Recall Being Retooled Into Partisan Weapon : Politics: Assemblyman Paul Horcher was the Legislature’s first victim since 1914. But in a time of power struggles, more are being targeted.

In the annals of California politics, state Sen. Edwin Grant scarcely rates a footnote.

The San Francisco politician is long dead and would be all but forgotten, except that he occupied a special niche in this state’s political history. Until last week, Grant was the last state legislator to be recalled from office, and that was in 1914. On Tuesday, Paul Horcher joined him.

By all indications, Horcher, the ex-Republican, ex-Assemblyman from Diamond Bar, will not hold the distinction for 81 years. As California politics turn increasingly divisive, state political party leaders say they will use the recall--an idea championed by Progressive Hiram Johnson as a way to weaken political parties--far more frequently.

Horcher’s political corpse is not yet cool, and Republicans already are taking aim at Michael J. Machado, a freshman Democratic assemblyman from the Stockton area. Machado could face a recall election late this summer. His transgression: Like Horcher, he voted for Democrat Willie Brown as Speaker. Unlike Horcher, however, Machado is a Democrat who was simply voting with his caucus.

“What do you want? Do you want a purist statement here?” asked state Sen. Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove), the wealthy benefactor of conservative Republican candidates who has spent $20,000 on the Machado recall. “This is politics. This is for control of the state of California, ideologically. You can sit there and we can give you all kinds of [reasons]. We think he’s vulnerable. We’re going to go after him, pure and simple.”

Democrats insist that Horcher’s successful recall and the attempt against Machado amount to an abuse of the process, that recalls should only be used when a politician is openly corrupt. But now that Democrats have lost the Horcher recall, and face a second one, they are thinking about veering off that high road.

“We began with the position that we would oppose the use of the recall because it was an abuse of the process and a waste of taxpayer dollars,” state Democratic Party Chairman Bill Press said. “I still believe it is the righteous position, but I will admit that since last Tuesday, that position is up for re-examination. Maybe the unrighteous way is the winning way.”

Despite Democrats’ assertions that recalls should be reserved for malfeasance, the state constitutional provision permitting recalls sets virtually no limits. Recall organizers do not need to cite a reason.

Indeed, state Sen. Grant’s “offense” 81 years ago was quaint by today’s standards. Grant, a crusader against vice, represented San Francisco’s bawdy Barbary Coast. It was bad enough when he introduced legislation restricting the sale of liquor. But when he pushed for a Red Light Abatement Act, a cigar shop owner had his fill and began the recall drive. San Francisco voters then--perhaps still--rather enjoyed their red-light district and turned Grant out by a 531-vote margin.

In California, the concept of recalls dates back to 1903, when reform-minded John R. Haines pushed a provision permitting recalls into the Los Angeles city charter, and convinced Hiram Johnson that recalls should be a part of his Progressive agenda.

With Johnson as a champion, voters added recalls to the state Constitution in 1911, along with the right to initiatives and referendums. The intended targets were political bosses and political parties, which at the time were controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad.

“The key premise was distrust of party machinery,” said California state librarian and historian Kevin Starr. “Prior to the Progressive movement, party machines . . . selected and elected the vast majority of elected officials. Recall was a dramatic way of letting voters make an end-run around a machine candidate. It was not intended to be used frequently.”

Now, however, critics of the Horcher and Machado recalls say that parties and powers such as Hurtt are on the verge of taking control of the recall, much as wealthy special interests and political parties have come to dominate the initiative process.

“I don’t believe recall was intended to be used by politicians against politicians,” said Jerry Briscoe, a retired political scientist from the University of Pacific who has studied recalls. “It was intended to be used by popular movements against politicians. I don’t believe that it was intended that there would be professional signature gatherers.”

The California Republican Party spent at least $187,414 on the Horcher recall, the latest campaign finance reports show. Assembly Republican Leader Jim Brulte spent another $108,000, and Republican Gov. Pete Wilson also invested heavily. Much of that money went to sophisticated direct mail and a paid signature-gathering effort to place the Horcher recall on the ballot.

