Abstract
Democratic systems and the tools that sustain them need to operate by the people and for the people with consideration to the realities of the era in which they exist. The use of direct democracy, and in particular the recall process, in recent decades suggests that what was once a progressive reform intended to ensure good government has now become a political tool for stoking partisan disruption. It is time for a close look at how and why some states continue to allow for recall and the circumstances under which a recall election should be called. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several gubernatorial recall campaigns were launched, primarily in states with Democratic Governors who had issued public health orders to curb the spread of the disease. The governors of Minnesota, Alaska, Washington, and California all faced credible recall threats, some of which were stopped by judicial orders. In California, where there is currently no mechanism for judicial review of recall petitions, the recall election proceeded to a vote in 2021. The unsuccessful recall election of Governor Gavin Newsom cost the state of California over $200 million in election-related expenditures alone. This article focuses on California’s recall process as a case study and advocates for changes to that process that will address the problem with the unchecked use of a powerful tool of direct democracy by moneyed interests in a time when the electorate is targeted by messaging from social media content, political polarization is perceived to be high, and the costs of elections are enormous and escalating.
Recommended Citation
Mary-Beth Moylan,
Advocating for Cause: the California Recall Process Needs a Purpose,
130
Dick. L. Rev.
469
(2026).
Available at:
https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol130/iss2/3