day). Pearce on the ballot this year for a new state Senate seat in a newly drawn district, so we'll see how much that takes.

There was one other recall of a legislative leader, though the circumstances were so bizarre that it has to be separated out. Without going into too much details about the California recall wars of 1995, Republican Doris Allen backed the Democrats in a closely divided Assembly that had already seen two recall votes. Allen was elected Speaker of the Assembly and served for a little over 3 months, but she stepped down before her recall. She lost her recall race.

Come on up for the rising: Can Turnout be overrated?
Historically, recalls have been all about the fabled ground game. Everybody is talking about that now, though I question whether it has the same importance as in a regular recall. In a garden variety recall, frequently few people come out to vote (as in other special elections), as there is usually only one race on the ballot and you have to know about and care about the race (which is one of the reasons that the recall proponents have an advantage in the recall). In 1994, the three California Assembly recalls saw 20 to 25% turnout, with similar numbers in Michigan in 1983. The last Wisconsin recall before last year, against Gary George in 2003, saw 8% turnout.

However, there are exceptions, and this race clearly qualifies – Gray Davis’ recall had a much higher turnout than his 2002 reelection race. And, as Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pointed out before, the turnout for these votes are much higher than would normally be expected. The normal rules of the road for recalls will probably not play here -- we should expect a high turnout.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, I also think that turnout will not play as big a role as in past recall. This time it is not just getting your voters out. The key here may be grabbing those undecideds. This may be why the narratives have changed so much, from talking about collective bargaining to jobs, and recently with the release of Barrett polls, showing that it is still race.

This is not to say that turnout won't be critical. But in other recalls, there may be almost no non-hardcore partisans coming out. That is not the case in Wisconsin.

Turnout is always a popular issue for campaigns. When you think about it, turnout is one of the only tactics that they have real control over. No doubt it is important in this recall, but as opposed to other recalls in the past, it may not make the difference.

Winning isn't the only thing, it's everything:
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. Last year, there were 151 recalls in the country -- 85 resulted in removal. This year, we are also seeing a removal and resignation rate well above 50%. Both Governors who faced recalls were removed.

Among the 32 state legislative recalls, 17 were successful. That number is heavily skewed by the recalls in Wisconsin last year, where 7 of the 9 state senate recalls failed.

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.


Not Just Another State:
From 1908 (when Oregon became the first state to adopt the recall for state level officials) to 2010, there were 21 state legislative recall elections in the entire country (that I know of -- this is where the Bermuda Triangle angle comes in. Even the Election Commissions in some of the states don't know how many state recalls have been held. Past scholars missed many of the recalls in their studies).

Last year, there were 11, with nine of them taking place in Wisconsin. This year, Wisconsin has four. So, Wisconsin will have hosted 17 of the 36 known state legislative recalls in US history. Next on the list is California with 8. Other states that have had legislative recalls were Michigan (4), Oregon (3), Idaho (2), Washington (1) and Arizona (1).

Despite some of the talk, Wisconsin does not have an easy recall law -- in many ways, it is on the harsher side.

Before last year, the maximum recalls in one legislative session were three in California in 1995. Michigan in 1983 (taxes) and Idaho in 1971 (pay raise) both had two at once.

Blowouts v. Barnburners:
I wouldn't expect a blowout, but throughout history recalls have tended that way. Here's a look at some blowouts and some close ones.

Recall Explosion: At least 103 recalls taken place or scheduled this year already
As others have stated, the last few years has seen a recall boomlet -- as mentioned above, last year, there were 151 recalls. This year, there have already been 103 recalls that have either taken place or are already scheduled to be on the ballot in the near future. There are at least 100 more recall attempts outstanding, waiting for petitions to be handed in. I'll have a lot more on this on Monday or Tuesday.

Most credit/blame the recession, but recall use has probably been growing for at least the last thirty years (Only seven of the 36 known state legislative recalls took place before 1981). Many pundits like to claim voter anger is driving the recall use, as if voters have been continiously happy for the last century before this.

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's 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 in US 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 is 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.

