TOMORROW, California voters will decide whether to replace the governor they elected in 2018, Gavin Newsom, with someone who won't have endured the rough-and-tumble of a primary or general election campaign.
The recall process in the Golden State is unusual, and every state office-holder and elected member of state government is subject to such an election.
In this instance, getting a recall vote on the ballot required petition signatures equalling at least 12 per cent of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election, including a sufficient number of signatures in at least five counties.
Once the date of the vote is decided, candidates wishing to run for the office must file their intent to be named as replacement governor at least 59 days before the voting date. This year, 46 candidates tossed their hats in the ring.
The process is more complicated than this, however. On the same ballot where a voter signals an up or down vote, this time involving Newsom, a follow-up question is asked. If he is recalled, whom would you choose as his replacement? If a majority of people reject the recall move, nothing further is considered.
But if the majority favours the recall, they are offered the list of possible replacements and the candidate who receives a plurality of votes wins the governorship. Indeed, the strangest feature of the California recall is that, while a majority is required to keep or oust Newsom, the replacement governor could assume office with, perhaps, 25 per cent of the vote — or less.
In 2003, a petition put then California governor Gray Davis in Newsom's current position. When the recall campaign began, polls indicated that Davis, voted into office the previous year, had a good chance of surviving. But everything changed when the field of challengers, 135 in all, came to include actor and former Mr Universe Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Davis fell in the polls and lost, 55 to 45 per cent, and Schwarzenegger rolled to victory with just over 48 per cent of the votes for a replacement. (Three years later, Schwarzenegger won a regular election to the office and ended up serving as the state's chief executive for seven years.)
Successful recall votes are rare in California and other states. Schwarzenegger's victory is the only one of its kind in California and only two governors in US history have been removed via recall.
The recall process is controversial as representative democracy is the norm in the United States and around the world. At the national level in the US, there is no provision for popular recall of any official nor is there one for floating referenda or popular initiatives to pass or amend laws, or the Constitution.
However, direct democracy — including recall elections, direct initiatives targeting policy issues such as capital punishment, marijuana legalisation, gun control and many others, and even votes on whether to amend the state constitution — reigns in California and a few other states where voters have chosen to limit the power of elected officials.
The movement to hand more power to the people in these states began more than a century ago — in California, the year was 1913 — and is unlikely to be reversed.
But giving citizens a direct voice is not unique to a few US states. Many democratic nations do permit popular choice to prevail on important matters.
For instance, over the years, Canadians have had national votes on a range of issues, including prohibition and military conscription, and numerous issues have come up for votes in individual provinces — most notably a 1995 vote on whether Quebec should secede from Canada (a proposal which narrowly lost).
Ireland has had famous referenda on the issue of abortion — in 1983 when it was prohibited and in 2018 when the procedure was legalised. And in 2015, the Irish held a referendum on legalising same-sex marriage, which passed.
In 2014, the people of Scotland rejected, 55 to 45 per cent, a simple measure: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" And two years later, all citizens in the United Kingdom were asked to vote
on whether the British should exit the European Union ("Brexit") and they voted in favour of the move.
This, perhaps more than any referendum vote in recent times, underscores the power of this controversial democratic device.
The effort to oust Newsom is in many ways a typical right versus left battle, as Republicans have long been opposed to the liberal ex-San Francisco mayor. Originally the recall effort centred on Newsom's positions on various issues, especially taxes and immigration. But the effort picked up steam when, after urging Californians to stay home and avoid indoor dining, he was seen at an upscale French restaurant.
Newsom apologised for the obvious double standard, but that night out changed the nature of the campaign. Suddenly, his opponents began focusing almost exclusively on the governor's controversial Covid-19 policies, as well as his hypocrisy owing to the ill-considered dinner.
Analysts will be watching tomorrow's vote closely to see if the appetite for popular uprisings — such as those instigated by Donald Trump and his most rabid followers — has spilled over, even to very "blue" states, with mostly liberal voters, such as California.
If so, this could portend political power struggles throughout the US of a raucous nature in the foreseeable future. If so, these battles will not be led by elected politicians, political parties and interest groups, but by citizens acting on their own to bring about change in the political system.
The writer is a professor at HELP University