California's Recall Election Code -- Always Bad Policy... Always

Los Osos, stop me if this sounds familiar:

A local government board is pursuing a large project in their community. The project is very controversial and has already led to the election of two candidates that oppose the project to the board.

However, the board majority still favors the project and continues to aggressively pursue it, so the community launches a recall campaign aimed at removing the remaining project proponents from office, and that campaign leads to a recall election.

Then, the officials targeted for the recall stifle the process for months, and then they set the recall election for one of the latest possible dates.

Then, in the window of time allotted by delaying the election, the board approves work on the project, and the developer begins "site preparation work, with trees cut down, and bulldozers on site," all before the recall election.

And, of course, the delay in the election date also allows more time for those targeted in the recall to receive huge sums of campaign contributions from the businesses that will benefit from the project.

Los Osos, 2005?

Nope.

Rosemead, 2006.

What is currently playing out in the southern California community of Rosemead is almost the exact same situation that happened in Los Osos last year. The only difference is that instead of a sewer project, the controversial Rosemead project is a Wal-Mart Superstore, and the "site preparation work, with trees cut down, and bulldozers on site" was paid for with private funds in Rosemead. In Los Osos, that was paid for with public funds.

If there is a lesson that can be gleaned from the recall process in Los Osos last year, it's this: Officials targeted for recall in California shouldn't be setting their own recall election date.

That is just asking for problems, and the situation in Rosemead -- with its grossly un-level, campaign contributions playing field, and its unpopular project recklessly moving forward -- is just the latest example.

In Los Osos, 2005, in a 3-2 vote, the three directors that were up for recall, set their own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates. In the time they allotted themselves by delaying the election, they were able to use millions of dollars of public funds to begin work on the controversial sewer project. The recall was successful, the project was stopped, and the public funds would prove to be needlessly, and recklessly, wasted.

As it currently reads, the California Elections Code (pertinent sections reprinted below) allows the governing body that has members up for recall to schedule the recall election date anywhere from 88 days to 125 days after the election is announced.

The three members of the Los Osos Community Services District that were recall targets in 2005, voted to use almost all of the 125 days, and then started work on the sewer project just a few weeks before the election.

In a recent phone interview with San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, I asked her if she would have set the recall election date in Los Osos closer to the 88 days, or closer to the 125 days. She said, "I would have set it closer to the 88 days."

Which means the California Elections Code, as written, is hurting California, because if Rodewald had the authority to set the recall election date in Los Osos, instead of those facing recall, the election would have taken place weeks earlier, and the recalled board majority would have never had the opportunity to start work on the project, and millions of dollars of California taxpayer money would not have been wasted, and Los Osos would not have a huge ditch today in the place of what was once Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.

SewerWatch is advocating a change in the elections code. The change is simple and reasonable: A governing body that is up for recall should not be setting its own recall election date. Instead, that should be done by the county elections official. In San Luis Obispo County, that would be Rodewald.

Here's the current language in the CEC for setting recall elections:

11240. Within 14 days after the meeting at which the governing body received the certificate of sufficiency as specified in Section 11227, the governing body shall issue an order stating that an election shall be held pursuant to this article to determine whether or not the officer named in the petition shall be recalled.

11241. If the governing board fails to issue the order within the time specified in Section 11240, the county elections official, within five days, shall set the date for holding the election. If the recall is to be voted on by voters in more than one county, the elections official of the county with the largest number of registered voters who will be voting in the election shall set the date for holding the election in consultation with the elections officials of the other counties.

11242. The election shall be held not less than 88, nor more than 125, days after the issuance of the order, and if a regular or special election is to be held throughout the electoral jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled within this time period, the recall election shall be held on the same day, and consolidated with, the regular or special election.

SewerWatch is advocating that section 11240 should be changed to read:

11240. Within 14 days after the meeting at which the governing body received the certificate of sufficiency as specified in Section 11227, the governing body shall issue an order stating that an election shall be held pursuant to this article to determine whether or not the officer named in the petition shall be recalled, and the county elections official shall set the date of the election.

Then 11241 would simply read:

11241. If the recall is to be voted on by voters in more than one county, the elections official of the county with the largest number of registered voters who will be voting in the election shall set the date for holding the election in consultation with the elections officials of the other counties.

And that's it.

If the elections code had included that language in 2005, Los Osos doesn't have a huge ditch in the middle of town, millions of dollars of California taxpayer money would not have been recklessly pounded into the ground, and there's a very good chance that the Los Osos CSD isn't bankrupt today (unless, of course, they needed the SRF money to avoid bankruptcy before the recall election. The jury is still out on that one.)

The Rosemead recall election is set for next Tuesday, September 19. To date, Wal-Mart has contributed over $200,000 to the two sitting board members' campaigns. The three candidates seeking their seats have raised less than $50,000 combined. It is the most expensive election in Rosemead's history.

The 210,000-square-foot Wal-Mart store opened last Wednesday, under massive controversy.

###