Everything you wanted to know (and then some) about California's Recall Election
And also how it exposes the Meta-problems with California
Broken Process Strikes Again
If you haven’t heard, Californias are voting in yet another election, one that centers on whether to keep our current governor (Gavin Newsom) in his office next month. While a big deal for California politics, the election has primarily been under-covered and under-discussed, partially because it is being swamped by general news about COVID and school reopenings. I suspect that people’s vacations and travel plans have taken priority over news consumption this summer. After all, we have primarily left our basements. Politics is taking up a lesser role in most people’s minds in a post-Trump presidency world.
Now I broadly think this is healthy: I believe the amount of head-space devoted to politics in 2020 was unhealthy and left people in a constant state of stress. So I am glad we can return to a world where ordinary people can breathe and go on with their lives a bit. That said, California is maybe more than every other state in the US, a state that believes that decisions should take input from regular voters: as close readers of this blog know, most major election cycles, I create google documents with 30+ pages of notes to try to reason through all the races and questions before the voting public (sadly, to date no graduate school has been willing to give me credit equivalency for that research, but maybe someday they will).
To take a step back from the recall’s specifics: I think California’s approach to direct democracy is essentially bad for our state. Compared to other US states, we are an extreme outlier in how many decisions we put on the shoulders of voters. Ordinary people who do not have the time to make complex political decisions. There is a reason the American system exists in the tension between a democracy (where power is vested in the voting public) and a republic (where power is vested in elected representatives). If you go too far in either direction in this tension, you start to have problems. In California’s case, I believe many of our problems stem from the naive belief that more democratic decision-making always leads to better outcomes. You see this across the board. Our State-wide ballot measure process has gotten out of control, with issues on the ballot far too complex for ordinary people to research and understand fully. Our local governments put trust into a community input and review process dominated disproportionately by well-off, well-educated voters. These broken processes are not harmful because they privilege one side or the other; they are bad for all parties and voters in the long run because they make it harder to do innovative reform.
Jumping back to the issue at hand, it is also pretty clear the recall system in California is also suffering from this same problem. This recall election only came after five previous attempts to recall Gavin Newsom failed. The recall is not something happening in isolation; in June, the LA Times found that 68 local officials were under pressure from a recall effort, more recalls than had been mounted in the last four years combined. LA County’s new District attorney, George Gascon, faces a recall effort, one of LA City’s new Couilmembers (Nithya Raman). It is not surprising these very progressive politicians (who won on narrow majorities) have gotten pushback. Still, it is surprising that they have when neither has been in office for an entire year yet.
I don’t think the current recall system effectively creates the democratic accountability it seeks to create. California allows a recall election to take place if 12% of voters from the last election (in this case, 12% of the 12.4 million people who voted for governor in 2018) sign a petition asking for a recall election. So a very small sub-section of California residents are driving this recall effort. It is almost certainly the case that the vast majority of Californians have only given a cursory amount of thought to the upcoming vote. After all, the recall election is not happening on a normal electoral cycle or at a regular election date (November). So it is likely that only a fraction of eligible voters will decide the outcome.
So for the same reason that I tend to vote “no” by default on ballot measures, my default is to vote “no” on recalls. I think it is essential to start with a healthy dose of skepticism toward the excesses of California’s system.
That said, I do think it is counterproductive to call the recall effort “stupid” or “illegitimate” or “driven by dark money,” as many on the left have done in recent months. It is easier to file recall petitions now because, in response to COVID, California has done many things to make it easier to participate in politics. These reforms include making vote by mail more straightforward, making public meetings more accessible, and making recall petitions easier to pursue. I believe in increasing the ease of political participation where our system’s design is to have popular input (like voting or writing elected representatives). But one should do this prepared for the increased participation, including people whose views you do not like! I was surprised when looking at a recent Emmerson poll that found that the majority (54 to 39%) of non-college-educated voters favored the recall, as did the majority of Hispanic voters (51 to 40%). The same poll found that 23% of registered democrats wanted to recall Newsom, as did 54% (vs. 34%) of Independents. I found this exciting but found almost no reporting on the nuances here. Is there no curiosity on the left as to why this is?