In Horcher’s defense, Brown and Democratic loyalists, including organized labor and trial attorneys, spent $812,000. In all, the cost of the election will be about $2.5 million. Brown, the ultimate target of the recalls, decried them as a waste of taxpayers’ money--roughly $300,000 in local special election costs.

“You’re doing it for your own narrow political purposes,” Brown said. “You’re not doing it because somebody has become corrupt. . . . You’re doing it because they’re not doing what you would want them to do if you were running the German army. That’s a terrible reason.”

Recalls long have been a part of local politics. But the rekindled interest in recalling state officials dates back only a year, to the attempted recall of then-Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti, a Democrat from Van Nuys.

Organized gun owners targeted Roberti for his strong advocacy of gun control laws. Although the recall failed, Roberti was forced to spend upward of $650,000. Recall proponents garnered 41% of the vote and severely weakened Roberti, who went down to defeat in his next contest, the Democratic primary for state treasurer in June.

GOP strategist Michael Schroeder took a particular interest in the Roberti recall outcome. As vice chairman of the state Republican Party, Schroeder is looking for ways that the GOP can take control of the Legislature.

“It clearly demonstrated the electorate is a lot more volatile now,” said Schroeder, a 39-year-old Orange County attorney.

Then came last November’s general election, when Republicans captured 41 seats in the 80-member Assembly, a majority for the first time in two decades. Republicans would have elected their own Assembly Speaker except that, when the new Assembly convened in December, Horcher renounced the GOP and cast his vote for Brown. Within hours, Schroeder had started the recall process against Horcher.

Voters in Horcher’s district opted to recall him by a 62.5% to 37.5% margin, a landslide that recall backers say justifies the effort. He was replaced by Republican Gary Miller, a Diamond Bar city councilman.

“If that decision [to mount a recall] had been made 20 years ago, I don’t think it would have worked. Now, voters have become more frustrated,” Schroeder said.

With Horcher gone, Republicans hold 39 seats to the Democrats’ 39. There are two vacancies.

The GOP is almost certain to win a 40th seat in a special election June 6 to fill a vacancy left when Arcadia Republican Richard Mountjoy moved to the state Senate. As soon as that occurs, the Republicans will attempt to oust Brown as Speaker. The GOP is likely to gain a 41st seat in September, when another special election is set to fill a seat left vacant when Ross Johnson (R-Fullerton) moved to the state Senate.

As he embarked on the Horcher recall in December, Schroeder publicly vowed to recall five or more Democrats, all of whom ran as moderates and distanced themselves from Brown during their campaigns but ended up voting for him as Speaker.

For now, Machado is the only Democrat who appears to face a serious challenge. A loss by the Democrats of Machado’s seat would ensure GOP control of the Assembly.

Machado, a peach farmer, never said outright in his campaign that he would vote against Brown for Speaker, but rather ran as a moderate who would not blindly follow the liberal San Franciscan.

“I said I would vote the best interests of my district,” Machado said.

But it turns out that the targeting of Machado is not simply aimed at removing him from the Assembly. It is also tied to Sen. Hurtt’s goal of taking control of the Senate.

Although the state Republican Party has not openly spent money on the Machado recall, the Allied Business PAC and Hurtt, who are major forces in the GOP, have donated a combined $30,000.

Joining the recall effort is Assemblyman Larry Bowler, a Republican from the district just north of Machado’s and a potential rival to Machado for a future state Senate seat.

Bowler won election in 1992 by proclaiming he would be Willie Brown’s worst nightmare, and since then Bowler has likened Brown to a criminal. Bowler contends he is pushing the recall because Machado “lied” to voters by implying he would not vote for Brown as Speaker.

“Treason against your people in the real world is grounds for execution. Treason in the political world is grounds for political execution,” Bowler said.

If the recall succeeds and Machado is replaced by a Republican, he would be removed as a political threat, and Bowler--Hurtt’s candidate--would have a better chance of winning the Senate race next year.

“This is a new era,’ Hurtt said, explaining why he’s pushing the recall. “We’re going to be doing lots of things that weren’t done in the past. They should have been done in the past. We’re not willing to settle for the status quo.”