It seems to me that the smartest thing the Dems could do would be to get Grayout to resign, and hand the governorship over to Cruz.

There'd still be the recall election, but Bustamante would be running as an incumbent, and would be the obvious pick for Democratic voters. He could even pick up independents with a plea for "continuity."

Of course, the hard part about this scenario is getting his Grayness to step down. And wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if he did so, and then the recall failed?

Is a recall for the the office, or for the person holding that office? If Gray resigned and it's the latter, then a recall becomes, as the weasels say, moot. And I would expect a rump recall election against Gov. Bustamonte to fail no matter what, because he wasn't the target and he'd stil be in that "honeymoon period" all incoming politicans get.

The problem with the resignation scenario is that is supposes that presentday Democrats have the honor and willingess and courage to admit defeat and do what's best for the country/state before the party, and for the party before themselves. Funny how much better Nixon keeps looking.

If Gray resigned and it's the latter, then a recall becomes, as the weasels say, moot. And I would expect a rump recall election against Gov. Bustamonte to fail no matter what, because he wasn't the target...

That's why I've concluded that the recall laws in California are cuckoo even by Fugue State standards. The resignation of an official being recalled, before the recall election, should moot the recall and halt the exercise -- but it won't. It'll only make the recall election an off-schedule special election for Gubnor, in which Bustamante would only be a factor if he chooses to run.

By any reasonable standard, the recall law should have included a provision stating that the recall of a Gubnor is different from one involving any other constitutional office and that the normal succession should take place if there is a sitting Lite-Gubnor at the time. Uh, providing of cource that he is not also being subjected to recall at the same time...

Yeesh.

Oops. Dropped a </i> tag up there -- I only meant to emphasize one word in my response.

> The resignation of an official being recalled, before the recall election, should moot the recall and halt the exercise -- but it won't.

No, it shouldn't. If it did, a pack of weasels could easily set up a chain of resignations and appointments that would effectively make recall impossible.

Recalls are not intended to be nice events. They're intended to be disruptive. This disruption acts as a natural disincentive against their use and a incentive to avoid making folks mad enough to use them.

The weasels had plenty of chances to make things right. They didn't bother.

Sorry, I don't buy the multiple resignations scenario. In order for it to work, you'd have to have a totally disinterested electorate, one so disinterested that it wouldn't care,yet would approve of a recall in the first place. Also, these multiple resignations and interim appointments would be very publicly made. And there will still be a regularly scheduled election (eventually) where somebody will have to actually run and explain his participation.

Sorry, there's a lot wrong with California, but for all that to work,it would have to descend below the politics of Argentina.

> In order for it to work, you'd have to have a totally disinterested electorate, one so disinterested that it wouldn't care,yet would approve of a recall in the first place.

Under the proposal, a recall becomes moot when the named target resigns, regardless of the level of interest of the electorate.

Thus, once a pack of weasels are in office, they can use resignations and appointments to block any effort to evict them before the next general election. Under the proposal, the electorate would have to start another recall if one weasel resigns and is replaced by another. Since a recall takes time, the ability to reset the clock is enough to completely block a recall.

Actually, Rand, I don't think that's quite right, at least according to Dan Walters, if Davis resigns before the petitions are counted and the election set, that will void the recall and leave Bustamante as gov thru 06. (I'll email you article). If he resigns after the election is set but before the vote, then whoever gets the most votes on the second part of the ballot is the next governor- the next day! So... obviously a pretty powerful incentive for Bustamante to pay his $3500 and put his name up there. Nothing to lose unless Davis somehow wins and rises like the phoenix to torch his ass. BTW, how many names do you think we might get on the ballot of people who pay their $3500 and get 65 of their friends to sign their petitions? 50? 60? 100? more?

Now Walters makes case for a caretaker gov like Riordan or Feinstein, as though the pols can get together in a smoked filled room to figure this whole thing out. Which I think is wishful thinking. I still say as an avowed Davis hater that the recall is bad for Republicans and bad for the state, both on principle and in practice. Better to smoke out the dems in the legislature along with Boxer in 04 and leave Davis as a reminder to our appthetic state media and voters to pay attention next time.