Tag Archive for: Gavin Newsom Recall

California’s Jungle Recall

/by

In 2010 California’s voters approved Proposition 14, which fundamentally changed how general elections are conducted in the state. Prior to Prop. 14, the general election ballot would include the names of every qualified party’s nominee. The new system created a so-called “jungle primary,” an open primary where all registered voters could vote for any candidate running regardless of their party affiliation, and only the top two finishers would move on to appear on the ballot in November.

The rationale for this, according to proponents at the time, was to eliminate the ability for candidates with extreme views, able to win in a primary contest against members of their own party, from moving on to compete in the general election. To-date the only result in California, however, appears to be the further destruction of GOP as a viable competitor in the one-party state. If the many state legislative contests that now just feature two Democratic candidates has resulted in winners with less extreme views, it’s not evident from the actions of the state legislature.

But California is about to experience a jungle free-for-all of a different kind, in the form of a special election that will permit voters to vote on a recall of Governor Gavin Newsom. The ballot will have two questions. The first will be “do you support removing Newsom from office, yes or no?” The second question, on the same ballot, will be “if voters remove Newsom from office, who do you vote for to replace him?”

Who steps up to run as Newsom’s replacement is the biggest political question in California today. How that slate of candidates is constituted will influence Newsom’s chances of surviving question one, as well as who ends up running California if Newsom is rejected by voters.

California’s Democrats are split on how to handle this, with a narrow consensus holding so far that considers the best strategy is to not support any Democratic candidates on the ballot under question two, and emphasize instead their support for Newsom. Their rationale is based on a concern that if an alternative Democrat is on the ballot, it will harm Newsom’s chances of surviving the recall since it will give California’s disaffected Democrats – and they are plentiful – a reason to vote to recall Newsom.

That may or may not stop some Democrat from throwing their hat into the ring, and for Republicans, that is a double-edged sword. On one hand, having a Democrat alternative to Newsom will make it more likely that Newsom does not survive the recall. But on the other hand, if there is one prominent Democrat offered as a replacement for Newsom on question two, and two or more prominent Republicans, the Republican candidates will split the vote and the Democrat will win.

The nightmare scenario for Republicans goes something like this: The declared Republican candidates, John Cox and Kevin Faulconer, are joined by one or two other prominent Republican candidates, then Lorena Gonzalez, currently a member of the California State Assembly, jumps onto the ballot to run as the sole Democratic alternative. Gonzalez then becomes the next Governor of California because the Republicans have split the anti-Gonzalez vote three ways.

Lorena Gonzalez, one of the most toxic extremists to ever hold office in California, represents the liberal urban precincts of San Diego. She is the author of the notorious AB-5, the new state law that makes it illegal for millions of Californians to work as independent contractors. There is not an environmental overreach, a union power grab, or some new race/gender mandate that Gonzalez wouldn’t be likely to support. Her style is combative. Her politics are extreme. Gonzalez could never win state office in a normal election. But she could win the jungle recall.

The reality of jungle primaries and the upcoming jungle recall in California is a twist on a challenge playing out across the United States. Historically, and now more than ever, the presence of third party candidates can create electoral outcomes contrary to the more general intent of the voters. Over the past 200 years, several presidential elections have been thrown due to a powerful third party candidate. In 1992, Ross Perot scooped up 19 percent of the conservative vote, easily throwing the victory to Bill Clinton in key battleground states. In 2000, Ralph Nadar garnered 3 percent of the liberal vote, possibly throwing the victory to George W Bush in what was an extremely close election. Very recently, the presence of Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgenson earned more votes than Biden’s margin of victory in three key states, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin.

In America today, because the Libertarian party tends to attract more funding and grassroots support than the Green party, the presence of these two smaller parties putting candidates on the ballot can tilt close elections to the left-of-center Democrats. Additional examples of this across America are abundant and consequential. If just one in seven of the people who voted Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate Shane Hazel last November, the GOP candidate would not have been forced into a January 5 runoff, which he lost, which in-turn cost the GOP control of the U.S. Senate. Similar examples have played out in battleground state legislatures. In 2016, Libertarian candidate Tim Hagen got 5 percent of the vote in his run for a seat in the Nevada State Senate. The GOP candidate lost by only one-half of one percent, and control of the Nevada State Senate passed from the GOP to the Democrats.

Whether or not jungle primaries are desirable, the presence of alternative party candidacies is not something that can or should be discouraged on constitutional grounds or even as a matter of principle. But it is a strategic question that anyone favoring free enterprise and personal liberty should ask: How bad are the Democrats? Are they so much worse than the GOP that we ought to support GOP candidates that we don’t like? And if we don’t like a candidate the GOP has running for a particular office, is it worth voting against them when the consequence of that can be to shift control of a state legislature, much less the U.S. Senate, into the hands of Democrats?

