There’s been a lot of coverage of the effort to recall Gavin Newsom, but not much analysis of other recall drives in the state, and why they are so numerous. I tried to remedy that at New York:
Like a slow-motion riot, the effort to force California governor Gavin Newsom into a special recall election has dominated political headlines in the Golden State for months. Facilitated by a conservative judge’s decision to give petition-gatherers a 120-day extension in the time allowed to reach the required 1,495,709 signatures needed to trigger a recall, the recall drive succeeded, though the date of the special election (probably in November) will be determined after a few more legal requirements in the process have been satisfied.
But as the Los Angeles Times reports, Newsom is hardly the only target of 2021 recall drives in California:
“During the first five months of 2021, active recall efforts — those in which an official step has been taken — have targeted at least 68 local officials in California, according to a Times analysis. The total has already surpassed the number of local recall attempts seen during four of the last five years in California.”
Most of the targets are Democrats, and COVID-19 restrictions are the most important motivator — however, this recall fever has struck both big cities and rural counties, and a wide range of discontents are at play. Of course, these factors are not unique to California. Here’s why recalls have become so popular in this particular state.
Nineteen states provide for the recall of state elected officials, alongside 30 states that allow local jurisdictions to provide for their own recall elections. Rules vary widely, but California is distinctive in that it (a) does not require any particular rationale for demanding a recall, and (b) has among the lowest thresholds for triggering recall elections. The Newsom recall, for example, needed validated signatures from 12 percent of the number of voters in the last election for the office in question. In Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin, the threshold is 25 percent of voters in the last election. Some states link the threshold to the percentage of registered voters (e.g., Montana, which requires signatures of 10 percent of the number of registered voters in the last election for the office).
The thresholds for recall of local elected officials vary in California according to the size of the jurisdiction, but they are quite low (10 percent of registered voters) for the larger cities and counties, and some are provided for in local government charters that are not subject to state law.
Legal requirements aside, there is a political culture in California encouraging recall drives that assumed a whole new prominence after the successful effort to remove Governor Gray Davis from office in 2003. At any given movement, there are recall petitions circulating aimed at a large number of elected officials, even though most never succeed.
For various reasons, including often-clumsy state management of public-health policies and confusing local rules, the backlash against pandemic-related restrictions in California seems to have been unusually intense. One prominent recall target, Ventura County supervisor Linda Parks, has galvanized a lot of local frustrations, notes the Times:
“’People were sitting at home and feeling impotent,’ said longtime Thousand Oaks resident and retired high school receptionist Karen Meyer. Meyer now often spends weekends at a small folding table in the parking lot of a local Target or DMV, asking passersby if they’d like to sign petitions to recall Parks in Ventura County.
“The recall organizer faulted her county supervisor for hewing too closely to Newsom’s pandemic directives and not doing enough to save local businesses.”
Recall fever in California may have also been specifically fueled by Newsom’s terrible mistake in attending a maskless indoor party for a prominent donor and lobbyist at one of the state’s most exclusive restaurants (the Napa Valley’s French Laundry). This contributed to perceptions that elected officials administering pandemic restrictions were hypocrites who were cavalier about damaging the livelihoods of barbers and hairdressers and small businesses, and the freedom to worship of churchgoers — complaints not limited to members of any party or ideology. And the particularly strong and ideologically diffuse anti-vaxxer movement in California likely strengthened the backlash against the entire anti-COVID-19 effort.
But as in other parts of the country, anger at school boards for lengthy shutdowns of in-person instruction transcended party and ideological groupings, with the California teachers unions getting blamed for particularly inflexible state and local rules. The likely successful effort to force recall elections for three members of the local school board in ultraliberal San Francisco cannot be explained as a Republican or conservative gambit; even progressive voters and elected officials objected to the board’s focus on renaming schools to get rid of marginally objective names rather than reopening them when possible.
While all the recalls cannot be dismissed (as many Democrats have tried to do) as GOP or right-wing stunts, there is no question that California’s very weak Republican Party has relied on this type of ballot “protest” more than its counterparts in states that aren’t as dark blue. Republicans haven’t won a statewide election in California since 2006. Democrats hold and show no signs of losing supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature. And traditional Republican strongholds like Orange County are now intense battlegrounds (won by Democrats in 2018, and partially won back by Republicans in 2020, in very close elections).
How ballot-based issue protests and recalls work together for California Republicans was illustrated by the successful 2018 recall aimed at Orange County Democratic state senator Josh Newman for voting in favor of the same gas tax increase that Republicans were trying to repeal via a statewide ballot initiative. The recall succeeded while the initiative failed, and Newman won the seat back in 2020. But linking the pol to the grievance was probably a good idea.
