The recall of California Governor Gray Davis generated intense litigation as recall opponents sought, without much success, to convince courts to block, modify, or postpone the election. Using an interpretive case study approach, this article analyzes these outcomes and develops the theory that the courts’ reluctance to intervene in the Davis recall process was largely dictated by the nature of the recall device itself. More specifically, the recall’s only substantive question was nonjusticiable, so litigants were limited to procedural challenges, and on most of the procedural issues, courts deferred to local election officials. The constraints on judicial review of recall highlight differences between recall and initiative, a direct democracy process courts more actively check.
Abbott, F. F. (1915, January). The referendum and recall among the ancient Romans. Swanee Review, pp. 84-94.
2.
Abcarian v. Shelley, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS (9th Cir. 2003).
3.
Amar, V. D. (2004). Adventures in direct democracy: Top ten constitutional lessons from the California recall experience. California Law Review, 92, 927-958.
4.
(Reprinted from Columbian Herald, August 28, 1788)
5.
Articles of Confederation (1777), 1 U.S.C.A. (West 1987).
6.
Baines v. Zemansky, 176 Cal. 369 (1917).
7.
Bird, F. L., & Ryan, F. M. (1930). The recall of public officers: A study of the operation of the recall in California. New York: Macmillan.
8.
Bowler, S., & Cain, B. (2004). Introduction—recalling the recall: Reflections on California’s recent political adventure. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 7-9.
9.
Box v. Young, 219 Cal. 243 (1933).
10.
Brady, H. E. (2004). Postponing the recall to protect voting rights. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 27-32.
11.
Broder, D. S. (2000). Democracy derailed: Initiative campaigns and the power of money. New York: Harcourt.
12.
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999).
13.
Burton v. Shelley, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 6102 (August 7, 2003).
Cain, B. E., & Miller, K. P. (2001). The populist legacy: Initiatives and the undermining of representative government. In L. J. Sabato, Howard R. Ernst, & BruceA. Larson (Eds.), Dangerous democracy?: The battle over the ballot initiative in America (pp. 33-62). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
17.
Cal. Const. art. II, § 14[a]-[b] (1976) (West 2002).
18.
Cal. Const. art. II, § 15[a]-[c] (1994) (West 2002).
19.
Cal. Const. art. IV, § 18[a] (1966) (West 2002).
20.
Cal. Const. art. V, § 10 (1974) (West 1996).
21.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11000 (1994a) (West 2003).
22.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11020 (1994b) (West 2003).
23.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11023[a] (1994c) (West 2003).
24.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11045 (1994d) (West 2003).
25.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11320 (1994e) (West 2003).
26.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11322 (1994f) (West 2003).
27.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11381[c] (1994g) (West 2003).
28.
Cal. Elec. Code § 11382 (1994h) (West 2003).
29.
California Secretary of State. (2002). Statement of the vote, 2002 general election. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2002_general/contents.htm
30.
California Secretary of State. (2003). Statement of the vote, 2003 special election. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2003_special/contents.htm
31.
Common Cause v. Jones, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
32.
Costa, E. J. (2003). Petition for recall. Retrieved February 6, 2004, from http://www.recallgraydavis.com/Petition.pdf
33.
Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
Davenport v. Los Angeles, 146 Cal. 508 (1905).
35.
Davis, G. (2003). Answer to petition for recall. Retrieved February 6, 2004, from http://www.recallgraydavis.com/Petition.pdf
36.
Davis v. Shelley, S117921, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 6152 (August 7, 2003).
37.
Eule, J. N. (1990). Judicial review of direct democracy. Yale Law Journal, 99, 1503-1590.
Gallegos v. State of California. (2003, August 25). U.S.D.C. E.D. Cal. Case No. 03-CV-6157, complaint.
41.
Garrett, E. (in press). Democracy in the wake of the California recall. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
42.
Gerth v. Dominguez, 1 Cal.2d 239 (1934).
43.
Green v. Osborne, 157 Ariz. 363 (1988).
44.
Holman, C. B., & Stern, R. (1998). Judicial review of ballot initiatives: The changing role of the federal and state courts. Loyola Los Angeles Law Review, 31, 1239-1266.
45.