I cannot help but see echoes of what I wrote back in April in the wake of the Amazon Unionization effort:
This tendency is a common trope in left-discourse: outcomes that go against progressive aspirations can be blamed on disinformation, corporate meddling, or voters deceived into voting against their interests. Whether it's a failed union drive or the election of Donald Trump, the agents are never those who vote but those who influence their vote. I worry this tendency undermines democracy: just like it is harmful to cast doubt on an election process as fraudulent because you did not like the outcome, it is also detrimental to believe that voters are deceived or incapable of voting in their interest. Both beliefs create a kind of postmodern unfalsifiable feedback loop, where disagreement with your politics is attributed to “false consciousness” rather than genuinely held views, which makes you less motivated to do the hard work of persuasion in the wake of defeat.
Neither side of the political aisle has any scruples about taking advantage of CA’s flawed process to achieve outcomes they want to see. For example, last fall, LA county put a measure on the ballot to divert county funds into alternatives to incarceration. Most of the left supported that measure because it advanced progressive policy, even though many recognized that setting budgets via ballot measure is almost certainly a flawed process. I wrestled with this dilemma of process vs. outcome on this blog:
I also think it's lousy governance to force elected officials to allocate their budgets in specific ways. For instance, I worry that some of the programs funded will show better results than others, and that measure J will make it hard for future budgets to allocate funds appropriately based on results. Ideally, the BOS would have allocated funds through the budget or a bond to pay for these alternative programs over some time, then let them get continuing funding once we get the data on their effectiveness.
Now I ultimately voted yes on measure J because I thought the benefits outweighed the costs:
Ultimately, I think the potential positives of measure J, especially the potential for finding successful alternatives to incarceration, outweigh the governance concerns.
All of which to say: I think it is essential to carefully think through your hypocrisy before dismissing what other people think are legitimate grievances. None of us are consistent regarding what questions should be determined by fixed moral rules and what questions should be determined by more pragmatic considerations. Thus, I think it is worth taking the core question at the heart of the recall effort: are we better off with a different governor?
What is Actually on the Ballot? How should I vote?
The ballot for the recall election splits the vote into two different questions on a ballot:
Should Gavin Newsom be removed as governor? (Which I will hereafter call REMOVAL Question)
Who is the best choice to replace Gavin Newsom? (Which I will hereafter call REPLACEMENT Question)
Now the way this works is that the second question ONLY matters if the removal question comes back with the majority of voters saying, “Yes, Newsom should be removed.” If more voters say that he should stay in office, the result of the replacement is meaningless. However, if more voters believe that Newsom should be removed (the removal question), the replacement question becomes SUPER IMPORTANT. So if voters vote to remove Newsom, whoever has the most votes on the replacement question, becomes governor, even if they only got 10-15% of total voters.
Two quirks that are worth explaining:
All voters get a voice on the replacement question, regardless of voting on the removal question. However, there is confusion on the matter because the Pro-Newsom campaign is encouraging people to leave the Replacement question blank:
While this is an easy messaging strategy for democrats, this is a lousy strategy for voters. It is perfectly valid for “NO” voters to also pick the candidate they think would be the best alternative to Newsom on the Replacement Question.
Suppose voters remove Newsom on the removal question. In that case, you cannot write in GAVIN NEWSOM’s name in the REPLACEMENT question (as some frustrated Democrats have indicated they would do). So the way the rules work, Newsom is legally barred from being included as a write-in candidate on the REPLACEMENT question.
As a voter, I would give two words of advice on how these mechanics provide a pretty clear mental model for how you should approach this race strategically:
Vote on the removal question not as an abstract question (do I like Newsom?) but as a practical question (Will Newsom be better than his most likely successor?).
Even if you think Newsom should stay in office, it is imperative to take the time to try to figure out who is the most acceptable alternative for the replacement question. I would strongly advise against leaving the replacement question blank.
Wait to vote and pick a replacement until closer to the actual election date (September 14th) to see how the race shakes out.
I give this advice partially because polling shows that in July/August, the race has narrowed considerably:
There is reason to be skeptical of this polling. While right-of-center voters may be more excited about the recall, there is a strong chance the Democratic majority in the state will end up coming around to Newsom. California, after all, just voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump by 30 points. Moreover, prediction markets as of today (8/16) have Newsom has a 74% chance of staying in office, which my gut tells me is not too far off from reality:
That said, I would not be surprised one bit if the recall was successful. There are some strong 2016 Presidential election vibes, where Democrats are almost certainly a little too confident that their flawed and unpopular candidate would come through in the end. So I think everyone should plan on voting to expect their vote to be decisive and influential on both questions.
So How do I plan on voting?
