Rules governing recall election need to be changed

There is little doubt that the constitutional framers of the United States would find the recall spectacle now playing out in California beyond the pale.

California's initiative and the referendum procedure — in which the electorate as a whole votes on legislation — are better known, but the recall was an important part of "direct democracy" reforms adopted by several states late in the 19th century and early in the 20th century. Special interests were seen as dominating legislatures and popular democracy was advanced as a way for the people to take back their government. There is plenty of room for debate about whether a dose of direct democracy adds or detracts from the system as a whole, but there's nothing redeeming to be found in a recall election in which voters will likely have to choose from the 135 certified candidates vying to succeed a recalled Gov. Gray Davis.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution deliberately interposed small groups of decisionmakers between the electorate and governmental policies. That is, of course, what legislatures are, and our national legislature was split into two in part to further slow decisionmaking. Until ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote. Even the president was — and is — legally chosen by an intermediate group: the Electoral College. The idea was to cool the passions that could too easily sway popular decisionmaking.

There is another virtue of decisionmaking in smaller bodies. Compromise is essential for a diverse community, but not possible for a mass electorate. Thus, budgetary problems are bad enough with legislative temptations to spend but not tax. When decisions are made by a mass electorate, however, these problems are greatly exacerbated. The electorate as a whole has the same temptations, but no ability to bargain to a compromise of spending priorities.

The California recall that is in prospect suffers from these problems and more. Elected officials will be hard pressed to deliberate about the public good if they face the prospect of a popular campaign to oust them if they misstep. The process might nonetheless be tolerable, even healthy, if recall were quite difficult.

In California's case, however, it's been carried off rather easily with paid petition gatherers. No doubt the unpopularity of the governor aided the process, but the California recall procedure needs to be made more difficult.