The first step in a recall effort is the circulation of recall petitions. The
process begins with the filing of a notice-of-intent-to-recall petition written
in the proper legal language and signed by 65 voters. Once that is accomplished,
the recall petition can be circulated in earnest. Petitions for the recall of
statewide officers must be signed by voters equal in number to 12% of the last
vote for that office, including voters from each of five counties equal in
number to 1% of the last vote for the office in that county. Petitions for the
recall of state legislators must equal in number to 20% of the last vote for the
office.
The recall ballot has two components: a yes or no vote for recall, and the
names of replacement candidates, selected by the nomination process used in
regular elections. The recall measure itself is successful if it passes by a
majority. In that case, the replacement candidate with a simple plurality of
votes wins the office. If the recall measure fails, the replacement candidate
votes are ignored.
The language in the recall provision is strictly procedural. Substantive
grounds for recalls are not specified. Recalls can be launched to remove corrupt
officials, and to remove officials whose policies and performance are found
wanting. The recall is but one of several mechanisms for removing public
officers. Others include the normal criminal process, impeachment, term
limits, and, of course, the next election.
The recall law underwent some streamlining changes as a result of the
passage of Proposition 9 in
November 1974. The changes included a new 160-day limit on signature gathering
(there was no time limit previously), and a new provision for immediate recall
petitioning. Previously, there was a six-month waiting period to initiate a
recall petition against a statewide elected official (five days for a
legislator). Now, the recall procedure can begin immediately after the election
of the recall target.
Recall provisions are summarized in Procedure for Recalling State and
Local Officials, issued by the California Secretary of State's Office and
revised in 2003.
Recall in California is provided for in the state Constitution and in the
state Elections Code.
- Constitution of
California, Art. II, Sec. 13-20.
- California
Elections Code, Div. 11, Recall Elections.
The recall mechanism for
statewide officers and legislators in California first appeared as a
constitutional amendment in 1911, one of several reform measures put in place by
the Progressive administration of Governor Hiram Johnson. The most controversial
provision of the amendment was the inclusion of judges, and the justices of the
state Supreme Court in particular, among the state officers subject to recall.
Proponents favored the amendment as another mechanism to fight graft and
corruption in government. Opponents criticized it as a device that extremists
and malcontents would employ to harass and remove honest officials.
Recalls have often been
attempted in California against statewide elected officials and legislators. All
governors in the last 30 years have faced some level of recall attempt. In 2003
Governor Gray Davis became the first statewide official to face a recall election. Recall efforts against state legislators have
reached the voting stage, and four were actually recalled. Senator Marshall
Black (R-Santa Clara County) was recalled in 1913, followed by Senator Edwin
Grant (D-San Franisco) in 1914, and by Assembly members Paul Horcher (R-Los
Angeles County) and Doris Allen (R-Orange County) in 1995. There have been many
successful recall attempts at the local government level in California.
For general historical
background on the recall in California see:
- Bird, Fredrick L., and
Ryan, Frances M.
The Recall of Public Officers: a Study of the Operation
of the Recall in California. New York: Macmillan, 1930.
- Nolan, Martin F.
"The Angry Governor [Hiram Johnson]," California Journal, v. 34, no. 9 (Sept. 2003), p. 12-18.
- Spivak, Joshua.
What is the History of Recall Elections? History News Network, Sept. 1, 2003.
Spivak's master's thesis at Brooklyn College was on the history of the recall.
- Spivak, Joshua.
Why Did California Adopt the Recall? History News Network, Sept. 15, 2003.
- "The Recall Amendment,"
Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, v. 6, no. 3 (July
1911), p. 153-225.
For more background on the
four successful state legislative recalls see:
- Bird, Frederick L., and
Ryan, Frances M.
"The Recall of State Officers [Marshall Black and Edwin
Grant]," in The Recall of Public Officers: a Study of the Operation of the
Recall in California. New York: Macmillan, 1930, p. 271-279.
- Lazarovici,
Laureen.
"The Politics of Recall [Paul Horcher]," California
Journal, vol. v, 26, no. 7 (July 1995), p. 16-21.