Given that we are a month out from the deadline to submit a ballot, I have not made up my mind 100%. Like in the 2020 Democratic California primary (where I last-minute switched my vote from Pete Buttigieg to Joe Biden), I am strategically waited to fill out my ballot until 3-4 days before the election to see how things play out. I would encourage you to look for a secure dropbox near you and plan to do the same. But I know many people are already making up their minds, so I will share the pattern of voting I am strongly leaning towards:
Removal Question: NO (75% confidence)
Replacement Questin: Faulconer (40% confidence)
Below is my reasoning on these questions:
Gavin Newsom’s Troubled Governorship
I think it is essential before I explain why I will vote “no” on the recall to give a moment to be fully honest: In my estimation, Newsom has been a considerable disappointment as a Governor. Most of the negative attention has centered on his COVID response, which was undoubtedly counter-productive at times. I have been particularly critical of California’s harsh stance on relatively safe outdoor activities, failure to get vulnerable kids into school, and an overly complex vaccine rollout plan. We also saw a significant scandal in California’s handling of Unemployment benefits, and it is clear the bureaucracy in charge has deep problems.
However, CBS News recently found that actually, voters are not as upset over the COVID response as you would think: 60% of voters believe he did a good or somewhat good job of handling the pandemic:
43% of voters believe we are doing better than other states, and only 23% believe we are doing worse:
Why is this? Well, because managing a crisis like COVID is hard, and I think voters recognize this. While Newsom rightly got a lot of flack for his mistakes, people acknowledge that (with a notable exception I will get to later) leadership during a crisis gets graded on a curve.
I think the problems with Newsom are deeper: Newsom has generally failed to act on his promises. Newsom campaigned on three main ideas: creating universal Healthcare coverage, expanding early childhood education options for all kids, and reversing the housing crisis. Yet Newsom has seen only marginal progress on housing and healthcare fronts. And while he has made progress on early childhood education, some of that was good fortune in the form of very generous federal aid to states.
In Newsom’s defense, these are complicated issues. On some of them (Pre-K Education and Housing), Newsom has been doing work behind the scenes to push things forward in a responsible way, specifically on early childhood matters. But as Cal Matters has tracked, Newsom came into office promising that he would drastically change things, and he has been very reluctant to support even incremental changes. We even see the same pattern on wildfires, where Newsom has tried chiefly shifted blame to the federal government while not taking enough practical steps to mitigate the problem with his authority.
This track record has been particularly frustrating to me on housing. Newsom came into office recognizing a dramatic need for housing production, saying we need 3.5 homes built by 2025. However, the only production bill that would even come close to accomplishing that goal (SB 50, which I supported) Newsom took no stance and allowed the bill to die in early 2020. But Newsom has declined to endorse even modest production bills: SB 1120 failed last year without Newsom’s vocal support, which was a real missed opportunity.
What makes this so frustrating is that Newsom is afraid that pushing for reform in politics will create pushback for him. Voters are hypocrites: we want politicians who promise change but are far less enthusiastic when we realize that solving challenging policy problems includes trade-offs that will not always be in our favor. With that said, voters want their elected representatives to try, especially in the face of a crisis. And while hard, you can build a brand by trying! Scott Weiner, a state senator from San Francisco, is an excellent counter-example of this. Wiener’s dogged pursuit of housing policies that can change has undoubtedly made him enemies, both left and right. He has endured numerous smear campaigns, including anti-semitic and homophobic attacks:
But you know what he has also gained? Respect. He is not a perfect politician; I certainly disagree with him on issues. But, that said, I admire the hell out of Scott Weiner. I know many other people (including many who disagree) who also respect him because he is trying to lead on complex issues, regardless of his ambitions for higher office.
A few months back, Ezra Klein had a well-done article, arguing that California politics is symbolically liberal, operationally conservative. The framing is simplistic but generally accurate: many of California’s progressives are all talk and have no substance. Many have a habit of talking about how much they care about symbolic gestures like standing up to Trump while being almost totally unwilling to consider reforms to help working people. This “Symbol over substance” form of progressive politics has been endlessly frustrating to me how common it has become in California. Klein describes it this way.
In much of San Francisco, you can’t walk 20 feet without seeing a multicolored sign declaring that Black lives matter, kindness is everything and no human being is illegal. Those signs sit in yards zoned for single families, in communities that organize against efforts to add the new homes that would bring those values closer to reality. Poorer families — disproportionately nonwhite and immigrant — are pushed into long commutes, overcrowded housing and homelessness. Those inequalities have turned deadly during the pandemic.