For some states, it was clearly important -- four of the last five states to adopt the recall have taken a judicial recall standard. However, I very much don't think it was the motivation for Wisconsin, which knew about the judicial recall standard (two states had it by then), but didn't adopt it. I don't want to get to in depth about the issue in this piece, but here is a detailed look at the state's adoption of the recall. Here is the Christian Schneider piece that takes an opposite tack. Here's an op-ed about it in the UK, and a piece on Alabama's proposed adoption of the recall.

Get ready, cause this ain't funny, I'm Scott W. and I'm about to get some money:
Wisconsin has an unusual campaign finance law for the recall – no limit on donations until the recall is certified. Wisconsin isn't the only state to have a very different campaign finance law for recalls, as Washington State, Idaho and Arizona shows. The result may be the most expensive race in the country, with analysts suggesting a $100 million price tag. Walker has already raised $31 million.

I'm not sure how much this law actually affected this recall (though it certainly can affect others). Outside groups might have just spent all that money anyway. I also question whether blaming Citizens United (I've heard that a lot) is accurate (at least for Walker's spending). The outside spending by individuals could have happened without CU.

Last year's state legislative recalls resulted in the most expensive legislative races in Wisconsin history -- $44 million was spent on those 9 races. By comparison, $20 million was dropped on all the Wisconsin legislative race in 2010, and $37.4 million on the Governor's races. Not a surprise -- in 1981, the recall of Washington State state Senator was found to be the most expensive state legislative election in that state's history.

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.

You want to know if somebody has a principled position on the recall? Look back at the Gray Davis one. If they're a Republican and they supported it, or if they are a Democrat and opposed it because it was unfair or "no do-overs," then they don't. They just don't want their candidate to lose, and they're hoping you either agree or just don't look into it.

(BTW, the above quote should be the governing motto for election law. And Tom Petty's version of the song is my favorite Dylan cover).

And that's why you always leave a note:
The validity of the signatures was big early on (and the group True the Vote is still arguing about them), but it has faded. Outside of questions on validity, the big real issue was a burden-shifting question -- who was responsible for striking down the invalid signatures? The question of who should be responsible for vetting the recalls had no effect on this race (if Walker or any of the other candidates felt they had any chance to eliminate enough signature to even embarrass the recall, I believe they would have tried). However, it is a question that can have an impact on local races. See the link for a discussion

Wisconsin's law, which allows any eligible voter to sign, helped minimize the number of invalids. In states where signatures are limited to registered voters, the failure rate is usually about 15%.

There is also a paper out that claims signature signers are more likely to vote. I thought that was obvious, but here it is.

"The dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!"
Scott Walker has expressed concerns on voter fraud, claiming that he needs to win 53% of the vote, and claiming that voter fraud is responsible for 1-2 points, which is borne out by absolutely no statistics whatsoever. The RNC Chair has made the same claim. Election Law Blogger Professor Rick Hasen notes that this shameful allegations, which to my mind destroy the credibility of the electoral process solely to push a few base voters out to the polls, disappear into the ether once the election is over (here's his book, The Voting Wars).  Of course, how voter ID laws stop the most obvious types of voter fraud (absentee ballots and corrupt election workers) is still unclear.

Interest Group Failures in using the recall:
Do voters care if the recall is perceived to be instigated by a political party or by an interest group? I argue that voters don't seem to object to political party backed recalls, but are frequently likely to reject those pushed by interest groups. This could help explain some of the electoral strategy (Barrett not discussing the collective bargaining issue). Check here for some thoughts.

The Buyin' Power of the Proletariat's Gone Down
The unions bet big on the recall. They funded the signature gathering efforts and provided a significant part of the manpower to get it on the ballot. But will this pay off for them? Barrett was most definitely not the union choice -- they wanted Kathleen Falk. She lost badly in the primary.

Quick historical factoid: The first recorded recall (LA Councilman James Davenport) was pushed by unions.

Just Fakin' it: Fake Democrats/Placeholders?
Both this year and last, the Republicans faced a serious problem of timing. Because Wisconsin has a primary (as far as I can tell, it is the only state with a recall primary law), the recalls might have fallen out on different days for different officials. If there is two candidates running for the same party nomination, they hold primary, and push off the general recall vote one month. But if there is only one candidate, then the recall is held on what would have been the primary day.