- Block, A.
G.
- A Twisted Tale of Revenge
[Doris Allen]," California Journal, vol. 27, no. 1 (Jan. 1996), p.
34-41.
- Spivak, Joshua.
When Have Recalls Succeeded in California? History News Network, Sept. 29, 2003.
The 2003 recall movement
against Governor Gray Davis was spearheaded by the People's Advocate, the
anti-tax group founded by Paul Gann, and now headed by his associate, Ted Costa,
and by a group of Republican Party activists including Shawn Steel, outgoing
state Republican Party Chairman, and Sal Russo, a leading GOP strategist. Three
California political parties endorsed the recall effort: the Republican
Party, the Libertarian Party, and the American Independent Party. However, many
key Republican Party leaders indicated a preference for focusing
the party's efforts on re-electing President Bush and unseating Democratic
Senator Barbara Boxer rather than on recalling Governor Davis.
Initially, it appeared that
the recall effort would have to make do without a political consulting firm and
professional petition circulators, and that it would need to rely on the
Internet, talk radio, and unpaid volunteers to mobilize people to obtain
petition signatures. Then in early May 2003 Congressman Darrell Issa (R-San
Diego County) launched his own recall effort, and backed it with substantial
financial and organizational resources, including a website, Rescue California...Recall Gray
Davis. Issa's actions gave the recall effort a considerable boost.
A group formed in late May
2003, Taxpayers against the Recall, took the lead in opposing the recall effort.
The group was mainly a coalition of labor leaders and was headed by Steve Smith, a
California Democratic Party activist and Davis advisor. The group circulated
petitions opposing the recall. The petitions were advisory only.
The legal requirement for a
successful gubernatorial recall was 897,156 signatures, but about 1.2 million were needed to
ensure that there were enough valid ones. On July 14, 2003 recall supporters
claimed that they had gathered at least 1.6 million signatures, and declared an
end to the signature gathering phase. On July 23 Secretary of State Kevin
Shelley announced that there were 1,356,408 valid signatures and certified that
the petition requirement had been met. Attention then shifted to Lieutenant
Governor Cruz Bustamante, who was consitutionally mandated to call a special
election within 60-80 days. On July 24 the Lieutenant Governor issued a proclamation
setting the date for October 7.
Accommodating filing requirements (65 nomination signatures and a $3,500 filing fee, or 10,000 signatures in lieu of the fee) encouraged many replacement candidates to enter the race. As the August 9 filing deadline approached, there were press reports that there might be 200 or more candidates. When the Secretary of State certified the candidate list
on August 13, there were 135 candidates.
Initially there were no
declared replacement candidates from the Democratic Party. In an effort to
present a united front in support of Gray Davis, Democratic Party leaders agreed
not to put a Democrat on the ballot. Then on August 7 Cruz Bustamante entered
the race in order to provide a prominent Democratic alternative in case the vote
favored the recall.
On the Republican side actor Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race in an August 6 appearance on the Tonight Show, and immediately became the leading Republican candidate in public opinion polls. On August 7 Darrell Issa dropped out of the race, and pressure mounted on other prominent Republican candidates to do the same. On August 23 Bill Simon dropped out, followed by Peter Ueberroth on September 9, leaving
State Senator Tom McClintock as the major Republican rival to Schwarzenegger.
Other prominent figures in the recall race were Green Party candidate Peter Camejo and independent candidate Arianna Huffington. On September 30 Huffington withdrew from the race and urged her supporters to vote against the recall.
The recall effort was embroiled in litigation almost from the outset. Numerous suits were filed on a range of issues, many involving the Voting Rights Act. Proponents claimed that minority voting interests would be harmed by the consolidation of precincts, the timing of the election, the appearance of the two initiative measures on the ballot, and the use of “de-certified” punch-card voting systems. None of the suits succeeded in delaying the election or altering the ballot. There is more on legal issues involving the recall in the Legal Challenges section below.
With 135 replacement
candidates, voters needed to search a very long ballot to find the candidate
of their choice. The voting systems in the various counties functioned without major problems, despite a heavy turnout. With Arnold Schwarzenegger receiving more that 48% of the vote, concerns that a replacement governor might be elected by a small plurality proved to be unfounded.
