| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
I understand the movement to do a recall. But the method of choosing a new Governor is unusual. Evidently anybody willing to put up a few thousand dollars can run. The voters will be presented with a long list of candidates, and the candidate with the most votes—which may not be anything approaching a majority—will win. And the whole thing comes together in a matter of a few months. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd?
In today’s LA TIMES, U.C. Law Professor Joseph R. Grodin argues that the Calfornia Constitution didn’t intend it to be done in this manner.
Article II, Section 15 of the California Constitution provides that upon the filing of a petition containing the requisite number of signatures, an election will be held “to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor.”When is it “appropriate” to do that? The Constitution does not say, or at least not directly.
....In any case, the Constitution does tell us, by implication, that in the case of a gubernatorial recall it would not be appropriate to elect a successor, because we already have one.
Article X, Section 9 of the state Constitution tells us that the lieutenant governor “shall become Governor when a vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.” That is what the lieutenant governor is elected to do. To say that the lieutenant governor steps into the governor’s seat if the governor dies, or resigns, or becomes disabled, or is impeached, but not when he is otherwise removed from office, would be anomalous.
Grodin states that the Calfornia Supreme Court is soon to examine the issue.
It seems to me that making the lieutenant governor the new governor in the event of a recall makes a lot of sense. The current way of doing it is a bit of a circus.