If some of the recalls were held on the same day as the primary, the Democrats might have had a big advantage. The Democrats were definitely holding a primary for the Governor position -- their voters were certain to turn out. So, Republicans put up fake Democrats or placeholder candidates to delay the recalls. By delaying it, the Republicans are ensuring they can concentrate all of their fire on June 5.

I find both terms misleading. The biggest problem with the "fake" appellation is that it implies the fake candidate is suppose to win, or even garner enough votes to embarrass the Democratic nominee. "Placeholder" is an inaccurate term as well. It implies that there is a place that had to be held. The Republicans were choosing to delay those recalls. I don't have a good term to use.

Never Kept a Dollar Past Sunset: Will the cost of the recall hurt the Democrats? 
The recall has been estimated to cost $16-$18 millions to run (a bargain compared to California in 2003, but still). If you look at my recent Politico article and other posts, the "waste of money" argument generally doesn't work in a recall. I think it can work here, as independents will play a critical role in the success of this recall. It did work in Omaha, Nebraska Mayoral recall last year. I also think it could be very useful for the 2012 race, as Republicans can play up the fact that Democrats wasted state money on the recall. This plays perfectly into the Republican age old campaign slogan of profligate Democrats.

Of course, there's another aspect to the recall. This has got to have been a great financial boon to the state. As everyone has noted, the money is mostly flowing in from out of state. And it is being spent in a hurry. My guess is Wisconsin makes a tidy profit on this recall.

Judging the recall: Everyone with any sense has already left town
Last year, the results of the recall were spunned right round. This election seems a bit more clear cut. But let's say the Democrats lose to Walker, but take the Senate -- what's the result? Is a Democratic victory in the Senate temporary, given the ensuing gerrymandered districts they have to run in come 2012? Or is that enough to allow them some measure of victory? Since the commentators have been all over the place defending their sides, we can expect to see some crazy explanations. I should shortly have a (very late) review of one book examines the recall, John Nichols, Uprising (guilt leads me to at least throw in the link -- I got the book months ago and still haven't posted my review).

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 (in Arizona, they are trying to add a recall primary, Michigan tried to change their laws last year following the successful Paul Scott recall). Occasionally, they do succeed in making an important change. Wisconsin is no exception. Assemblyman Robin Vos (who apparently is being talked about for the Speakership) has proposed an amendment to limit the recall to elected official misbehavior (the judicial recall standard). The proposed amendment has a way to go before passing. It has to be approved by two separate sessions of the legislature and then voted on by the voters. No state has ever moved from one standard to the other.

Recall Survivors: Risin' up, straight to the top?
Surviving a recall can boost a career. 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. Also, for what it's worth, filmmaker Michael Moore has boasted of surviving a recall

Her? Will Kleefisch be the big winner of the recall?
Some thoughts here on why Kleefisch may actually gain a great career boost thanks to the recall.

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 1921. 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: Quartzsite's mayor Ed Foster was kicked out last year in a high profile recall campaign. He retook the office this month (from the man who defeated him in the recall).

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 was recalled, and in fact this has been a constant warning cry of recall opponents since the recall was first adopted over a century ago.

Now, there have been examples of repeated recall fights. A county in Michigan has had 340 recall threats filed in 20 years. In Alliance, Nebraska in 1987-88, there were two mayors recalled in 37 days, and then the replacement (for the $575 a year job) faced a third recall threat. But their aren't too many of them out there, and certainly none on the state level (I don't consider the 1995 California fight to rank).

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 finally having its moment in the sun, and it doesn't look like it wants to relinquish the spotlight so quickly.

10 Years of the Recall Elections Blog

Welp, might as well at least acknowledge this: 

10 years ago today, the Recall Elections Blog bounced into existence. I whiffed on starting a website, and of course I was about five years too late to the blogging revolution, but it sounds like I got the timing right (normally, I'm off by about a century or two).

We're now on the cusp of a second gubernatorial recall.  We've covered 18 of the 39 state legislative recalls in US history, the first judicial recall in the US since 1982, and close to a thousand recall elections (and over 150 resignations). Clearly, the recall is out of its Bermuda Triangle and once again having its moment.