-
- The
Official Voter Information Guide issued by the California Secretary of State. Includes arguments for and against the recall, candidate statements, and arguments for and against the two statewide propositions on the ballot. A print version was mailed to registered voters in advance of the election.
- Sample ballots, prepared by county election officials and tailored to the voting systems used in the various counties, were also mailed to registered voters. Pursuant to state election law, the order of replacement candidates’ names on the ballot was determined by creating a randomized sort and then shifting the sort order by state Assembly district. More on the randomizing process can be found on the California Secretary of State’s web site.
-
- For information about
the candidates appearing on the Oct. 7, 2003 recall ballot, see these
websites:
- Candidates for California State Offices (Project Vote Smart)
- October 7, 2003
Statewide Special Election Certified List of Candidates (Secretary of
State)
- Recall Governor
Election 2003 (League of Women Voters of California Education Fund)
See
especially the League's Smart Voter pages,
which include general data on the replacement candidates and information
supplied to Smart Voter by the candidates.
- Politics 1 California Page
(Politics1)
Lists replacement candidates, with links to candidate sites
when available.
-
- Many lawsuits were
filed challenging various aspects of the recall provisions. The anti-recall
group, Taxpayer's Against the Governor's Recall, filed suit in Los Angeles
Superior Court on July 15, 2003, challenging the credentials of some of the
signature gatherers hired by the recall effort. The California elections Code, Div.0.5., Chap.2, sec. 102, defines eligible
signature gatherers as "... a voter who is registered to vote in this state."
The suit contended that signature gatherers were brought in from out-of-state.
On July 25, 2003, the California Supreme Court declined to consider a
restraining order delaying the election until the recall
petition circulators' legal status was determined. On July 23, 2003, two constitutional law
scholars from the University of San Diego filed a suit in the federal district
court in San Diego challenging the right of a voter to vote only for a
replacement candidate without first voting yea/nea on the governor's
recall. On July 29, U.S. District Court Judge Barry Moskowitz rejected this claim, allowing voters to cast ballots for replacement candidates
without having to vote on the recall itself, Partnoy,
et al. v. Shelley, No. 03CV1460 BTM (JFS) (United States District
Court, Southern District of California) (memorandum decision and
order granting motion on the pleadings and declaring California Elections Code
sec. 11382 unconstitutional).
- On August 7 the California
Supreme Court declined to consider any of the five petitions before it. They were:
- Eisenberg v. Shelly, S117763. Asserted that the placement of two initiatives on the recall ballot was
inappropriate because the recall election was not a "special statewide election" within the meaning of the
applicaple contitutional provisions.
- Frankel v. Shelly, S117770. Sought to remove replacement candidates from the recall ballot on the ground that, if the governor were removed in the recall, the lieutenant governor should automatically succeed him.
- Byrnes v. Bustamante, S117832. Raised the same issue as in Frankel concerning the succession of the lieutenant
governor should the recall election succeed.
- Burton (Mark) v. Shelley, S117834. Involved the nomination requirements for candidates to be placed on the recall
ballot.
- Davis v. Shelley, S117921. Asserted that, because in some counties punch-card ballots would be used and polling places would be consolidated, votes in those counties might not count as much as votes in other counties, resulting in a denial of equal protection rights;
that the California Contitution's prohibition on permitting the officer who is the subject of the recall election from
being on the ballot to pick a successor in the event of a recall violates the equal protection rights of such
candidate's supporters; and that California's recall process violates the federal constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government by frustrating majority rule.
- As of August 8, three suits
were pending in federal courts citing violation of Sec. 5 of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act:
- The Lawyers Committee for
Civil Rights filed a suit on behalf of minority voters in Monterey County,
charging that the county needed to obtain preclearance to change balloting
standards or procedures, Oliverez, et al., v. State of California; Monterey
County; Kevin Shelley; Cruz Bustamante (United States District Court,
Northern District of California, filed Aug. 5, 2002[3]). On Aug. 18, the U.S. Justice Department determined
that the election could proceed on October 7, with the Justice Department reserving the option of
reviewing election changes mandated by the Voting Rights Act. On September 4, the Justice Department approved all
but five of the consolidated 86 voting sites in Monterey County for the October 7 election. Additional voting sites were added in the five precincts to bring the county into conformity with the Voting Rights Act. On September 5, a panel of three
federal judges said it would not postpone the election, as minority voters would not be disenfranchised.
