Recalling Progressivism: Let the California “Circus” Proceed
September 15, 2003
By: Daniel A. Smith
Daniel A. Smith, associate professor of political science at the University of Florida, is the author, with Caroline J. Tobert, of the forthcoming Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States, to be published by University of Michigan Press next year.
Commentators from the right and the left have derided the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis as a political debacle, calling it a three-ring circus. The latest act in the center ring-the order by the 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to hold the October 7 election as scheduled-has all but guaranteed that the election will occur as originally planned.
Despite the court’s reservations that the use of the punch-card system may lead to an unfair counting of votes in different counties, despite the countless late night jokes on Leno and Letterman, and despite the carnivalesque atmosphere of 135 candidates jockeying for face time on Oprah, the Howard Stern Show, and Meet the Press, the show must go on.
The recall process, rather than strike at the heart of the electoral system, as some critics contend, has actually been good for the democratic process.
Imagine it: From the land of the Beach Boys and the Hula Loop, and from the same federal court that upheld banning the Pledge of Allegiance, comes the latest fad-obsessing about politics.
According to polls, staggering numbers of likely California voters-one recent Los Angeles Times poll put the figure at 99 percent-say they are interested in the recall campaign. County officials across the state, meanwhile, report increased voter registration at a normally slow time of year. The California Secretary of State reports that over 185,000 citizens have newly registered to vote. Eschewing the usual crime stories, local TV news stations lead newscasts with the race and even break into sitcoms to carry press conferences by the bevy of gubernatorial hopefuls.
Ordinary citizens are turning up at candidate rallies and tuning into televised debates in surprisingly large numbers. Rather than box scores, talk around the water cooler centers on why the state government ran up a $35 billion deficit.
And all this is happening when only half of registered voters nationally go to the polls and public interest in politics continues to sink to new lows.
The progressive e-network organization MoveOn has characterized the initial effort to oust Davis as the product of “anti-democratic extremism.” Maybe, but the populist undercurrents of the Davis recall effort dovetail perfectly with MoveOn’s progressive ideals championing citizen participation.
“Direct democracy,” which includes the grassroots mechanisms of the recall, the “popular” referendum and the more ubiquitous “citizen” initiative, grew out of the doctrines put forth by Populists in the late 19th century. The three citizen lawmaking tools became highly prized by Progressives in the early 1900s as reformers sought new ways to empower apathetic citizens and return government to the people. Between 1898 and 1918, voters in more than two dozen states approved amendments to add the initiative, popular referendum, or recall to their constitutions. Most of the contagion occurred in the sparsely populated states west of the Mississippi River.
In California, progressive governor Hiram Johnson, first elected in 1910, led the charge for the adoption of direct democracy. In a special election on October 10, 1911, 76 percent of Californians voted in favor of the legislative referendum that amended the state’s constitution to include the initiative, referendum and recall.
While much of the argument for the adoption of direct democracy in California and other states focused on the changes the mechanisms would foster, progressives also envisioned direct democracy inspiring and educating the masses. The concept, reformers argued, would help to bolster the level of civic participation of what even in 1911 was an increasingly disengaged citizenry.
Today, evidence from the handful of states that frequently use citizen initiatives suggests the progressives were right. National survey data from the last decade reveal that voting on ballot initiatives has a positive effect on voter turnout, civic engagement, political knowledge, and political efficacy.
For example, in the 1990s, voter turnout, after controlling for a range of other factors, was roughly 4 percent higher in initiative states in general elections and 8 percent higher in midterm elections than in states without citizen lawmaking. Because ballot measures provide additional political information to potential voters, they have the greatest impact on turnout in sparsely publicized or non-competitive elections when initiatives are less likely to compete with media coverage of candidate races.
Moreover, citizens who are regularly exposed to ballot initiatives are more engaged and better informed about politics, as well as more likely to express confidence in government than citizens living in non-initiative states. For instance, national survey data from the 1990s suggest that as the number of measures appearing on a state ballot increases, so the probability of an individual discussing politics rises.
As with ballot initiatives, the recall election of Gov. Davis has unquestionably engaged and energized Californians. The campaign has what the progressives called “educative effects,” with the process itself bringing out the democratic impulses of citizens.
It’s probably not a good idea to hope for recall elections for every sitting governor, thereby cutting short the normal electoral cycle. But California’s sudden infatuation with politics is a good thing. If it spreads, it could be the best export from the Golden State at least since surfing.