Mark Scarberry writes that
Even though Sandy does not like the recall process, it was designed, together with its time limits, to allow the people to get rid of a governor who was harming the state. I
I have no particular objection to a recall as such. Indeed, I would happily recall the present occupant of the White House if I could. What I think is irrational is joining the recall with an election process that does not in the least guarantee that the winner won't equally "harm the state." After all, this is scarcely an objective notion. What we can say is that a recalled governor is deemed by 51% of the voters to be "harming the state." What can't we say with equal confidence that a person who gets only, say, 29% of the vote is deemed by the remaining 71% to be potential "harmful to the state"? Richard Friedman makes a valiant attempt to defend the rationality of the process, but, frankly, he doesn't persuade me. Or, more to the point, he vindicates Bob Nagel's brilliant student note many years ago that literally anything can be made to pass the test if one is allowed to describe the law in question with extreme specificity. (Does Richard believe that Cleburne was correctly decided under his generous test?) If Davis is a menace, then the California constitution supplies a good post-recall answer: Let the lieutenant governor succeed to office. This makes especially good sense in California, where Governor and Lieutenant Governor scarcely run as a "team." Why isn't this the perfectly adequate solution to Mark's concern expressed above?
sandy
