The Prospects of Reform of the Recall Election process

Yesterday I participated in a very interesting forum on recall reform, sponsored by California Assemblymember Mark Ridley-Thomas. There was widespread consensus on the panel (which also included attorney general Bill Lockyer, attorney Karen Getman (former chair of California's FPPC and a lawyer who worked on Gov. Davis's challenges to various recall laws filed in the California Supreme Court), and Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy). But consensus on the panel doesn't translate into consensus in California about the need for recall reform. The panel did not include a single person who favored the recall.

Ridley-Thomas's proposed legislation (much of which would have to go into a proposed constitutional amendment voted on by the people) is ambitious. Among many other provisions, it would double signature thresholds for qualifying an initiative for the ballot. (I made similar proposals and others here back in August.)

At the forum, I urged Ridley-Thomas to split his proposal into two bills. The first would clean up some of the obvious inconsistencies and gaps in the law (e.g., what nomination rules apply to replacement candidates), and the second would include his wish list of proposed reforms. My guess is that he could build widespread consensus for the clean up legislation (and much of it could be done without constitutional amendment, because it involves only statutory changes). I predict significant opposition to more substantive changes. Some people think that the recall process worked fine last time (putting aside the two dozen lawsuits---many of which revolved around issues that would go away with clean-up legislation), and recall reform, in their view, arguably calls into question the results of the last election. This sentiment is expressed in two news stories on the proposed legislation, here at the Sacramento Bee and here in the New York Times.

The clean-up legislation is absolutely necessary to prevent confusion and unnecessary litigaion next time. We should not lose sight of this as the top priority for recall reform in California.

Symposium on North American Election Law at American University (Washington D.C.)

Readers may be interested in the following conference information:

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND ELECTION MANAGEMENT
CENTER FOR NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES
WITH
ELECTION LAW JOURNAL AND
ELECTIONS CANADA, ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF MEXICO,
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT’S
MEXICO ELECTIONS PROJECT,
AND UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
CO-SPONSOR

DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS IN NORTH AMERICA:
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM OUR NEIGHBORS?

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15
Butler Boardroom, American University main campus

THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS 9:00-10:30 am

Chair: Robert Pastor, American University
Canada: Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Elections Officer, Canada
Mexico: Jacqueline Peschard Mariscal, Federal Election Institute, Mexico (IFE)
U.S.: Leonard Shambon, Counsel,Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering; legal advisor to the Carter-Ford Commission on Election Reform

Commentators: E. J. Dionne, Washington Post
Richard Smolka, Professor Emeritus, American University and Editor of Election Administration Report

Break 10:30-11:00 am

CAMPAIGN FINANCING 11:00-12:30 am

Chair: Juan Williams, National Public Radio
Canada: Lisa Young, University of Calgary
Mexico: Jesus Orozco, Judge, Federal Electoral Tribunal of Mexico
U.S.: Donald Simon, Of Counsel, Common Cause

Commentators: Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Legal Counsel, Elections Canada

Lunch 12:30-1:45 pm

PROCEDURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 2:00-3:30 pm
A Roundtable

Chair: Fernando Ojesto Martinez, President, Federal Electoral Tribunal of Mexico

1. What the U.S. Can Learn from Canada on Re-districting
John Courtney, University of Saskatchewan

2. What Mexico (and others) Would Gain from Instant Runoff Voting
Robert Richie, Executive Director, Center for Voting and Democracy

3. What Mexico Can Learn from the U.S. on Conducting Party Elections
Steve Wuhs, University of Redlands

4. What the U.S. Can Learn from Mexico on Registration and Identification of Voters
George Grayson, College of William and Mary

5. Re-Defining Electoral Democracy: What Everyone Can Learn
Keith Archer, University of Calgary

5. Memoranda on Constitutional and Procedural Issues:
a. “The Right to Vote in the U.S.,” Jamin Raskin, American University Washington College of Law
b. “Re-Electing Congress in Mexico,” Jeffrey Weldon, ITAM, Mexico
c. “Enforcing Campaign Finance Laws in Canada,” Diane Davidson, Elections Canada
d. “Resolving Electoral Disputes in Mexico,” Todd Eisenstadt, American University

Commentators: James Thurber, Director, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University
Richard Berke, New York Times

Break 3:30-4:00 pm

LEARNING FROM EACH OTHER 4:00-5:30 pm

Chair: Benjamin Ladner, President, American University
Canada: Joe Clark, former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister, Canada
Mexico: Jesus Silva-Herzog, Mexico’s former Ambassador to the US and former Finance Minister
U.S.: Robert A. Pastor, Vice President, American University

Commentator: Richard L. Hasen, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and Co-Editor of Election Law Journal

And in recall litigation news from Wisconsin [!]

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org