Article II, section 13, of the California State constitution states that:

Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.

In 2003, largely due to an electricity crisis that sent utility bills soaring, California recalled its then-governor, Gray Davis. One of two states ever to have used the power of gubernatorial recall effectively, California is again in the midst of a move to fire its governor, Gavin Newsom. While a California governor may also be impeached, impeachment is carried out by the Legislature and occurs for “misconduct in office.” Recall is done by plebiscite and requires no evidence of wrongdoing.

The recall procedure laid out in the state’s Constitution unfolds in several well-defined stages. The process is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to file signed petitions. A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county.

The number of signatures required for the Newsom recall petition is 1,495,709, a goal that was reached last week, although the recall effort means to gather 1.8 million signatures, fully expecting the Democratic Secretary of State’s office to throw out as many signatures as it legally can.

When the recall effort was launched last June (the 160-day window for gathering signatures was extended by a judge due to the difficulties of circulating petitions during the pandemic), the reasons for the recall spelled out in the petition didn’t even mention COVID-19:

Governor Newsom has implemented laws which are detrimental to the citizens of this state and our way of life. Laws he endorsed favor foreign nationals, in our country illegally, over that of our own citizens. People in this state suffer the highest taxes in the nation, the highest homelessness rates, and the lowest quality of life as a result. He has imposed sanctuary state status and fails to enforce immigration laws. He unilaterally over-ruled the will of the people regarding the death penalty…

The irony is that the 1.5 million signatures gathered thus far probably have more to do with Newsom’s response to the pandemic, which has come in for criticism from both sides of the political divide. Most damningly, Newsom was caught on camera without a mask dining at the French Laundry in Napa, despite his mask mandates and bans on indoor dining. That gaffe cost him enormous political capital. The COVID-19-related grievances extend further to Newsom’s draconian lockdowns, perceived mismanagement of the vaccine rollout and inability to get children back into public schools.

Newsom clearly didn’t take the petition seriously. The printed response to its allegations reads as follows (capitals in the original):

WARNING: THIS UNWARRANTED RECALL EFFORT WILL COST CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS 81 MILLION DOLLARS! IT IS BEING PUSHED BY POLITICAL EXTREMISTS SUPPORTING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S HATEFUL ATTACKS ON CALIFORNIA. In 2018 California voters elected Governor Gavin Newsom by historic margins…Our budget is balanced. Our fiscal reserves are unprecedented. Our economy and employment are historically strong. Yet a handful of partisan activists supporting President Trump and his dangerous agenda to divide America are trying to overturn the definitive will of California voters and bring Washington’s broken government to California with this recall effort.

Of course, that response was written before the petition gathered over a million and a half signatures; in hindsight, a more considered response might have been provided.

The recall effort has raised over $2 million, $500,000 of that from an all-but-unknown Orange County businessman named John Kruger through a limited liability company, Prov 3:9, with no history of political contributions. A spokesman for Kruger was quoted last month as saying:

Prov 3:9’s mission is faith-based…Mr. Kruger believe that the Governor’s executive actions prohibiting religious assembly and worship violated the constitutional rights of Californians to congregate and worship.

Newsom’s ban on indoor worship services was another of his highly unpopular COVID-19 measures. Objections to the ban reached the Supreme Court last week, where it was found to have violated the people’s right to free exercise of religion.

Following the petition stage of the recall procedure and certification of the signatures, Article II, section 15, of the state Constitution prescribes that an election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called…and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

The recall election calls upon California voters to vote on two separate questions simultaneously: (a) do they wish to recall the governor?; and (b) if the vote carries to recall him, whom would they like to see as governor in his place?

One of the oddities of the recall procedure is that the job of successor is open to anyone. During the Gray Davis recall, 135 names were on the ballot, including such improbable candidates as actors Gary Coleman and the eventual winner, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Although President Biden has spoken out in support of the Governor, Newsom is on the proverbial ropes, with a recent poll showing an approval rating of 46% and 36% of voters polled saying they would vote for the recall. As for who might step into the remaining year of Newsom’s term (he will be up for reelection in 2022), two leading names are John Cox, a Republican businessman who ran against Newsom in 2018, and Kevin Faulconer, the Republican former mayor of San Diego. Whether a Democrat will run to replace Newsom is, for the moment, unsure. What is sure is that thanks to COVID, a partisan recall effort may very well end up netting California a new governor.