I've been asked why I've focused on the recall, and well (might as well get some bragging in) in the last 10 years, I've written 213 op-eds on subjects far and wide, among them: the Electoral College, Voter Turnout; Third Parties; The Return to the 1880s; the Growth of the VP; One-Termers; Presidential and VP Selection; Conventions; So, so many articles against Iowa and New Hampshire; Gerrymandering; Congressional Leadership changes; Presidential communications; the folly of our Presidential succession system; The "First Round Draft Picks of American Politics";  NY's return to power, it's toxic judicial selection methods and the challenge of us electing natural born hayseeds as Mayor; why Joe Biden would be likely to get the Democratic nomination (not my headline); how my actual job is like a magic show and (most meaningfully) my grandfather's WWII experience and the Counted Remnant. 

But of course, the recall has been a focus -- many articles have been on the recall (so far, I've written pieces in 38 states and 5 continents -- anyone got a connection to the Antarctica Herald-Tribune?). Perhaps the most unusual of these involved my historical research on Wisconsin's recall, leading to a story about Harry Houdini's Tefillin.  And yet, once again, why the recall? I think I've explained it in a number of outlets how the recall shows the growth in more democratic procedures in government (for good or ill) and the success of the delegate/advocate/representative model of elected government. It also allows us to examine how technological changes impact the process and how voter anger works in practice. But, perhaps as important, I do think it may tell us a bit more about the political process and where we are going than observers realize. The death of local newspapers -- and the unfortunate sole focus on national issues to the detriment of local ones -- has led commentators to miss out on some of the biggest changes that have shaken the political world. The recall is one window into this. 

I do want to thank the readers and the many journalists, academics and fellow bloggers who have supported this endeavor over the years. Some names to note (and sorry for whoever I've left off), starting with arguably the biggest inspiration to starting the blog -- Election Law Blogger Rick Hasen; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Craig Gilbert, Daily Kos' David Nir, PoliticalWire's Taegan Goddard, History News Network's Rick Shenkman, Ballot Access News' Richard Winger, Volokh Conspiracy's Eugene Volokh and LA Times' Mark Barabak. In the Wisconsin recalls, The Guardian's Richard Adams nicely nominated me for a proposed "wonk of the wonk awards" and then Politico's (now NYT, but forever Room8) Ben Smith ranked me among the "everything on the internet" and Chicago Magazine listed me as a Recall Junkie. So those were all fun. 

Did I plan for it to last this long? Well, if you're starting a blog on Recall Elections, long-term planning is probably not going to be your thing. What can we expect in the future? More Simpsons jokes, more Dylan/The Hold Steady/Springsteen/Neil Young references? Obviously. More money? Kinda of doubting that one. More people calling me crazy for spending time on this? Undoubtedly. But certainly a lot more disappointed officeholders.  

The Year in Recalls -- 151 Recalls in 2011 (edited to add another recall)

Note: Since publication, I've found another recall -- the figures reflect the new recall total.

This year was a great year for recalls, and now we have some numbers to back it up. There were at least 151 recalls in 2011. Here's my Los Angeles Times article discussing the totals, and below are some more key facts from the recalls.

As a whole, the recalls were clearly very successful -- 85 officials bounced, with 76 officials voted out and nine officials resigning from office in the face of recalls. This figure is especially striking compared to the fact that the incumbent reelection rate in the US is at least over 75%. Some other interesting facts:

• Recalls were held in 17 states, in 73 separate jurisdictions. 
• The state with most was Michigan, with at least 31 recalls.
• 30 mayors faced recalls.
• 17 recalls were school boards.
• 11 were state legislators (by far the record -- the previous high was 3 in one year). 
• 52 were city councilmembers.
• One local prosecutor, York, Nebraska County Attorney, faced a recall.
• 34 jurisdictions held recalls on multiple days.
• Three jurisdictions adopted the recall

The recall hit cities large and small -- Miami-Dade was the largest municipality to ever hold a recall. Small cities with big names -- Cleveland (Texas), Houston (Alaska), Detroit (Oregon), Decatur (Nebraska) all used the recall this year.