- The Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) filed a suit in federal district court calling for
a delay on the vote on Proposition 54, the Racial Privacy Initiative, contending that an October 7
election date failed to allow enough time for adequate public debate. MALDEF
also pressed the preclearance argument under the Voting Rights Act, Salazar v.
Monterey County, No. 03-03584 (United States District Court, Northern
District of California, filed August 1, 2003). In an August 14 ruling in a similar MALDEF suit,
Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly rejected the claim that voters lacked the time to debate the
issues surrounding the initiative measure. The Justice Department's issuance of the pre-clearance order
cited above preempted this suit.
- The case that garnered most
of the public's and the courts' attention was a suit filed by the
ACLU Foundation of Southern California, joined by the ACLU
Foundation of Northern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial
counties charging that an October 7
election violated the rights of minorities heavily represented in
counties where error-prone punch-card ballots were still used, Southwest
Voter Registration Education Project, and Southern Christian Leadership
Conference of Greater Los Angeles v. Shelley (United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Div., Complaint for
injunctive and declaratory relief, filed Aug. 2003). On August 20, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson
rejected the ACLU's bid to delay the election, saying he would not rule against the will
of the people. On August 27 the ACLU filed an appeal in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over
the use of punch-card ballots. The Court ordered the defendants's response by September 4, with a reply by September 8.
Oral arguments were heard on September 11 by a three judge panel. On September 15 the panel reversed Judge Wilson's decision and upheld the ACLU's argument that outmoded voting machines could disenfranchise voters in six California counties, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, No. 03-56498, 2003 U.S. App. (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2003). The panel, however, stayed the imposition of its decision for a week to allow time for appeals to the full panel of the Ninth Circuit and to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision was appealed and on September 19 Ninth Circuit convened an eleven-member panel to hear the case. The panel was headed by the Court's Chief Judge, Mary Schroeder,
and ten other members of the Court drawn
at random. The three judges who heard the original case were eligible although none were drawn, and three judges recused themselves. Oral arguments took place on September 22.
On September 23 the eleven-member panel ruled unanimously, in a 12-page decision, that the election should go forward October 7.
The panel said that, in light of the absentee votes already cast and the money spent by the state and candidates,
the disruption caused by postponing the election would outweigh any threat to voting rights posed by the punch-card ballots. The
Court ruled that, although some votes might be compromised, it "is merely a speculative possibility" that they would influence
the result of the result of the election. The American Civil Liberties Union did not appeal the decision to
the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Selected Newspaper Articles
- A separate file containing citations to selected newspaper articles on legal challenges to the recall. The citations are arranged in reverse chronological order. Some include links to full-text.
-
-
The campaign finance aspects of the recall were unusual and rather complicated. The contribution limits to gubernatorial campaigns, adopted with the passage of Proposition 34 in November 2000, went into effect with this election. The state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) adopted administrative rules implementing Proposition 34 for recall elections on August 11, 2003. The rules are summarized in an FPPC Fact Sheet. The law makes a basic distinction between the recall question and the replacement candidates. Campaign contribution limits do not apply to the recall question, but do apply to the replacement candidates. Campaign committees can raise unlimited funds to support or oppose the recall, but campaign committees for replacement candidates are limited to a maximum $21,200 from individual and corporate contributors. Replacement candidates can set up separate campaign committees on the recall question, and raise funds for the committees without restriction, but cannot use the funds in their own campaigns for office. There is no limit to the amount that replacement candidates can give to their own campaigns. Campaign committees not controlled by candidates ("non-controlled committees") that make independent expenditures for and against candidates can receive unrestricted contributions. Had Gray Davis survived the recall, he would have been entitled under the state Constitution to claim reimbursement from the state for election expenses “legally and personally incurred.”