Republicans in California are currently dramatizing their law-and-order messages by attacking allegedly weak-on-crime elected officials. In California, two particular objects of conservative ire, San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin and Los Angeles district attorney George Gascon, are facing recall efforts. How else can Republicans spend their time in such overwhelmingly pro-Democratic jurisdictions?
In the suburban San Diego city of Carlsbad, an even more basic partisan and ideological fight is under way as right-wing talk-radio personality Carl DeMaio (who is also active in the Newsom recall effort) is leading a recall drive aimed at city councilwoman Cori Schumacher, a former professional surfing celebrity being targeted for a variety of ideological sins. She is also the object of ire for a particularly unhappy and influential group of restaurant owners. This particular campaign shows how COVID-19 grievances are merging with other, and sometimes unrelated, complaints to fuel a pretty clearly conservative purge effort aimed at a Democratic elected official in contested turf.
Probably some will, though the big one, against Newsom, is likely to fail so long as public-health and economic conditions continue to improve and Democrats stay united in supporting him. Some Republican recall backers may yet regret putting so many eggs in the recall basket, and some voters angry about lockdowns and school closings may get over it. But in California, a recall drive is never more than a shout away.
I think having one video for the party was good and probably long enough. It felt a bit safe and incomplete though, with some preaching to the choir in there.
I’d like to see informative specific topic videos added to this. It wouldn’t hurt to go outside of the usual way of communicating these things. There are more options for political messaging than just playing it safe or being crude.
a couple suggestions: with reproductive health, rather than only mention abortion, that topic should include programs Democrats support for women who choose to have a child but also can’t afford it – like low or no cost prenatal (and pediatric) care. Other programs democrats support for kids would be good too add too. (WIC, SNAP and free lunches…etc) Make sure you have some white people in there.
There should be something about how democrats are supportive of dads too. Whether with education or job placement programs or any kinds of assistance for themselves and their family. That could be about the economy but also in general supporting the existence of a strong safety net is being for the health and welfare of all families. Restricting and or removing it makes the country less safe by creating desperation on many fronts.
And Democrats, the American dream or dreamers could include a visual of kids in classrooms or adults wanting to go to school and trying to figure out how to pay for it.
You could go a long way with that theme. You arent separating DACA youre including it.
“no matter who they are or who they love” should add a visual of a traditional relationship or family set up too.
With health care, choosing between food and treatments wasnt entirely accurate because food is much cheaper.
George Entenman makes goods points about greater inclusion of images of people. I would add a photo of President John Kennedy, something on unions, and making progress on past accomplishments.
The themes are strong but there isn’t a central theme to bring them all together, it’s a collage of stories rather than a focused theme. Having seen Pete Buttigieg speak, he draws freedom into the equation of everyday life.
It requires freedom to get a fair shot without being discriminated against based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference.
It requires freedom to enjoy an environment of natural beauty not bound by corporate greed and eminent domain.
It requires freedom for a woman to decide how she handles her reproductive health.
It requires freedom to be able to have a health care system where you feel comfortable going to see a doctor and not to decide whether or not to see them based on cost.
It requires freedom to not have your entire adult years burdened by student loan debts.
It requires freedom to have a labor/supply chain based on the premise that labor is driving force in the economy and not corporate greed.
It requires freedom for a person who works full-time to have a wage that is able to provide proper resources to them and their family.
It requires freedom for students to be able to enter a school and feel safe.
Etc., etc., etc.
Of course, a follow-up video should be based on the premise on how we intend to provide those freedoms to our society (which it currently lacks).
“What’s your take?”
Move it to the fing top.
Given how badly the party has done lately maybe a better approach would be compare and contrast with Republicans on the issues that Democrats are actually good at. This would also reflect the reality that a lot of people are voting Democrat just because Republicans are terrible.
This ad actually captures pretty well what a lot of people think about the party nowadays
Summary Translation of the “We are Democrats” ad
We are the NYC party (Statue of Liberty opening)
We think we have done very well for the American people for a very long time (For decades opening)
A very specific and limited proposal like the Dream Act is as important as the American Dream as a national value
Pandering to individual demographic groups
Pandering to individual one issue constituencies
One minute in before talking about economic issues
Mention of LBJ?
Affordable Care Act as non-plus ultra of healthcare
The New Deal is not self-explanatory
The economic recovery was no universal recovery and has very little in common with the policy program of the New Deal
Platitudes about wages
Platitudes about social change
Empty overpromising
I’m all for everything shown in the ad, but I think it makes a terrible mistake in not having more white people in it. Is this supposed to make white working people feel included? Is that one old photo of a woman holding a Social Security check supposed to appeal to the residents of retirement communities? Where is a small business owner, male or female? Where is a young tattooed person hard at work on a computer? Where are scientists who are losing the gov’t support they need for basic research? Where is a sense of optimism, of possibility? We need to fight the forces of evil, but we need to have hope and opportunity too.