Nearly two months after California voters rejected an attempt to
recall Governor Gavin Newsom that cost counties and the state
about $276 million to conduct, state officials continue to
examine California’s recall system for potential reform.
Discussions for potential reforms include raising the signature
threshold to qualify a recall election, altering the election
process for successor candidates, and creating a malfeasance
standard for justifying a recall election.
The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent citizens’
oversight agency, kicked off a series of hearings in mid-October
focused on the history of California’s recall system, public
opinion about the system, and potential changes that can be made
to improve the system. The third hearing will take place on
Monday, November 8, and the public can view
and participate via zoom.
The Assembly Elections Committee and the Senate Elections and
Constitutional Amendments Committee held a joint informational
hearing last Thursday. The hearing compared recall procedures in
other states, debated the qualifying factors for a recall
election, and heard from various academics on potential
alternatives to the existing recall process. The committees
intend to hold an additional hearing in the coming months and
indicated an interest in adding local reform recall to the
agenda.
While state recall efforts are the heart of the debate, recall
attempts of local elected officials are far more
common. While substantially reforming the recall process for
state elected officials would require a vote by the people, the
California Constitution simply requires the Legislature to
provide for recall of local officers. Therefore, the Elections
Code predominately dictates timelines and requirements for local
recall elections and would be easier to alter through a regular
legislative bill.
As the debate around altering California’s recall election system
continues, election officers, academics, and elected leaders
emphasize the need for bipartisan buy-in in order to avoid
erosion of public trust and unintended consequences. As the new
legislative year inches closer, CSAC staff will continue to
monitor discussions around recall reform and advocate for full
reimbursement to Counties, which are often strapped with the
costs of administering these special elections.