Institute of Governmental Studies. (2003a). Conference: The California recall election [Webcast]. Retrieved February 6, 2004, from http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/details.html?event_id=103
46.
Institute of Governmental Studies. (2003b). Fierce legal battles raged around the recall. Public Affairs Report, 44(2), 18-19.
47.
Johansen, R. B. (2003a, August 4). Davis v. Shelley, Memorandum of points and authorities in support of petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition. California Supreme Court Case No. S117921.
48.
Johansen, R. B. (2003b, August 4). Davis v. Shelley, Petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition. California Supreme Court Case No. S117921.
49.
Kiesel, P. R. (2003, July 15). Robins v. Shelley, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 29066. Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
50.
Lenahan v. City of Los Angeles, 14 Cal.2d 128 (1939).
51.
Linde, H. A. (1989). When is initiative lawmaking not “Republican government”?Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 17, 159-173.
52.
Marelius, J. (2003, July 5). Recall drive nears petition target; nation, potential candidates take note. San Diego Union-Tribune, p. A1.
53.
Marinucci, C., & Wildermuth, J. (2003, August 7). Schwarzenegger steals recall scene. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.
54.
Mathews, J., & Hong, P. Y. (2003, August 7). There call campaign: California’s crazy quilt of politics frays. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
55.
Miller, K. P. (2000, March). Judging initiatives: A unique role for courts. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Jose, CA.
56.
Miller, K. P. (2002). Madison’s revenge: Judicial review of direct democracy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
57.
Morrow v. Board of Directors of the Imperial Irrigation District, 219 Cal. 246 (1933).
58.
Muehleisen v. Forward, 4 Cal.2d 17 (1935).
59.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2004, June 23). Recall of state officials. Retrieved September 10, 2004, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm
60.
Oliverez v. State of California. (2003a, August 7). U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. Case No. C 03-3658 JF, complaint.
61.
Oliverez v. State of California.(2003b, August 7). Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction.
62.
Oliverez v. State of California. (2003c, August 15). Order to show cause re preliminary injunction; temporary restraining order restraining mailing of overseas ballots.
63.
Othmer v. City Council of Long Beach, 207 Cal. 263 (1929).
64.
Partnoy v. Shelley, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
65.
Recall Gray Davis Committee v. Shelley, Case No. C044487 (Cal. 3rd Dist. Ct. of Appeal, July 10, 2003).
66.
Robins v. Superior Court (Shelley), 2003 CAL LEXIS 5661 (July 25, 2003).
67.
Salazar v. Monterey County. (2003a, August 1). U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. Case No. C-03-3584 JF., complaint.
68.
Salazar v. Monterey County. (2003b, September 5). Order denying motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice and conditionally dissolving the order restraining mailing of overseas ballots.
69.
Schaefer v. Herman, 172 Cal. 338 (1916).
70.
Shelley, K. (2003). Summary of qualifications for the office of governor: Partisan and independent candidates: Statewide special election, October 7, 2003. Sacramento, CA: Office of Secretary of State.
71.
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley (2003a), 278 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley (2003c), 344 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. en banc 2003).
74.
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley (2003d), 344 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. en banc 2003).
75.
Spivak, J. (2003a, September 15). Why did California adopt the recall?History News Network. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from http://hnn.us/articles/1682.html
76.
Spivak, J. (2003b, September 23). When have recalls succeeded in California?History News Network. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from http://hnn.us/articles/1702.html
77.
State ex rel. Laird v. Hall, 49 N.D. 11 (1921).
78.
Stone, W. J., & Datta, M. N. (2004). Rationalizing the California recall. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 19-21.
79.
Uelmen, G. F. (2001). Handling hot potatoes: Judicial review of California initiatives afterSenate v. Jones. Santa Clara Law Review, 41, 999-1025.
80.
Vela v. Huberty, 1 Cal.2d 466 (1934).
81.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (amended 1975), § 5, 42 U.S.C. 1973(c) (West 2003).
82.
Wright v. Engram, 186 Cal. 659 (1921).
83.
Zimmerman, J. F. (1997). The recall: The people’s tribunal. Westport, CT: Praeger.
84.
Zimmerman, J. F. (2001). The referendum: The people decide public policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