I strongly dislike this kind of politics. And Gavin Newsom has become a kind of avatar for this kind of progressivism. He has spent much of the last five years positioning himself constantly as a Trump foil (quite possibly with hopes of running for president someday) while not being willing to do the hard work of actually helping his constituents at home.
And to bring things full circle back to COVID, I think this is the aspect of the pandemic where Newsom’s leadership was so frustrated: not that his rules were too strict, but that Newsom did not have the integrity to live by his principles when it would negatively impact him:
While he told Californians to stay at home, not even gathering with family for weddings or graduations, he famously had dinner at the bougie French Laundry for a lobbyist friend’s birthday. Again: a lobbyist friend’s birthday.
While public schools were closed to the most marginalized kids to stop the spread of COVID, Newsom’s kids went to school in person at private schools.
While many businesses were closed permanently because of COVID, Newsom’s family businesses not only mostly were able to stay open but got 3 million in loans from the federal government.
To be clear, I am not saying Newsom should have harmed his kid’s education or asked the businesses he partly owns to forgo sales. But if you want to demonstrate you are sincere about helping the marginalized, maybe you should try to show you are willing to sacrifice your interests for the cause? Say what you will about Jerry Brown, but the man was ready to live out the principles of frugality and solidarity he espoused in this politics. Newsom is the opposite of that, and it has seriously undermined his credibility.
The Larry Elder Problem
That said, I plan to vote no for the same reason that Steven Buss outlines here: while I DO NOT think Gavin Newsom has been a good governor, I think he is a better governor than Larry Elder would be. Elder is leading in three out of the four of the latest polls on removal (CBS News, Emerson, LA Times, and in a close 2nd in Survey USA). Unless something changes, I vote on the removal question assuming that Elder would replace Newsom.
I don’t believe Larry Elder is at all fit to be governor. Why? Back in 2016 (before this blog existed), I came up with a three-fold framework for assessing whether I would vote for a politician:
Competence: Do they have the requisite skills and experience at doing the job they are being asked to do, especially in a time of crisis? Will they be able to manage the departments of government effectively?
Character: Have they shown themselves capable of making good decisions in service of the general public? Or will they look to elevate their personal interests?
Policy: Do their value, priorities, and goals align with what I think will be the proper steps for the state/city/institution to take? And do I think they are familiar enough with the trade-offs to implement those steps?
Elder fails question 1 handily. He has spent the better part of the last three decades not working in politics, instead he has been a talk radio show host. Elder is not someone who has ever had to work to put his political views into practice on any level of government as an elected representative, nor has he had any kind of executive experience. Elder’s background should give us pause: do we have any reason to think he would make a competent governor? Even if you think he can learn, do we think he will have time to learn on the job in the one year he will serve as governor before needing to be re-elected again in 2022?
Partly because of his lack of experience, I do not know much about Elder’s character in general. I admire his family's story of resiliency, and that Elder was the first in his family to go to college and law school. But we should worry about how his brand as a provocative contrarian will go down as governor of a state with a Democrat supermajority in both houses. If he expects to be a productive governor, he would need to change his approach drastically. I suspect Elder plans to use the governorship as a platform to symbolically protest progressive California. I would be surprised if he got anything practical done.
Elder’s policy views also give me extreme pause. I am reasonably centrist in my political opinions, so I consider myself fairly open to reasonable candidates from both sides of the political aisle. But Elder’s history of views on many public policy topics are pretty outside what I would consider prudent:
In his 2000 book, Elder advocates cutting almost all major US social safety net programs (including Medicare and Social Security) and abolishing the IRS.
Elder long held that climate change is not happening. Only recently has moderated slightly, saying that it is genuine but unclear humans are contributing to climate change. Nevertheless, he is still skeptical of taking any action to avoid negative impacts from climate change.
Elder has been critical of how immigration has impacted Californians economically and wants to reduce the benefits they can access
Elder has stated on the campaign trail that he would “repeal mandates requiring state workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or face regular testing.” And while Elder has said he is vaccinated, he has promoted clips of his show that include prominent vaccine conspiracies.
Even on issues where I am more open to Elder’s views, Elder does not spell out any detail on how he would accomplish what he wants to do. For example, his campaign website includes two paragraphs on housing, where he says he wants to let more housing be build, which is excellent as far as I am concerned. But Elder lists no specifics on how he would accomplish that. Likewise, he criticizes Newsom’s track record on wildfires but gives no specifics on how to change things practically.