- A controversial campaign finance issue that emerged in late September 2003 involved the legality of campaign contributions to “old” candidate committees--i.e., campaign committees established for a past election. Cruz Bustamante took the position that contributions to his 2002 re-election committee were exempt from Proposition 34 limits and could be transferred to his 2003 campaign committee. Critics claimed that the practice was illegal and contrary to the intent of Proposition 34. The Fair Political Practices Commission came under criticism for not quickly issuing a definitive ruling on the matter. On September 7 the Bustamante campaign announced that it would give $3.8 million raised in the controversial practice to the campaign opposing Proposition 54. On September 22 Sacramento County Superior Court judge Loren McMaster ruled, in a suit brought by state Senator Ross Johnson (R-Irvine), that unspent funds in Bustamante's 2002 campaign account should be returned to the original donors.
- Berthelsen, Christian.
"80 Million in Contributions in 75-day Recall Campaign," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 11, 2003.
- Berthelsen, Christian.
"Bustamante Told Not to Use Loophole: Judge Bars Transfer of Campaign Finance Funds," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 23, 2003.
- Simon, Mark and Colie, Zachary.
"Bustamante Gets Another $1 Million," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2003.
Rep. Senator Ross Johnson (R-Irvine) sues Bustamante for campaign finance violations.
- Simon, Mark and Colie, Zachary.
"State is Urged to Shut Loophole in Campaign Law: Tribe's Donation to Bustamante at Issue," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 4, 2003.
- Colie, Zachary and Feist, Paul.
"Tribe Plans 2 Million Campaign Donation: Bustamante Called a Good Friend," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 3, 2003.
- Simon, Mark and Salladay, Robert.
"Little Money Going For "Yes On Recall" Campaign: Davis, Candidates to Replace Him Have Much Bigger War Chests," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 3, 2003.
- Broder, James M.
"Money Flowing Past Loopholes in Recall Race," New York Times, Aug. 30, 2003.
- Werner, Erica.
"Money from Tribes Could Play Big Role in Recall Campaign," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 25, 2003.
An Associated Press story.
- Buntang, Glenn F, Moran, Dan.
"Tribe Takes Wait and See Recall Stance: Indian Gaming Produces Plenty of Cash, Which, Of Any, Campaigns Get Funded Isn't Yet Decided," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 17, 2003.
- Martin, Mark and
Berthelsen, Christian.
"Opponents'
Wealth Dwarfs Bustamante's: Not a Millionaire Like His GOP Rivals, He Probably
Will Rely on Fund-raising," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 12,
2003.
- Simon, Michael.
"Big
War Chests For Recall Campaign: Both Sides Forming Substantial Groups With Aid
From Parties," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 3, 2003.
- Davila, Robert
D.
"Petition Drive Cost $1.80 Per Signature," Sacramento Bee, Aug.
1, 2003.
- Berthelsen,
Christian.
"Davis'
Opponents Crimped by New Rules on Donations, But Prop. 34 Puts No Limits on
Initiative Efforts," San Francisco Chronicle, July 25, 2003.
- Salladay, Robert.
"Governor's
Backers Chip in to Fight Recall: Panel Raises $344,000 to Thwart Davis
Ouster," San Francisco Chronicle, June 5, 3003.
- Gledhill, Lynda.
"Cost
of Davis Recall Election: $25 Million: Governor Could Also Have State Pay His
Costs If He's Victorious," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 18, 2003,
p. A-11.
-
- The recall passed and Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected to succeed Gray Davis as governor. Propositions 53 and 54 failed.
-
Recall
|
Yes
55.4%
|
No
44.6%
|
|
|
Governor
|
Schwarzenegger
48.7%
|
Bustamante
31.6%
|
McClintock
13.4%
|
Camejo
2.8%
|
Proposition 53
|
Yes
36.1%
|
No
63.9%
|
|
|
Proposition 54
|
Yes
36.1%
|
No
63.9%
|
|
|
Source: California Secretary of State statewide election returns, 10/22/03, 6:52am, PDT.