The biggest day was November 8, with 26 recalls.

The reasons for recalls are all over the map. As regular readers of the blog know, I am very dismissive of the idea that the economic downturn is wholly to blame for the recall explosion. In fact, technology is playing a very large role in the expansion of the recall.

As for this Blog -- 700+ posts later, we're still going strong.

In the face of the "Bermuda Triangle" nature of the recall, with this continue? It certainly will, at least for next year. There are well over 100 recall petitioning campaigns out there, including a likely recall against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. And there have already been 22 recalls elections scheduled for 2012.

Michigan: Brief filed to Supreme Court on Muskegon Drain Commissioner recall attempt

We have a really worthwhile read here. An appellate court ruled 3-0 that the Michigan "factual" standard does not mean "truthful." The recall effort is against Commissioner Brenda Moore over an approval of a drain project.

The brief, filed by Moore's attorney Nick Curcio, does a great job of examining Michigan's recall law, its factual/truthfulness requirement and the 2012 legislative change that created the new recall law. As I noted, the law seemed to be specifically designed to limit recalls, so the fact that the Supreme Court may be looking into it is no surprise.

One other point of note. The brief, as well as this piece in the Michigan Bar Journal by Jason Hanselman, notes that Michigan adopted the recall in 1908. Other places claim that the state adopted it in 1913 (note this article from the Michigan Law Review in 1911 mentioning Oregon as the first state and not mentioning Michigan's law at all). It could be that 1913 was when the legislation laying out how to perform a recall went into effect, but this is another part of the Bermuda Triangle nature of the recall law.

Bermuda: Official calls for recall law

Here

What to expect when you’re expecting recalls: A guide to state legislative recalls

Edit Note: Since publication, I've found out about a 1981 state legislative recall, pushing the pre-2011 amount of recalls from 20 to 21. I've changed the number to reflect that figure.

While the political arguments surrounding tomorrow’s Wisconsin recall elections are well covered elsewhere, I’d like to draw attention to the many issues and history surrounding the use of the recall – both in Wisconsin and the rest of the nation. Due to the unprecedented circumstances in Wisconsin, we shouldn’t expect the usual recall phenomena like low voter turnout and blow victories. Yet such recall norms are worth considering even in the context of Wisconsin, for the insight they bear on how recalls are used.

As others have stated, the last few years has seen a recall boomlet (though the way they are citing Ballotpedia as the source shows they probably don’t understand how a wiki works). Most credit/blame the recession, but recall use has probably been growing for at least the last thirty years (14 of the 21 state legislative recalls have been since 1981). I cite technological changes as a major driver in the recalls growth.

Let’s get onto our key talking points:

History in the making

How historic are Wisconsin recall elections? Since 1908 (when Oregon became the first state to adopt the recall for state level officials), there have been 21 state legislative recall elections in the entire country. In this term, Wisconsin will have nine recalls in a little over a month.

Previously, the maximum recalls in one legislative session were three in California in 1995. Michigan in 1983 (taxes) and Idaho in 1971 (pay raise) both had two at once.

Will voters shy away from switching party control of the Senate? Nope! If the Democrats win at least three seats and lose none, they will have gained a majority in the Senate. There have been three recalls (four or five if you want to count California in 1995 multiple times) that could have switched the legislature (Michigan 1983, California 1995, Wisconsin 1996). All of them succeeded.

Recalls are frequently successful – 13 of the 21 (now 22 thanks to the July 19 Wisconsin race) recalls have resulted in the official being kicked out of office, as have both of the governors. There are no hard numbers for others recalls, but it does seem to be over 50%.

Democratic State Senator Jim Holperin is the first state legislator to face two recalls during his state legislative career. (Others have faced multiple recalls, but never as a state legislator).

Turn in, turn on, turnout:

Historically, recalls have been all about the fabled ground game. Few people come out to vote in recalls (or other special elections), as there is usually only one race on the ballot and you have to know about and care about the race (which is one of the reasons that the recall proponents have an advantage in the recall). In 1994, the three California Assembly recalls saw 20 to 25% turnout, with similar numbers in Michigan in 1983. The last Wisconsin recall, against Gary George in 2003, saw 8% turnout.