So despite my criticism of Newsom, I plan on voting “No” on the removal question because the alternative is likely much worse. Instead, I hope this recall effort refocuses Newsom on actually governing (and not trying to posture as a 2024 presidential candidate). And if not, I am comforted that he will be up for re-election next year, in a more likely format to produce a reasonable challenger.
So…the Replacement Question?
While I plan to vote no on the recall based on the likely alternative, it is crucial to identify the best alternative to Newsom. There are five candidates (besides Larry Elder) who have gotten buzz and seem to have a puncher’s chance to win:
1) Caitlin Jenner: has run mostly a not serious celebrity candidacy. Since she hasn’t seemed to take her campaign very seriously and is polling in the low single digits, I will only take the time to say do not vote for her.
2) John Cox: ran for governor against Newsom in 2018 and lost. Cox is becoming almost a perpetual candidate who has run for many positions before and always loses. Cox does not have any governing experience and has no detailed policy vision for California on issues like housing or education that makes him worth considering. So instead, he pulls stunts with bears:
Cox has also said unhelpful things about vaccines. So I am ruling him out.
3) Kevin Paffrath: Parfafth has gained some traction in recent weeks as the only Democrat running in the race. He is, unfortunately, a celebrity candidate, a real-estate entrepreneur who then became a media sensation selling himself as a guru teaching other people to get rich quickly. He now thinks he can try his hand at politics (sound familiar?). Unfortunately, Paffrath is almost certainly unqualified for the job. That makes me rule him out.
The problem is Paffrath also seems like the candidate who has the polling juice to beat Larry Elder if voters vote “YES” on the removal question. Most recent polls show him behind Elder, but he seems to be gaining ground. Would Paffrath be a good governor? Almost certainly no. But would he be more likely than Elder to be a good governor? I don’t have high hopes, except that his persona and stated policies are reasonably moderate. I don’t think they are always well-considered, but simply being a moderate makes me more likely than Elder, whose brand is a Right-Wing firebrand, to work with the legislature to get things done on essential issues. So if it comes down to Paffrath vs. Elder, I would go with Paffrath (this is one of the reasons I am waiting to fill out my ballot, and I think you should too).
4) Kevin Kiley is, I think, the most interesting person in the race. He is a younger Conservative Republican in the state legislature who, while young, actually has some interesting and relevant experience. In addition to his time in the legislature, he served as an assistant attorney general and even taught at Manual Arts High School in South LA for a couple of years. Kiley’s platform reflects a better template (as articulated by Yuval Levin) for younger conservatives who can and should try to apply their principles to the problems and crises California is facing. For example, instead of just being against “big government,” Kiley has ideas on how to use market competition to make life better for working people:
Housing: He was a co-sponsor of Scott Weiner’s SB 50, which would have attempted to increase housing production statewide significantly. He also voted for SB 9, the duplex bill that would allow most parcels in the state to build up to two houses on them.
Homeless: unlike the other GOP candidates, Kiley has a mostly technocratic, not punitive approach that could help. He wants to lead with an audit of state spending on homeless, to figure out what kind of bang for the buck we are getting (a legitimately big issue here in LA) and use that to guide reform.
Climate: Kiley believes climate change is happening and wants to fight it by creating policies that can encourage innovation in the business and tech sector
Wildfires: Kiley wants to reform PG &E, the utility company responsible for many of California’s most recent wildfires
Business and Labor: Kiley has proposed reform of AB 5, California’s bill to reclassify independent contractors. AB 5 was a poorly written law that has caused a lot of unnecessary collateral damager to workers. Kiley’s bill would return to the Borello standard of determining Independent contractors, which is a more reasonable standard.
That said, Kiley’s economic record on the social safety net is much more conservative than mine, and I think Kiley’s stance on social issues is good across the board. I am sympathetic to his stances on religious liberty and abortion and appreciate that he has at least somewhat of a nuanced opinion on criminal justice reform. However, he has marketed himself as the “toughest on illegal immigration and border security,” which is a position that I have a hard time reconciling with my moral intuitions about caring for migrants and the legitimate needs of my many undocumented neighbors. While I agree that Newsom did not handle COVID perfectly, Kiley has presented himself as a COVID skeptical across the board, opposing mask and vaccine mandates. Similarly, California Democrats often have an inadequate policy approach to education, including re-opening schools during COVID. However, Kiley goes in exactly 100% the opposite direction, supporting full de-centralization through school vouchers instead of a more reasonable incremental.
