Governors This Week: Changing Recall Rules, Social Media Censorship, Vaccine Requirements & More

CA Dems Will Explore Changing Recall Rules:

California voters emphatically rejected a Republican-led effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), and now Dems are looking to revise what they call a “flawed recall system.”

That system offers voters a basic two-part question: should the governor be recalled, and if so then who should be the replacement?

It is the second part of the question that most irks reform advocates because it would in theory allow a replacement candidate to declare victory with much smaller voter support than the current governor.

The state’s current recall process has been in place since 1911. It was the brainchild of Gov. Hiram Johnson, a Progressive who also championed the ballot initiative and referendum, both of which have since had an even more outsized impact on California and national politics.

Possible changes to the system include having the lieutenant governor take over if the governor is recalled, requiring the governor to have committed some crime or other serious malfeasance, or holding a runoff between the top two candidates if neither garners a simple majority of votes.

Other options include raising the threshold for getting a recall measure on the ballot or requiring a certain percentage of the signatures to come from the party of the governor or other officeholder being targeted for recall.

The state currently requires recall petitioners to gather signatures equal to 12 percent of the turnout from the previous election. Reformers want that raised to 20 percent or higher. The standard in Kansas, for example, is 40 percent.

“Now that the recall is over, I believe it is time to re-evaluate and update California’s recall process,” Sen. Steve Glazer (D), the chair of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments told reporters in a press conference the day after the election.

“The voters want to see a more democratic process put in place that keeps elected officials accountable but prevents political gamesmanship of the rules. We hope to work with policy experts and stakeholders of different political perspectives on a viable solution that ultimately makes sense for a modern-day California,” he said.

His words were echoed by Assemblymember Steve Berman (D), chair of the Assembly Committee on Elections, who called the current recall process both “an important tool for voters to address misconduct or corruption by elected officials” and “fundamentally undemocratic.”

Doing so will ultimately require approval from voters. A recent poll from the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies shows that an overwhelming percentage of California voters favor having the recall at their disposal, but “favor reforms that would impose somewhat higher hurdles in bringing future recall elections to the ballot.”

In that regard, Berman and Glazer say they plan to hold hearings on the issue this fall in hope of having legislation ready for lawmakers to consider in the next legislative session. They emphasized they want bipartisan input on any legislation they propose. Even so, the response from most GOP elected officials and party leaders so far has been emphatically negative.

“Democrats continuously try to manipulate the rules to support their political interests, so it’s not surprising to see them trying to do it again at the expense of voters they were elected to serve,” California GOP Chairperson Jessica Millan Patterson said in a statement. “They wouldn’t have to worry about a recall if they were doing their jobs and addressing wildfire prevention, homelessness, crime, taxes and fixing the broken unemployment department. You want to prevent a recall, do your job.”

If approved there, the issue would go before voters, perhaps as early as November 2022. Should legislation fail, the matter could still conceivably end up on the ballot via an initiative campaign. (LEXISNEXIS, CAPITOL WEEKLY, CAL MATTERS, BERKELEY INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL STUDIES)

Pritzker Signs Far-Reaching Energy Bill:

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed legislation (SB 2408) intended to make Prairie State energy production fully carbon-free by 2045. The bill also provides nearly $700 million in public subsidies to prevent the closure of three Exelon Corp. nuclear power plants around the state as well as more funds to boost the development of wind and solar energy, put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2030, and make it easier for Black and Latino workers and businesses to enter the renewable energy industry. (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, BLOOMBERG LAW)

Baker Uses National Guard for MA School Transportation:

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) activated 250 National Guard troops in an effort to aid Bay State communities facing major bus driver shortage as kids head back to school. The troops were sent first to Chelsea, Lawrence, Lowell, and Lynn, where shortages are among the worst. Baker said Boston schools have so far declined to use the Guard personnel. (BOSTON HERALD, WASHINGTON POST)

DeSantis Threatens Local FL Governments Over Vaccines:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) threatened local governments with steep fines for requiring employees to be vaccinated. The governor said the state would impose fines of $5,000 per employee who is required to be vaccinated or face termination. DeSantis was referring specifically to Gainesville, Orange County, and Leon County, which have each passed requirements that employees be vaccinated or be fired, with exemptions for religious or medical reasons. (MIAMI HERALD)

Abbott Signs TX Social Media Censorship Ban:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed a bill that would bar social media companies with 50 million or more active users from blocking or restricting people or their posts based on their viewpoint. The measure would require the companies to report on any illegal or potentially policy-violating content and to build a complaint system where challenges could be made to the removal of content. The measure would further allow individuals and the state attorney general to sue if they believe that the tech companies wrongfully banned them from their platforms. The tech industry is expected to challenge the law in court. A federal judge blocked a similar law in Florida from taking effect while the law is being challenged in that state. (WASHINGTON POST, TEXAS TRIBUNE)

-- Compiled by RICH EHISEN