What Went Down At The California Recall Election: Live Results

There’s a very good chance that this helps Newsom rather than hurts him. Scott Walker certainly benefited from his recall effort — he went from being just another Midwestern governor to a serious presidential contender. And a victory may help the party win some congressional seats in 2022. This is a high-risk/high-reward moment for Newsom.

At the risk of saying the obvious, Sarah, I think the recall had (and still has, I suppose) the potential to damage Newsom politically if he just narrowly scrapes by. People know California is a blue state, and even a narrow win would raise questions about whether his governorship has been a failure and whether he is vulnerable for reelection next year. But if he wins by a lot, as the polls now suggest, he could emerge from the recall on a political high — now a national household name, and having just gotten a mandate from Californians for his policies on COVID-19 and more.

Do you all think, though, that the recall election has been successful at eating away at Newsom’s political standing — even if he isn’t ultimately recalled?

That is, in a state like California, where the GOP is in the minority, is this a good strategy for tarnishing their political opponents, and maybe something we’ll see more of in our era of resistance politics. By that I mean more impeachments, more primary challenges, more recalls, etc. Alex mentioned earlier the example of Texas Democrats walking out when the GOP-controlled state legislature tried to pass a restrictive voting bill. Alex also noted in her piece, though, that this is a strategy Republican legislators in Oregon have pursued to the extreme (walking out on almost every bill), which seems to carry some political risk of angering voters. How should we make sense of what the recall effort in California has given (or not given) California Republicans?

Adding on to what Amelia said, one of the complexities with the California recall is the replacement question. In California, all potential replacement candidates are listed on the same ballot, and the candidate with a plurality takes office if the recall passes. So even if an incumbent governor gets 49 percent of the vote on the recall question, they could theoretically be replaced with a candidate who gets 35 percent of the vote on the replacement question. Critics of the recall process say that this aspect is highly undemocratic.

I don’t think anyone would take the stance that recall elections, in theory, are a bad idea. It’s an important lever for the public to pull if needed. The problems in California have a lot more to do with the practical application of its recall laws than anything else. The fact that technically Newsom could get 49 percent of votes and lose to someone who got only 24 percent doesn’t feel particularly democratic, or within the spirit of what a recall is all about. Some scholars argue there shouldn’t be a replacement election at all — if a governor is recalled, he or she already has a built-in replacement: the lieutenant governor. But I suspect part of the problem is the average voter doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about recall protocols until there’s a recall election actually happening.

To your first point, Amelia, we saw the political minority do something similar in Texas earlier this year when Democrats walked out of the state legislature to fight a restrictive voting bill. I don’t think it’s fair to say these types of power checks are happening at an increased rate, though. What matters is that Texas Democrats, like California Republicans, are ultimately in the minority (and therefore at a disadvantage).

In my experience, politicians are almost always focused on the next election — whether it’s in two days or two years — and incorporate potential electoral consequences into their decision making. So does an extra election make them any more responsive? In general, I’m skeptical. But recalls do often focus on one specific issue (e.g., gas tax in California, gun control in Colorado), whereas general elections deal with a whole basket of issues. So they might well make office-holders more responsive on specific issues where there’s a vocal and organized minority or an issue that cuts across ideological lines in a way that wouldn’t be expressed in a general election.

But, as Joshua points out, recalls are relatively rare in the grander political scheme (and obviously are nonexistent at the federal level). And Americans tend to dislike electoral politics, so while they may like the idea of having recall power in the abstract, the reality of having additional elections at random times and for random reasons may not be so appealing.

The popularity of recall elections is a little funny to me, Joshua, given how politically disengaged Americans are. Everyone loves the idea of being able to fire the guy in charge! And I guess nobody realizes how complicated and unintuitive the process is until we’re in the thick of it.

Recalls have never met the aspirations of their creators, nor have they confirmed the fears of their detractors. They are used too infrequently to have that much of an impact on elected officials, and, even when successful, there can be a boomerang effect on the users. Compared to the initiative, its direct democracy sibling, the recall just hasn’t mattered as much. That said, voters very much approve of the idea. When it is put up to a vote, there is frequently overwhelming support for the adoption of a recall provision (the last state to adopt it — Minnesota in 1996 — voted 88 percent in favor).

