Vote NO on the Recall
If you live in Santa Cruz, you’re familiar with the recall election coming up on March 3rd for two city council members. There are four recall related questions on the ballot. One is a Yes/No vote on whether to recall Drew Glover. The next question is for his replacement. Another question is a Yes/No vote on whether to recall Chris Krohn, and the final recall related question is for Krohn’s replacement.
I emphatically encourage everyone to VOTE NO on the two recalls and to vote for Fitzmaurice and Beiers as the replacements. As far as the recall votes go, please VOTE NO, regardless of whether or not you agree with Krohn’s and Glover’s policies and/or if you think they have behaved poorly. This recall election is about more than just Krohn and Glover. It’s about how we want out democracy to function.
The California Recall Law is Broken
As I’ve participated in discussions and watched the recall proceed over the past year, one thing that surprised me was that many of the most vocal proponents hadn’t bothered to read the Recall Law and didn’t bother to learn how it works. Chapter 4 is the one about how the election works. One point in that chapter states that the recall election should be done in the substantially same manner as the general election. While that point is procedural, the concept can be extended to the entire election. In the case of a City Council election, the recall election is substantially different than the election in which the council was elected. Specifically, council members are elected by a plurality of votes, but they can be recalled with a simple majority. On the surface, that might seem like it adds a barrier to recalling an official, but that is decidedly not the case.
To understand this, it’s useful to take a look at the 2018 election. In that election, Justin Cummings received the most votes. Of the 31,017 people that voted, 12,516 voted for Justin Cummings. In other words, 60% of the people who voted in that election preferred someone else to the person who won the election. Donna Meyers, the second place finisher in that election, received 11,862 votes, meaning that 62% of the voters were against her. If either of those folks were to face a recall, they would be require to get 50.1% of the votes to remain in office.
It is fair or sensible to require 50.1% for a politician to remain in the office they won with 40% of the votes?
This defect in the law means that not a single sitting council member could survive a recall election. That, in turn, means that anybody with enough money can purchase the recall of a council member. All it takes is getting the question on the ballot, and all that takes is money.
Of course, the best fix to this issue would be to fix the recall law. For now, though, all we can do is to vote against any and all recalls, except in the most heinous cases, where real crimes have been committed. None of the accusations made by the recall proponents rise to that standard.
Maybe you don’t like the way Glover & Krohn voted on some issues; maybe you don’t agree with Glover’s behavior; maybe you like the replacement candidates better; maybe, in conflict with the available evidence, you don’t think this particular recall was purchased by monied interests; maybe you’re against rent stabilization; and maybe you have a 100 other reasons for voting for this recall. None of them matter. There’s only one question we’re voting on:
Should someone be able to purchase the removal of a city council person?
If think that money shouldn’t buy elections, VOTE NO on the recall.
Recalls Don’t Align with Representative Democracy
Even if the recall law wasn't flawed and recalls could be done in a fair manner, recall elections should be avoided. We want our representatives to have the freedom to make unpopular decisions. We want our representatives to plan for our future rather than focus on what is popular right now. We want our representatives to represent all constituents and not just their own supporters.
Recalls work against all of those things. They represent a constant threat to every decision and vote a representative makes. They encourage representatives to have less conviction and vote based on poll numbers, rather than what’s best for the future. These types of politicians are already too prevalent at the national and state level. Expanding the use of recalls will encourage more of these types of politicians at all levels, including local ones.
If you believe in representative democracy and you prefer authentic politicians with real conviction, then VOTE NO on the recall.
This Recall is About Suppression of Speech
The first reason the proponents of the recall state for each candidate have to do with the way the Krohn and Glover voted during the Ross Camp controversy. The Ross Camp closed. Krohn and Glover lost those votes. Think on that for a bit. The proponents want to recall elected officials because of the way they voted. Winning the issue wasn’t enough for the proponents. They demand a unanimous victory. Anybody with a differing viewpoint from their own must be recalled.
The second reason the proponents give for the two council members has to do with their efforts to help alleviate the homeless crisis in Santa Cruz. Those efforts didn’t actually come to fruition. Like the Ross Camp, it isn’t good enough that the RV sites and encampments weren’t implemented. According to the proponents, even speaking of these solutions warrants a recall. Again, the proponents only accept absolute agreement. Any different opinions must not be heard.
The third reason the proponents give for the recall sdiffers between the two candidates but they both, essentially, amount to suppressing speech. For Krohn, they claim he requested a closed meeting. They then claim he didn’t work productively with the proponents’ favored council members. They claim Glover behaved disrespectfully and had ‘bad temperament’. In other words, his speech doesn’t conform to their standards. As far as Glover goes, we’re kidding ourselves if we don’t accept that our implicit biases have some influence on how we perceive his speech and behavior.
If you believe in freedom of speech, then VOTE NO on the recall.
Wrap Up
The two council members didn’t commit crimes. They didn’t abuse the power of their office. They didn’t try to enrich themselves. All they did was take stances that the proponents of the recall disagreed with. Those stances might not have majority support within the community, but the council members didn’t advocate those positions for personal, vanity reasons or otherwise. They supported those positions because a significant percentage of the people of Santa Cruz also support those positions. A vote for the recall is a vote to silence (at least) 30% of the community. Please VOTE NO on the recall.