Kiley is also not showing much traction at the polls, polling in the single digits in most polls. So I do not plan to choose him as my replacement candidate unless something changes. However, I am interested in seeing Kiley moderate and run again in 2022 against Newsom, focusing on reforming California's housing, education, and climate policy.
5) Kevin Faulconer: This leaves us with Faulconer. Faulconer, on paper, should be a reasonable alternative to Newsom: he was the popular, two-term Republican Mayor of San Diego. He has consistently won races in purple contexts by double digits. In addition, he has executive experience, is relatively moderate, and had a history in San Diego of working with Democrats to get things done.
I do not agree with all his policy positions. Still, as mayor, he mostly avoided picking symbolic partisan fights and should be a good-faith negotiating partner working with Democrats in the legislature. He has sensible centrist ideas around water infrastructure, wildfires, climate, and education reform. He is pro-Immigration and Immigration reform. He handled COVID-19 relatively sensibly as mayor (Closing bars and restaurants while keeping beaches open).
Yet, Faulconer has been a disappointment in his run for governor. His political strategy has been flawed, trying to play to the base on issues like Support for Trump and opposing vaccine mandates. Faulconer has not made much of an overt appeal to centrists and moderate Democrats, who might vote for him if he emphasized his centrist record in a state where many people are open to that kind of leadership.
But most disappointing has been his housing stances. As mayor of San Diego, Faulconer worked hard to build bipartisan coalitions to make substantial efforts on housing reform. He did this while Gavin Newsom and other big-city mayors (Eric Garcetti) seemingly did not dare to do. His complete communities program was genuinely an innovative bi-partisan initiative that:
Made it easier to build housing near transit corridors, which is an excellent way to both increase housing, and decrease traffic congestion and environmental pollution
Reformed environmental review and impact fees in pro-housing ways that smartly price development according to its impact on the cities infrastructure as a whole, not just in the neighborhood around the housing
Funded affordable and homeless housing
Funded parks in low-income neighborhoods.
Now, this reform was more of an incremental move than a wholescale transformation. Still, incremental actions are better than doing nothing.
Yet, in his run for governor, he is not touting a specific plan or even touting his record of pro-housing work in San Diego. His plan is holistic, but he emphasizes the need to be tougher on the homeless with enforcement, a measure I do not believe will work, which won’t help unless there is a corresponding increase in housing for the homeless. But more disappointingly, he has taken a stance against state housing bill SB 9 last week, saying that as governor, he would have no interest in doing anything that could roll back single-family zoning. To be clear: this is not consistent with free-market principles. A consistent application of the free-market tenets would recognize that Single-family zoning should be seen as local governments exercising arbitrary regulation of private property that ultimately is bad for economic growth. However, because single-family zoning is popular among Republican voters, politicians have been more than willing to compromise their principles. So I am disappointed to see this from Faulconer, and it does not lead me to believe he will tackle housing head-on as governor.
That said, Faulconer seems the best alternative to Newsom if the removal question comes back “Yes.” My main doubt is his viability: if he continues to poll in the single digits, I would consider switching to one of the “Kevins” to ensure a competent alternative to Larry Elder. But I think there is enough time left that I have hope that Faulconer will get some positive press as the media start to take the possibility that Newsom will be replaced more seriously.
We need Reform Across the Board
As a final note; part of the reason I found it worthwhile to write this long of an explanation is that this recall election points forward for California:
We have a severely broken governance system, where naive faith in Democracy to solve complex problems (and be the sole source of accountability) makes it very hard to address issues seriously. Until you see reform to our governance structure, we risk even more recalls and propositions, including many (like Prop 13) that seemingly can never go away even when it is clear they are counter-productive.
We have a Democratic party that has gotten in the rut of assuming perpetual power in the state. Democrats have too often prioritized symbolic progressivism and failed to tackle the complex but urgent needs of working people in the state for fear of offending part of their Democratic coalition.
We have a Republican party that has spent its time out of power raging against the democratic establishment and progressivism instead of reforming real reform. The GOP needs to realize that Trumpism is never going to win in California. Still, they can succeed if they utilize conservative and market principles to create an alternative to compete with progressivism.
California needs two healthy, sane parties in competition with each other within a sound system of governance. These meta-reforms are the only path to solve California’s problems long term. And until we have institutions that work towards this three-fold path to reform, we will not see the kind of political progress we need to see in our state.