California Chaos - NY Times on the recall election

New York Times editorial, California Chaos:

California is now rolling inexorably toward a rendezvous with potential political chaos that it does not need in its present fragile condition and that somebody in authority should have found a way to avoid. On Thursday, Cruz Bustamante, the lieutenant governor, set Oct. 7 as the date when Californians will vote on the recall of Gov. Gray Davis and--at the same time, on the same ballot--choose a new governor to replace him should he be booted from office.

Mr. Bustamante had no choice but to set a date for the recall vote once the required signatures had been collected. It is unclear whether he had any flexibility on the vote for a successor. He had originally indicated that he might limit the Oct. 7 ballot to the recall question. But he said on Thursday that state lawyers, having studied the California Constitution, had advised him to schedule the recall and the potential choice of a successor together.

This is unfortunate. Coupling the recall vote with the selection of a successor invites the election of a fringe candidate who could win with a tiny plurality in a multicandidate field. The reason is California's low threshold for candidacy. Anyone with 65 valid signatures and $3,500 or, alternatively, 10,000 signatures can be on the ballot. One candidate is Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman from San Diego who helped underwrite the effort to collect the signatures needed to compel a recall, and four other Republicans are thinking of running. Since there is no limit on the number of candidates who can qualify, a new governor could take power with a relatively small fraction of the vote.

Mr. Davis now has 11 weeks to convince the public, for the second time in less than a year, that he is fit to keep running the state, the country's largest. He promises to fight as fiercely as a "Bengal tiger." Meanwhile, Californians should be thinking of ways to revise their recall procedures. First, they should raise the bar for scheduling a recal--most states require a number of signatures equivalent to 25 percent of the voter turnout in the last election, but California requires only 12 percent.

Next, they should provide for a decent interval between any recall and the election of a successor. Such an interval would give both parties a chance to rally around a single candidate in an orderly manner. It would also produce better candidates. Right now, for instance, Democrats who might make plausible governors do not want to put their names on the ballot because that would legitimize what they understandably consider an unnecessary election.

The supporters of the recall present it as an exercise in direct democracy. But is it truly a democratic outcome when a candidate with a small fraction of the total vote can prevail over a legitimately elected sitting governor? Indeed, one of Mr. Davis's strongest arguments is that throwing him out of office could open the door for a complete novice with only marginal support to be elected. Given California's precarious finances, that is the last thing it needs now.

Couldn't have said it better myself.