California recall - Is it a solution?

The recall election in California has complex roots, even if they tend to be summed up as an energy crisis and a budget calamity. (For a look at some of the deeper issues, see Washington Post columnist David Broder's column below.)

But from a vantage point in the middle of the nation, the hoopla on the West Coast seems more like a political circus than a voter/taxpayer revolt against corruption or malfeasance.

Before Gray Davis was first elected governor of California in 1998, he was touted in many of that state's newspapers as a strong, innovative leader with the vision and clout to run one of the world's largest economies ($1.3 trillion -- about the same as France -- and ranked from fifth to eighth, depending on who's doing the ranking) and all of the programs and agencies required for the country's most populous state (33.9 million in the 2000 census).

The fact that California has a $39 billion budget deficit -- about half of the total deficits of the 44 states dealing with gaps between revenue and spending -- is a good reason for concern. But so is the fact that, so far, none of the politicians toying with putting their names of the ballot to succeed Davis has come up with any good ideas for solving the state's financial crisis as it prepares to spend about $150 billion for state programs and services (including federal mandates).

Recalls are rare for governors. Only one recall effort has ever been successful. Only 18 states allow recalls of their governors (Missouri does not), although many local jurisdictions have mechanisms for removing elected officials.

California is one of the recall states that does not require any allegations of wrongdoing. In most instances, recalls are precipitated by circumstances of clear-cut wrongdoing on the part of an officeholder who, for political or personal reasons, refuses to resign. A successful 1999 petition drive in Minnesota to remove Gov. Jesse Ventura, for example, was thrown out by the state's chief justice because the petition backers were unable to cite any malfeasance by the wrestler-turned-governor.

Being an oddball, stupid and unpopular in polls have not, in general, ever been good reasons for removing someone from office by any method except at the ballot box.

California voters had their opportunity to sack Davis last November when he ran for his second four-year term. It was clear California faced a budget showdown during a campaign that focused more on the energy brouhaha, but it wasn't until after Davis won that Californians became painfully aware of the scope of the financial crisis.

There is no question that Davis has been a lackluster governor at best and has failed miserably to provide the leadership so desperately needed in a time of economic turmoil. But is a recall going to solve California's crisis? Or will it exacerbate the problem by throwing a new -- and, perhaps, untested -- face, regardless of popularity, into one of the most demanding, high-pressure political offices in the nation?

By their decisions in the Oct. 7 recall election, California voters will be determining a future for their state that will be closely watched by the entire country -- and much of the world.