In theory, recall elections are a pretty straightforward populist check on power. But what we’re seeing in California is a clear example of why they’re more complicated in practice. You could make the argument that what’s happening with Newsom now isn’t really what a recall is for. (After all, the guy only has a year left in his term — if you want to vote the bum out, why not wait until 2022?) Additionally, low voter engagement means that a motivated minority can get surprisingly far under the right conditions.

You could also make the argument, though, that in an overwhelmingly Democratic state like California, recall efforts are a reminder to the government that the political minority is there — and that they can flex their muscle when they want to, perhaps inflicting some damage on an incumbent even if they don’t successfully remove him.

Last week, FiveThirtyEight’s Maya Sweedler and Jasmine Mithani tackled just how common recall elections are in California compared to other states. (Hint: They’re very common.) And we’ll talk more about why that is on the live blog, but one question I have right now for you all is: Are recall elections an effective check on power? That is, setting aside just how common they are in California (and whether that’s a good thing), what is the role of recall elections in a democracy? And building on that, is it fair to say that these types of fights over democracy are increasingly playing out via these kinds of drastic measures?

In what is perhaps a chilling preview of the new normal for U.S. elections, we’re seeing baseless claims of election fraud in the California gubernatorial recall vote, similar to the conspiracy theories that plagued the 2020 presidential election. Right-wing conspiracy theory groups on chat apps like Telegram have been circulating disinformation for weeks, falsely claiming there’s evidence that the recall election has been rigged. But just like in 2020, their “evidence” crumbles under scrutiny.

When a man was found passed out in his car in Torrance with more than 300 unmarked, unopened mail-in ballots, election fraud theorists claimed it was proof of a large-scale attack at hand. In reality, police have clarified that the ballots were among a large amount of stolen mail the man had in his possession, along with drugs, a firearm and a stack of California driver’s licenses and credit cards in other people’s names. Similarly, concerns raised about small holes in the envelopes of some mail-in ballots in the state have led to viral video claims that this design will allow for fraud. In fact, the design has been used for years and is to allow for blind or visually impaired voters to know where to sign their ballot — and there are multiple ways to place one’s ballot in the envelope that don’t allow any voting marks to be seen through the holes.

The truth, of course, is beside the point for those seeing malfeasance (or claiming to see malfeasance) where there is none. As with the 2020 election, it hasn’t stopped claims of election fraud from continuing to circulate, including from former President Donald Trump, who said on Newsmax that the election is “probably rigged,” and from Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren, who said “the only thing that will save Gavin Newsom is voter fraud.” Or, you know, the millions of Democrats who outnumber Republicans in the state. But that’s not nearly as exciting.

We’re one day away from California’s recall gubernatorial election — although voters have already been busy mailing in their ballots in advance of this mostly mail election.

And going into Tuesday’s affair, FiveThirtyEight’s polling average of the first question on the recall ballot — whether to remove Gov. Gavin Newsom from office — shows that 40.8 percent of Californians want to recall Newsom, while 57.5 percent want to keep him in office.

This is a far cry from where the race stood in August when the race was much tighter, but as my colleagues Geoffrey Skelley and Nathaniel Rakich wrote earlier today in their preview of the race, this doesn’t mean that Newsom couldn’t still face an upset. And if he does, it seems as if Republican Larry Elder, a conservative radio talk-show host who has faced allegations of sexual harassment and a charge from his ex-fiancee that he brandished a gun at her during an argument, could win with just 28 percent of the vote — the lowest vote share of any elected governor in modern times.

It’s notoriously easy to get a recall election on the ballot in California, and as we’ll discuss on this live blog both today and tomorrow as we await results, there are a number of reasons why Newsom ended up in this unenviable position — not just his handling of COVID-19, but also issues like housing inequality and the state’s problems with wildfires.

As always, thanks for following along, and if you have any questions, ping us @538politics and I’ll try to get your question answered on the live blog. We’ll be live blogging today until 6 p.m. Eastern, and then we’ll be back tomorrow as we await results.