However, there are exceptions – Gray Davis’ recall had a much higher turnout than his 2002 reelection race. In a different type of special election, Scott Brown’s widely followed Senatorial election win in Massachusetts had a very high turnout.  And, as’ Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel points out, the turnout for the recall primaries in July was much higher than would normally be expected. The normal rules of the road for recalls will probably not play here -- we should expect a high turnout.

Blowouts!

The Wisconsin recalls promise to be close. Due to the unusual nature – and massive press coverage -- of these recalls, we can expect both parties to get their supporters to the polls. But don’t be surprised if we see some blowouts – Blowouts are the norm in a recall vote. The winner of recall elections generally triumph with over 60% of the vote.

The future for Wisconsin and the rest of the country:

The recall has historically been a below the radar weapon (I’ll have a post on its “Bermuda Triangle” nature tomorrow), so it is possible that the recall will once again disappear from view. But there is every reason to believe the recall is ready for its close-up.

There is already another recall race this year -- Arizona’s Senate Majority Leader Russell Pearce in November. Michigan is facing multiple recall petitioning challenges, both against state legislators and the Governor. Petitions have already been handed in against one state Rep, with the verification process yet to be completed.

In Wisconsin, the threats are out there. You have to serve one year before a recall, so the Senators elected in 2010 will all be coming due for a recall battle starting in January, as will Governor Walker. The Assembly members will also have the same problem, but perhaps tactical considerations may make them less likely to be a focus (they only serve two years terms, which are half over. The money and effort may be better spent on those serving another three years).

The Walker recall poses its own challenges. There have been only two Govenors to ever face a recall (North Dakota's Lynn Frazier in 1921, California's Gray Davis in 2003, plus Arizona's Evan Meacham would have faced one if he wasn't impeached). Wisconsin has a relatively strict signature requirement. It requires a high number of signatures in a very compressed timeframe – only 60 days (only four states limit the gathering period to 60 days).  This could make a recall of Walker quite difficult

Ain’t Misbehaving:

Despite the widespread belief that the recall is only suppose to be used for criminal conduct and malfeseance, only four of the recalls were based on conduct. The rest were on policy votes and politics.

Recall Defenses: 
Do voters care if the recall is perceived to be instigated by a political party or by an interest group? Check here for some thought.

Campaign finance:

Wisconsin has an unusual campaign finance law for the recall – no limit on donations. Wisconsin isn't the only state to have a very different campaign finance law for recalls, as Washington State shows. 

Will there be lawyers?
You better believe there will be lawyers.

And finally, some consolation for the electoral losers. North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier was the first Governor to be recalled back in 1921. He was elected to the first of the three US Senate terms 18 months later.

The Year in Recalls -- 168 recalls in 2012; 509 petitions taken out (updated numbers -- 507 taken out; 166 recalls)

Update: I had two recalls that should not have been counted in 2012 -- so the numbers should be 507 attempts and 166 recalls. 

As it is this blog's second year, we are now looking at our second recap, and the number are pretty impressive. In 2012, there were at least 168 recalls in 93 different jurisdictions. Here's my article in The Week examining the phenomena.

This is an increase from last year, when there were 151 recalls. This year, I also compiled a list of how many times recall petitions were reported to have been taken out -- 509 times. There were also numerous reported recall threats, but I never saw a follow-through, so I didn't include those.

I should point out that I am fairly certain that there are almost certainly recalls that I missed, so the 168/509 numbers should be seen as a floor, rather than a ceiling.

Despite the fact that the single most noteworthy recall -- Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker -- failed to remove the official, as a whole, the recalls were extremely successful. 108 officials were bounced, with 82 being kicked out, and 26 resigning before the recall took place. As I pointed out last year, this fact is especially striking compared to the fact that the incumbent reelection rate in the US is at least over 75%.

To answer the biggest question I receive, I do not breakdown the recalls by party. This is simply because most of the recalls are on the local level, where the position is elected on a nonpartisan basis, and it is not readily apparent which party the official belongs to. Additionally, when there is a partisan position, the party label is frequently a misleading way of judging the recall, as many are not based on D v. R partisan motivations.