- The California Secretary of State's official Statement of the Vote provides detailed election returns.
- Los Angeles Times Exit Poll.
-
Times Exit Poll Results, Oct. 9, 2003.
-
What the Voters Said, Oct. 9, 2003.
-
Many Democrats Vote against Davis and for a Republican, by Matea Gold, Oct. 8, 2003.
- Edison/Mitofsky Research Exit Poll. Reported in 3-part article: "California Recall: Behind the Vote," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 9, 2003.
-
Exit Poll Analysis Shows Schwarzenegger's Surprising Strengths: Chart
-
Frequency of Past Voting
-
Many traditionally Democratic Groups Voted to Remove Davis
- Mitofsky, Warren J.; Lenski, Joe; Agiesta, Jennifer.
"Exit Polls and the California Recall Election," The Polling Report, v. 19, no. 20 (Oct. 20, 2003), p. 1, 7-8.
-
- Election results must be certified, in accordance with Division 15 of the California Elections Code. County election offials must complete an official canvas by the 29th day after the election, and the Secretary of State must certify the election by 39th day. The certification deadline for the recall election was November 15, 2003. The certification date had a special importance in the recall election because Governor-Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger could not take office until the election was certified. More on the certification process is available at the Secretary of State's webpage, which includes a detailed certification timeline. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley certified the election on November 14, and Arnold Schwarzenegger was inaugurated on November 17.
- Vote Certification Timeline
(Secretary of State's Office)
- "California Recall: Here's What Happens Next," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 8, 2003.
- Geissinger, Steve.
"Election Aftermath Full of Unknowns: Certification of Election Results, Lawsuits May Create Even
More Chaos after Tuesday," The Argus, Oct. 5, 2003.
- Keating, Dan.
"A Davis Successor Would Have to Wait; Certification of Recall Election Outcome Will Take Weeks,
Officials Say," The Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2003, Pg. A06.
- Keating, Dan.
"If Davis is recalled, but the results of the successor election are contested, who will be governor in the interim?,"
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 15, 2003, pg. A.19.
-
- Kousser, Thad.
"The California Governor's Recall," Spectrum, v. 77, no. 1 (Winter 2004), p. 32-36.
- Gerston, Larry N.; Christensen, Terry.
Recall! California's Political Earthquake. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004. 187 p.
- Amar, Vikram David.
"Adventures in Direct Democracy: the Top Ten Constitutional Lessons from the California Recall Experience," California Law Review, v. 92, no. 3 (May 2004), p. 927-958.
- Lubenow, Gerald C., ed.
California Votes: The 2002 Governor's Race & the
Recall That Made History.Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Public Policy Press,
Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 2003.
-
"2003 California Recall" California Journal, v.34, no.11 (Nov. 2003), p.[6]-37.
Contents: Mixed Messages by David Lesher -- Californians Make Their Choices by Mark Baldassare, Bruce Cain and
Johnathan Cohen -- Democratic Daze by Philip J. Trounstine -- Which Way Arnold? by Peter Schrag -- Can Arnold
Lift an Elephant? by Dan Schnur -- Arnold and George by Marc Sandalow -- Dangerous Distractions by Bill Whalen --
Why I Voted For Arnold by Bill Lockyer -- Gray Memories by Daniel Borenstein -- Reading Recall Tea Leaves in L.A. by
Sherry Bebitch Jeffe.
-
California's Recall Election. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, Oct. 2003. (Just the Facts). [2] p.
- Gledhill, Lynda.
"Most Voters Support Changing Recall Steps,"
San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 16, 2003.
- Fuller, Bruce.
Media Coverage of Education Issues: California Recall Campaign.
[Berkeley]: Policy Analysis for Public Education, 2003. (PACE Working Paper Series 03-4). 3 p.
- Colie, Zachary.
"Sea Change: Latinos, Women Abandoned Democrats," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 15, 2003.
- Salladay, Robert.
"Analysis: Making Good on Campaign Vows is a Huge Task,"
San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 9, 2003.
- Seelye, Katherine Q.; Connelly, Marjorie.
