Voter Revolt -- It’s a California Thing

We’ve been here before, even though this has been a campaign unlike any other.

From time to time, California erupts with a spasm of anger, a voter revolt that shudders the landscape like the inevitable, if unpredictable, earthquakes that are part of life on the continent’s edge.

The effort to oust Gov. Gray Davis, less than a year after he won a second term, is part of a continuum that reaches back to Ronald Reagan’s first election in 1966, amid the upheaval of the civil rights movement and campus unrest over Vietnam.

Antecedents include the revolutionary tax-slashing Prop- osition 13, the bench-clearing recall of state Supreme Court Justice Rose Bird and her liberal allies, the imposition of term limits and other moves over the last decade to straitjacket Sacramento and give voters a larger say over the day-to-day actions of their representatives.

Whatever happens on Tuesday -- and suddenly that seems less certain -- there is no doubting the underlying message: People are fed up.

“It’s been painful and embarrassing, but necessary,” said Kevin Starr, the state librarian and a professor of California history at USC.

Whether the recall race proves beneficial is unclear. “If it results in reform, it’s been healthy,” he said. “If it results in continued impasse, it’s been a waste of time.”

This revolt has not been a particularly long time coming. As recently as three years ago, the state was flush with the fruits of the dot-com surge, and Davis, if not particularly beloved, was at least a passably popular governor. The Democrat and career politician won his first term in 1998 in a landslide, on a fairly simple platform: Fix the schools, and don’t mess up anything else.

When times were good, that was enough. When they were bad -- and things turned bad very quickly -- he was found wanting in many ways. He alienated fellow lawmakers with his imperious attitude. Voters felt estranged by Davis’ cold persona and a streak of ambition that was off-putting even in a political lifer. (Even before Davis was sworn to his first term as governor, he began dunning donors for his reelection.) When electricity rates soared, the economy tanked and a yawning budget gap opened, he appeared to dither. To his great detriment, there was no reservoir of goodwill from which Davis could draw.

He won reelection in November, but that was more a testament to the weakness of his opponent, the stumbling Bill Simon Jr., than any positive affirmation. The third-party vote hit a record high. Turnout was a record low, which made it easier to force the recall, since the number of signatures required for a recall is a small percentage of votes cast in the previous election.

In California, the law allows for do-overs; the Progressive movement, led by Gov. Hiram Johnson, saw to that. The tools of recall, referendum and initiative were adopted as a populist check on the powerful. And Californians have gladly wielded them for almost a century, as both a prod and a bludgeon.

Unhappy with the outcome in November, voters helped themselves to “a second bite at the apple,” as Tony Quinn, a nonpartisan Sacramento campaign analyst, put it: “People want to punish Davis. They want to make him grovel.”

That they have done. Though Davis has never apologized for disappointing voters, he has clearly been humbled by the threat to end his career, promising to change if allowed to finish his term.

Firing him would be a remarkable step, a notion that has been lost in the hurly-burly of the headlong campaign. California has never recalled a governor. In the history of the United States, it has happened only once, in 1921 in South Dakota. The mere prospect has been captivating.

“This really woke up the California electorate, engaging people in a way politics has not engaged our people for a large number of years,” said David Provost, a Fresno State political scientist and author of a college textbook on California politics.

Voters hurried out to register. More than 3 million Californians tuned in to watch the full complement of major candidates debate, registering a higher audience statewide than even the presidential hopefuls got in 2000. Close to 100% of likely voters sampled by the Los Angeles Times Poll said they were following the recall election very or at least somewhat closely, a remarkable level of interest even among those one would expect to be clued in.

Whether the sudden burst of civic-mindedness will continue is an open question. If Arnold Schwarzenegger overcomes reports of sexual misconduct and wins the governorship, many believe that the lights, cameras and action will follow him to Sacramento. If not, “interest will die down back to the usual level,” Provost predicted.

The implications beyond state borders are equally uncertain. One of the great conceits of California is the state’s role as trendsetter for the nation, in everything from lifestyle and the workplace to political fashion.

Johnson, Earl Warren, Richard M. Nixon and, of course, Reagan, all rose to national prominence, the latter fueled by the anti-tax sentiments kindled by Proposition 13.

Many doubt Gov. Schwarzenegger -- a liberal by national Republican standards -- would travel as well outside his adopted home state. But the notion of firing an unpopular incumbent without waiting until the next election might catch on at a time when convention is fighting a strong anti-establishment tide.

“We are in a disquieting period in American history,” said Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State, “a period when people feel less connected than ever with those the few of them elected. A period in which government is not trusted, and people feel they’re not getting their money’s worth.”

The result, he suggested, could be recall movements in others among the 18 states that allow it. The message that roars out to be heard -- an almost desperate wish for change -- can hardly seem encouraging to incumbents, including the one in the White House.

Whether Tuesday’s vote actually produces change in California depends on the outcome, of course, but also on the message that Sacramento lawmakers take away. With the public mood as sour as it is, repeated polls suggest that lawmakers have been lucky they, too, cannot be recalled en masse.

“Republicans can’t just sit around and say, ‘No new taxes’ and provoke gridlock,” said historian Starr. “And Democrats can’t sit around and say, ‘Spend, spend, spend’ and promote the same gridlock.”

Otherwise, Starr went on, “this could actually be just the first in a repetitive cycle of recalls and voter vigilantism.”

Breaking that impasse will be a huge challenge, for Schwarzenegger or any other candidate who replaces the unpopular incumbent should the recall pass.

If Davis stays put, humbled or no, it is likely the anger will build. “It will have to be channeled somewhere,” analyst Quinn observed.

So California will wait for the next earthquake.