A Hastings Law Professor and former Ca SC Justice agrees with me RE: DAVIS

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

A Successor to Davis Is Already in Place


By Joseph R. Grodin, Joseph R. Grodin, a professor of law at UC's Hastings College of the Law, is a former justice of the California Supreme Court and co-author of "California Constitution: a Reference Guide" (Greenwood P




In the event a majority voted to recall the governor, the governor's successor would be whoever received the most votes among a field of candidates who gained a place on the ballot within a span of weeks by paying a relatively small fee or collecting a relatively small number of signatures; for the balance of the recalled governor's term, the largest state in the Union would be governed by someone who perhaps had the support of only a tiny fraction of eligible voters, in all probability a smaller number than the number of those voting to recall.

Fortunately, that is not what the drafters did, or at least not according to the most reasonable interpretation of the applicable constitutional provisions. 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.

Some say it is inappropriate only in the case of appellate judges, but it is unlikely that this is what is meant by the term "appropriate" in Article II because there is a separate section of the Constitution that deals with recalling judges.

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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-grodin5aug05,1,4770700.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

I was informed by several Du'ers that my argument was not constitutionally sound regarding the fact that Bustamante should replace Davis. FOrtunately, it appears my reasoning has agreement from those who write reference books about the state constitution. I am counting on the California Supreme Court to objectively consider this. They are not the Florida Supreme court, while there are some decisions that are rather nefarious, for the most part, they are not quite as partisan as say the USSC.

[Mz Pip]

1. When there

are going to be over 300 names onthe ballot, I would certainly think this whole process would be questionable and what wold be best for the state would be to have Bustamante replace Davis.

But then not much in CA these days makes much sense.

MzPip
:dem:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. I would love nothing more than for Issa to have wasted his dough

[northzax]

3. i'd love more than for Issa to win

the death knell of the GOP on the west coast for 20 years.

[dfong63]

5. unfortunately,

even if it turns out that Issa "wasted" about $1.5 million, he will have "cost" the state about $60 million - the cost of the election.

[bemildred]

4. I'm with you kid.

And I think Davis' writ of mandate has prospects too.

[LWolf]

6. I don't know how the courts will rule,

but I sincerely hope you are correct.

[Ardee]

7. thanks, NSMA

first small ray of sunshine in this awful mess.........

[JackSwift]

8. I still think my earlier analysis is correct

While I would not object to Bustamante being governor, and would in fact think it an improvement over Davis, I doubt that Grodin's analysis is correct. He was removed by the voters himself and the people who replaced him will decide the issue. I hope I'm wrong. But I think the language is clear that upon recall, an election is immediately held and the plurality winner gets in.

I think that it is a better argument that under the US constitution a ballot with a hundred or more candidates where the governor can be recalled with 51 percent to recall and the new governor elected with 5 percent, and the governor cannot run, that that is a denial of due process, equal protection and the guarantee to a "republican form of government". It's banana republic democracy to do it that way. If there were only a few people allowed to run, or after a run off, that would make more sense.

[Merlin]

9. I think both of your arguments are correct simultaneously.

It is irrational to assume the framers would have believed it appropriate for a tiny minority of voters to determine the successor to a recalled governor.

Rather they would have expected that an orderly election would be held of a successor. That election would not coincide with the recall vote, but instead would follow it, probably at the next ordinary election.

In the interim, the Lt. Governor would assume the office.

I think it is certain that the courts will disrupt the current process one way or another. Ahhhhnold, stop drooling!

[blm]

10. This has GOT to rule the day.

bump.