 |
 -0 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
|
August 04, 2003 Page 2 because we'd never have elections." The governor's second argument stems from the unusual format for the election. Davis can only survive the recall by mustering majority support. Even if he is recalled, it's likely that more people will vote to retain him on the first question than vote for the winning successor on the second. Of 18 states with provisions to recall state officials, 12 let voters pick the replacement and only four, including California, prohibit the recall target from being considered, according to Davis' legal team. The others are Colorado, Michigan and Oregon. Amar, the Hastings law professor, rejects the idea that Davis should be on the ballot. The California Supreme Court has upheld term limits for state officials, he notes. "Term limits established that just because someone is popular and voters want him in the moment doesn't mean he has a right to run." Davis appears to be taking a political risk, said Barbara O'Connor, director of Sacramento State's Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media. The idea that he should be able to replace himself "makes absolutely no sense," she said. "Why would you vote to recall him and then be able to vote for him again? That's just counterintuitive and makes it look like he's gaming the system with a lawsuit." Larry Gerston, San Jose State political scientist, said Davis has little to lose. "I don't see this as something that will do him a lot of harm. He's already pretty battered."
|
|
|