"Signaling Voter Unrest, Schwarzenegger Cut Deep Into the Democrats' Base,"
New York Times, Oct. 9, 2003, pg. A24.
- Mann, Thomas E.; Cain, Bruce E.
The California Recall, Brookings Institution, October 8, 2003.
Post-election analysis by Thomas E. Mann and Bruce Cain, in a panel hosted by the Brookings Governance Studies Program, with questions from reporters; transcript.
-
- Easy Voter Guide (Easy Voter)
"User-friendly nonpartisan information."
- Special California Recall Election Coverage (FindLaw)
Features documents from recall court cases.
- "The California Recall Election" (Librarians' Index to the Internet)
Contains recall background, information on campaign finance, candidates, newspaper coverage and more.
- Election Law (Rick Hasen, Professor of Law, Loyola University, Los Angeles)
"The law of
politics and the politics of law: election law, the California Recall,
campaign finance, legislation, voting rights, initiatives, redistricting."
- Special Recall Election
Resources (California Voter Foundation)
- October 7, 2003 Statewide Special Election Information (California Secretary of State)
Contains a candidate status report, a
list of candidate qualifications, an election calendar, the state ballot
pamphlet as well as other recall information.
- Campaign
Finance Activity (California Secretary of State)
Fundraising and expenditures reported online to the Secretary of State's Cal-Access database.
-
- Online Campaign Literature Archive - the Recall Election (UCLA Digital Library Program)
October 7, 2003 shapshot of campaign websites. Searchable database: in the "Browse by Folder" box, select "2003 - California Statewide Special Election, October 7, 2003 - Websites."
- CalNews.com
"Includes links to
current news stories from a variety of sources. Brief summaries are provided.
- Decision 2003: the Recall
KRON-TV,
the San Francisco Bay Area's NBC affiliate news site.
- KQED's Recall Site
KQED is a National Public Radio San Francisco Bay Area affiliate.
- KTVU's Recall Site
KTVU, the San Francisco Bay Area's Fox affiliate news site.
- New
York Times Recall Site
- Rough and Tumble
Includes links to
current news stories from a variety of sources.
- Sacramento Bee Recall
Site
- San Diego
Union Tribune Recall Site
- SFGate.com, Politics News and Views
Link to San Francisco Chronicle's recall coverage.
- San
Jose Mercury News Recall Site
-
Glaser, Mark.
"Top Sites, Blogs for California Recall," Online Journalism Review, Sept. 9, 2003.
-
- Rescue California...Recall Gray
Davis
Website for Darrell Issa's campaign to recall Gov. Davis.
Includes copy of the recall petition, excerpts from news stories, and "4
simple reasons why Gray Davis should be recalled."
- Davis Recall.com
The People's
Advocate recall site. The People's Advocate was founded by Paul Gann and is
currently headed by Ted Costa. Costa is the official recall petitioner at the
Secretary of State's office.
- Stop the Recall
Paid for by
the Taxpayers Against the Governor's Recall, "environmental, labor and
religious organizations and others who oppose the waste of taxpayer dollars.
Major funding by: California Professional Firefighters PAC and the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Committee".
- Recall Gray Davis!
The
site of the Recall Gray Davis Committee, chaired by Howard Kaloogian.
Kaloogian is a former state Assembly member.
-
- A separate file containing a list of citations to selected newspaper and journal articles on the recall. The citations are arranged in reverse chronological order. Some include links to full-text. The San Francisco Chronicle is heavily represented, in part because it provides free full-text access to its archive and does not require user registration.
-
- Sullivan, James
"We Can All Stop Laughing
on Wednesday, But for Now, Here's a Sampling of Recall Election Humor, Part Deux, from the Nation's Wags," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 2, 2003.
-
"Farley," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 1, 2003.
By Phil Frank
-
Mark Fiore Political Cartoon, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 25, 2003.
-
"Morph the Recall Candidates," About, Inc.
Political Humor compiled by Daniel Kurtzman.
-
"Farley," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 16, 2003.
By Phil Frank.
-
"The California Recall by Arnold," Pittsburgh-Post-Gazette, Sept. 16, 2003.