On the national level, a nightmare scenario for conservatives could easily end up even worse than what Californians face: Disaffected Republicans don’t just cast protest votes for Libertarian candidates, or stay home, but end up forming an entire new political party. The challenge facing national Republicans today isn’t merely that of wooing Libertarians back into the GOP fold. It is convincing the pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions to stay together under the same tent. And by the way, as all of this plays out, why aren’t billionaire conservatives pouring money into the Green Party so they can run viable candidates, everywhere, splitting the liberal vote?

The jungle primary in California, and now the jungle recall in California, evokes a basic strategic question: How can the GOP conduct an unofficial, voluntary but binding primary process, prior to the actual jungle primary or jungle recall, that reflects the general will of their registrants but nonetheless limits the number of GOP candidates? Will John Cox step aside to allow only Kevin Faulconer run for California governor in the recall? Will Kevin Faulconer step aside to give John Cox a better chance as the lone conservative contender? Such a decision is not without precedent. In 2003, a tearful but heroic Darryl Issa stepped aside to give the more electable Arnold Schwarzenegger a better chance, and Schwarzenegger won. Issa’s decision is all the more commendable since he had been one of the primary funders of the recall campaign against incumbent Gray Davis.

Then again, the metaphor “jungle” is appropriate. Almost anyone can get their name on a recall ballot. Who will jump in? In 2003, over 100 candidates threw their name into the ring. Will Larry Elder run? Will Richard Grenell run? What about another celebrity like Schwarzenegger? Why not? There are a lot of animals in the jungle.

The opportunity in California with the recall is bigger than the outcome. It is a chance to put the entire failed legacy of Democratic rule on trial. And even in the event of a nightmare outcome, the replacement of Newsom with the even more extreme Lorena Gonzalez, there is a silver lining. Californians will experience, to the extent they haven’t already experienced it, the full weight of one-party rule by leftist fanatics, environmentalist extremists, social justice “woke” warriors, public sector unions, corrupt business special interests, and the billionaire oligarchs that pull the strings on these myriad marionettes. It can’t possibly end well.

If things go from bad to worse in California, and voters have to endure a doubling down of failed leadership from Democrats, they will be ready to vote for ballot initiatives and reform candidates that offer new policies to an electorate that is finally paying attention.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

 

How a New Governor Can Save California

/by

The chances that California Governor Gavin Newsom will have to fight for his political life in a special recall election are nearing 100 percent. With signed recall petitions and donations pouring in faster than ever, proponents have already collected 1.4 of the 1.8 million signatures they’ll need to turn in by March 17.

This nonpartisan, grassroots movement against a corrupt governor and a corrupt ruling class offers encouragement to the rest of America. If a sitting governor can be forced to defend his record in a recall election in California, the biggest, bluest state in America, then there is no politician, anywhere, that’s immune from a recall campaign. And the tactics used offer precedent setting examples others can follow.

Typically ballot initiatives must employ paid signature gatherers. In today’s market these paid petition circulation firms can charge as much as $10 per signature, although the price can vary considerably. It isn’t unusual for a campaign to enter into an agreement that starts at a lower price, but as time runs out and – as is often the case – harassment by operatives hired by the opposition becomes more intense, the price shoots up into the $10 per signature range. For powerful special interests like Uber or Lyft, or the California Teachers Association, or various industry groups, paying this much for signed petitions is not a problem. But for a grassroots recall campaign, it is unthinkable.

Instead, neither of the two committees working on the Newsom recall have relied on paid signature gatherers. Instead, to-date the volunteers working for the original recall committee, Recall Gavin 2020, have gathered over 1.1 million signatures. It is difficult to overstate the significance of this achievement. Prior to this, the most productive volunteer signature gathering efforts in American history – both in California – would include the 2014 attempt to force a referendum on AB 1266 (a state law mandating transgender bathrooms), where despite narrowly failing to qualify, about a half-million signatures were gathered by volunteers. To find anything of similar scale before that requires going all the way back to 1978, where estimates of the volunteer share of signatures to qualify California’s famous Prop. 13 (limiting property taxes) are also around a half-million.

The Recall Gavin 2020 volunteers have collected more than twice as many signatures as these previous records. And they have over 5,000 volunteers working every weekend to collect more.

The other unconventional method to gather signatures is being employed by the more recently formed recall effort, the Rescue California committee. Using targeted direct mail, they are sending recall petitions and reply envelopes to millions of Californians. Results so far indicate this is a cost-effective alternative to paid signature gathering. According to Rescue California, they will complete the direct mail objective of mailing 3.5 million households by February 7, and so far they have received over 270,000 signed recall petitions thru these direct mail efforts. Based on the timing of the mailings, with half of them still to be delivered and a significant proportion of the rest just received, the committee expects to collect additional hundreds of thousands of signed petitions over the next few weeks. According to Dunsmore, these direct mail petitions are validating at an extraordinary rate of 98 percent.