If you would look at the history, especially at the state legislative level where party is most obvious, 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).

That being said, I would say that the majority of recalls that had a partisan basis (and it is a very small minority of the 168 and the 509) to them in 2012 were launched by Democrats or Democratic-supporting groups. The reason for that is simple -- recalls are generally used by the group that is not in office. The Democrats did very poorly in the 2010 elections. 

Some other interesting facts:

• Recalls were held (or an official resigned in the face of a recall) in 20 states and the District of Columbia;
• Since 2011, 25 states and DC have held recalls
• The state with the most recalls was once again Michigan. Since the state changed its recall laws, we'll see if that holds up.
• The only state level recalls bin 2012 were in Wisconsin -- the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor and four state Senators.
• 29 mayors faced recalls -- many of these mayors were elected as part of the city council, so the votes were not city-wide
• The reasons for recalls are all over the map. As regular readers of the blog know, I am very dismissive of the idea that the economic downturn is wholly to blame for the recall explosion. In fact, technology is playing a very large role in the expansion of the recall.

Recalls continue to face barriers from administrative or judicial officials:

• 22 times an agency or election commission prevented the recall from getting on the ballot (for reasons that did not include a failure to gain enough signatures.
• 22 other times, the judiciary rejected the recall (most prominently in El Paso, Texas).
• In one instance, in Holy Cross Alaska, the city council simply refused to schedule the recall. 

Despite the criticism of the recall, it continues to expand.

• Five localities adopted the recall in 2012.
• One locality, College Station, Texas, became the first jurisdiction that I know of, to change their recall from a political recall to a judicial recall or a malfeasance standard.
• Michigan's legislature adopted a new law that may significantly curtail the use of the recall in the state. This came at the same time as their adoption of a Right to Work law. It should be noted that the recall changes were not approved by voters -- it would have been interesting to see how voters would have felt about the changes. As I note in The Week:

Following the Walker recall campaign, there was talk of recalls facing a backlash. Pundits were quick to cite a Wisconsin exit poll that showed 60 percent of voters wanted to limit the use of the recall to malfeasance or incompetence. Another 10 percent of voters wanted to eliminate the recall altogether. However, all the talk around that poll had one major flaw: 70 percent of voters might have touted opposition to the use of the recall, but that didn't stop 47 percent of voters from casting ballots to kick Scott Walker out of office.

The reasons for the recalls this year span the spectrum. The Wisconsin recalls were the most prominent, but there were plenty of others that received notice. Firing of city managers and police chiefs were very popular issues. The Fullerton, California recalls were very well followed. Others included the Mayor of Troy, Michigan, a big tea party supporter who was targeted for, among other things, some anti-gay comments.

Some of the more noteworthy ones including extramartial affairs by city council members, opposing another member's appointment of his girlfriend to the village council, trashing a hotel room, one launched by the wife of a losing candidate and using Meth.  And for movie buffs, the Mayor of Truth and Consequences, New Mexico survived a recall. Even the ghost of Belle Starr couldn't help as there is now a new huckleberry in town: the mayor of Tombstone, Arizona was bounced and replaced by the owner of Johnny Ringo's bar.

Of course some times, the recalls failed to get on the ballot. Noteworthy among these was a Moreno School Board member who has been indicted on 11 counts, including rape, pimping, pandering and attempted murder. Petitioners simply didn't get the signatures.

In the face of the "Bermuda Triangle" nature of the recall, with this continue? No reason to think it won't. There have already been plenty of recalls scheduled for 2013, including three Council members in Poland, Maine who are facing a recall vote on January 3.

What to Expect when you’re expecting a Recall Election – California Reboot edition

(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 14^th.  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 are 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 an 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 about 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 claimed 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 details.

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 suggests that gubernatorial recalls will remain a rare occurrence. Only 19 or 20 states have the recall for governor (Virginia is the 20^th, 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 potentially 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 the top in 2020. 

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 they 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 in 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 the 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 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 supposed 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 of 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 looked 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, thank to the campaign fundraising law that allows Newsom to receive donatations 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 result 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 20^th 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 20^th 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 10^th 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 whoever 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 discussions 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 3^rd 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.