By Rob Rogers.
-
"California Recall Jokes: Late-Night Jokes about Governor Davis and the California Recall," About, Inc.
Political humor compiled by Daniel Kurtzman.
- "Doonesbury," Aug. 27, 2003.
By Gary Trudeau.
-
- A separate file containing a list of citations to selected polls on the recall question and the replacement candidates. The citations are arranged in reverse chronological order. Some include links to full-text.
- "Answers to Questions
on Recall Delay," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 16, 2003
- "The California Recall: Key Information about the Election," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 26, 2003.
- Questions and
Answers: Statewide Special
Election (California Secretary of State).
-
"Q&A:
Here Are Some Answers to Some of the Most Common Questions," San
Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 11, 2003.
- Responsibilities
of the Lt. Governor (from official website).
- "Some
Answers on the California Gubernatorial Recall," Associated Press,
July 18, 2003.
These two ballot measures
were already qualified for the March 2004 primary election. As a result of
provisions in California
Consitution Article 2: Voting, Initiative Referendum, and Recall sec. 8c,
they will appear on the recall special election ballot instead.
- Proposition
53
Legislative Constitutional Amendment: Infrastructure
Finance, ACA 11 (Resolution Chapter 185, 2002), Richman.
This measure
would direct more money to roads and other parts of the state's
infrastructure. It needs voter approval before it can be enacted into law.
- Proposition
54
Initiative Constitutional Amendment: Classification by Race,
Ethnicity, Color or National Origin.
This measure would prohibit
state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color or national
origin to classify current or prospective students, contractors, or
employees in public education, contracting or employment operations. Its
most prominent proponent is Ward Connerly.
The text and ballot arguments for and against
the propositions are in the Official Voter Information Guide.
-
- Yes on 53
- No on Prop 53 (Inactive)
- Racial Privacy Initiative
Leading pro-Proposition 54 website.
- No on Prop 54 (Inactive)
-
- Woodward, Tali.
"Is It Right to Know? Prop. 54 Prevents any State-Funded Entity From
Collecting Crucial Data on Race, Leaving That Task to a Private Sector That Doesn't Want the Job," San Francisco Bay Guardian, Oct. 1, 2003.
- Bluth, Alex.
"Bustamante Faces Suit Over Large Donations," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 3, 2003.
FPPC asks judge to order supporters of Prop. 54 to name financial backers
- Michaelson, Richard and others.
The Classification of Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin (CRECNO): a Guide to the Projected Impacts on Californians. (Policy Papers, pp2003-1). Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Aug. 21, 2003.
Online publication of the University of California eScholarship Repository.
- Guthrie, Julian.
"Prop. 54 Support Drops, Says Poll: It Would Ban State from Collecting Data on Race, Ethnicity," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 19, 2003.
- What Would Proposition 54 Mean for the State's Ability to Collect and Use Data? Sacramento: California Budget Project, Aug. 2003. (Budget Brief). 8 p.
- Proposition 53: Should California Earmark General Fund Revenues for Infrastructure? Sacramento: California Budget Project, Aug. 2003. (Budget Brief). 10 p.
- "Prop.
54 to Stay on Recall Ballot: Judge Says There's No Legal Reason to Delay a
Vote on the Racially Charged Issue," Sacramento Bee, Aug. 15, 2003.
- "Affirmative Action Foe's
Latest Aim Complicates California Recall Vote", New York Times, Sec. 1,
P. 13, Aug.3, 2003.
-
-
The 2003 Multilingual Survey of California Voters, USC Annenberg Institute for Justice and Journalism, The Pew Center,
The Thomas Rivera Policy Institute, New California Media, Sept. 26, 2003.
- "As Awareness of Prop. 54 Has Increased, Disposition to Vote Yes Has Declined," The Field Poll, Release #2091, Sept. 11, 2003.
- "Plurality Still Favors Prop. 54 But Margin of Support Narrows," The Field Poll, Release #2084, Aug. 19, 2003.
- "Voters
Continue to Support Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative," Field
Poll, Release #2079, July 24, 2003.