Success catalyzes success. If there was a tipping point in this recall campaign, it would probably be in early November, when two things happened. On November 6 the campaign was granted a 120 day extension to gather signatures, based on their appeal that COVID-19 restrictions hampered the ability for volunteers to circulate petitions. Also around that time, the campaign announced they had gathered over 700,000 signed petitions. With more time, and an already impressive total of signed recall petitions, money and support began to pour in.

At this point it appears almost inevitable that a very public trial of Gavin Newsom’s conduct as governor is about to begin. By extension, this recall election will put on trial the entire ruling class and super-majority party Newsom is part of, and the failed policies they have perpetrated on ordinary working Californians.

This recall election will also, of course, be an opportunity for new candidates with new ideas to challenge Newsom and everything he represents.

What Will Newsom’s Challengers Stand For?

An establishment Republican, busily rounding up donations and endorsements, is the former mayor of San Diego, Kevin Faulconer. But while any Republican would be a better governor than Newsom, Faulconer’s record and his rhetoric suggest he would not challenge the core premises that are used to justify California’s current policies and power structure.

Another candidate certain to run in a recall election is Jon Cox, a businessman who defied the skeptics by winning enough votes in the 2018 jungle primary to go head-to-head against Newsom in the general election. While Cox only won 38 percent of the vote against Newsom, he was grossly outspent and didn’t have the name recognition he’s subsequently earned. Cox has good positions on the issues, and would shake things up. But is he popular enough to convince 50 percent of California’s voters to reject Newsom?

A dream candidate, of course, would be someone with the star power that Schwarzenegger had, but less willing to give up when the going got tough (to be fair, in his first year as governor, Schwarzenegger tried to do all the right things, but California’s GOP did not back him up). There are dream candidates out there. Larry Elder, for example, the “Sage of South Central,” has spent a lifetime expressing his deep convictions, as well as building a constituency that would passionately support his candidacy. Will Larry run?

But this recall goes beyond finding a popular candidate that Californians may find preferable to Newsom. A new entrant without money or name recognition can also win if they offer compassionate but practical solutions, expressed without rancor but also without equivocation or compromise. Here are questions to ask any candidate to replace Gavin Newsom. Their answer in every case should be an emphatic Yes.

Questions to Ask Any Candidate Who Claims They’ll Save California

Are you willing to direct your attorney general to fight to overturn Jones vs the City of Los Angeles, the flawed court ruling that requires homeless people be offered free “permanent supportive housing” before they can be removed from their public encampments?

Are you willing to build state-ran encampments where able-bodied drug addicts can be hauled off and given the help they need for pennies on the dollar, or are you willing to allow the Homeless Industrial Complex to keep on raping taxpayers and solving nothing?

Are you willing to tell the truth, that we ought to drill for more natural gas here in resource rich California to create jobs, since we import so much of it anyway? Will you prevent the destruction of California’s natural gas distribution infrastructure?

Are you willing to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant open?

Are you willing to stand up to the teachers’ union and fight for school choice via universal vouchers, and not settle for incremental “compromises” that get nowhere?

Are you going to fight to bring back logging to 1990 levels (triple what it is today) so we can thin the forests and at the same time the timber companies will clear around the power lines and maintain firebreaks and fire roads like they used to, at no charge?

Will you tell the truth about open space, that we are NOT running out of it, and fight to bring back streamlined permitting for subdivisions on open land along the major freeway corridors up and down the state?

Will you spend public money on water infrastructure – reservoirs, aquifer storage, desalination, sewage reuse – instead of putting Californians onto water rationing?

Will you invest in widening and extending California’s roads and freeways instead of wasting it on high speed rail? Do you understand that smart cars and passenger drones are just around the corner, making roads the most versatile transportation investment?

Will you tell the identity politics warriors and social justice warriors they’re barking up the wrong tree, that California is not “racist,” and that if they truly want to help they can encourage individuals to take responsibility for their lives?

These are bold positions which if translated into policies will make a positive difference in the lives of ordinary Californians. Explaining the compelling rationale for these policies will build consensus among voters. This means an articulate, uncompromising new governor could bypass California’s corrupt state legislature and take every one of these positions to the voters in the form of state ballot initiatives.

With the right leadership, California can be transformed within a few short years. That is what this recall campaign provides the opportunity to do.

Forcing Newsom to defend himself in a recall election is going to be a tremendous accomplishment, but it is less than half the battle. Offering a coherent alternative to what Newsom and the oligarchy he represents has done to Californians is the vital other half of this struggle.

The necessary flipside of rejecting Newsom is an alternative political agenda that must find a candidate to carry it. An agenda that can turn the tide in the belly of the blue nation, deep blue California.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *