I saw Bill Maher on CNN sometime Saturday being interviewed about the CA recall. He went on a rant about how he was opposed to the recall because it was antithetical to what the Founding Fathers wanted, and he went on about curtailing the masses and representative republics and all that.
Maher was right in terms of the country, writ large, but was wrong on one rather key issue: the fact that the US Constitution leaves it to the states themselves to determine how to run themselves. As such, it is not accurate to state that what a particular state does in regards to the procedures for the removal of their governmental officials ca be said to be counter to what the Founders wanted.
He argument had such a self-righteous, “I’m so smart for thinking this up” air to it that I felt the need to respond, even in my meager way here.
I will say, for what it’s worth, that were I writing a constitution, I would almost certainly not allow for recall, or, if I did, the threshold would be far higher than California’s constitution currently requires. And I also would have a two-round ballot for the replacement, so as to avoid electing a governor with twenty or thirty percent of the vote.
And it does seem that Maher went from being funny at one time, to simply being annoying.
Posted by Steven Taylor at August 10, 2024 02:49 PM | TrackBackGenerally speaking I'm not a huge fan of the initiative power, but recall isn't really the same thing.
When I get the blog back up (hopefully in a week or so) I plan to write something defending recall provisions on the basis of how you'd implement a vote of no confidence in the executive (as is provided for in almost all parliamentary systems) while retaining the separation of powers inherent in presidentialism (or, in this case, gubernatorialism ;-).
And I'm with you on Maher; it's amazing how people suddenly become elitists when the popular sentiment being expressed isn't conformant with their worldviews. As an exercise, try dismissing the "Not in Our Name" folks the same way Maher dismisses the Californians who support a recall, for example.
Posted by: Chris Lawrence at August 10, 2024 03:02 PMGood point in re: Maher, "Not in Our Name" and the recall.
And, in theory I like the ideas of recall and initiative, but in practical terms I am less impressed. I lived in CA for a while, and keep up with it still to some degree, and find the initiative process likely causes more problems than it sovles.
And, I could live with recall, but do think that a higher threshold for initiating it is needed, as is a requirement that the replacement gov gets a majority of the vote.
Posted by: Steven at August 10, 2024 03:07 PMYou're mostly right but Maher's not really wrong either. The Constitution does let the states mostly determine how they run themselves but Article IV, Section 4 does stipulate:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..."
Republican as opposed to directly democratic. So I wonder if state initiative is even constitutional. I wonder if that's been ruled upon by the courts. Just something I noticed.
Posted by: Brian at August 11, 2024 06:12 PMOh and while recall might not be the same as initiative, I believe the Cal. recall law was enacted via initiative.
Posted by: Brian at August 11, 2024 06:13 PMBrian, I believe it has been ruled on (I don't remember the specifics). Try looking at FindLaw under Article IV. In short, I think California would have to go much further into the asylum before the feds intervened on those grounds.
Posted by: Chris Lawrence at August 11, 2024 07:16 PMBrian,
While I take your point, I don't think that the presence of some elements of direct democracy would disqualify California as having a republican government.
And, as I have noted, I am not overly fond of either recalls or ballot initiatives.
Posted by: Steven at August 11, 2024 08:37 PM