Should Americans Be Able to Recall Politicians?

Photo by Suiren2022, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Last Tuesday was a decisive moment in American progressive politics. Chesa Boudin, the reformist prosecutor in San Francisco, was recalled with 60% of the vote going against him. Mayor London Breed will appoint Boudin’s successor. Ever since the vote, progressives have debated what exactly led to the temporary end of Boudin’s promising career. Critics charge that his approach to prosecuting was callous and sided too often with perpetrators of crime rather than with their victims. They believed that he was overwhelmed by the demands of the job and did not respond to San Franciscans worried about the effects of crime and homelessness. Supporters counter that the problems of the city were far outside of his control and that he was the victim of coordinated attacks from centrists and right-wing media.

Boudin’s removal has also touched off a discussion over whether or not Americans should be able to recall their elected officials as well as enact laws by initiatives and referendums. The Republican Party in California has been moribund for over a decade. But it has put two well-known Democrats in peril over the past year using recall elections. Some Democrats see the recall as a tool of conservative politics. They note that recall elections are often irregular, benefit older, wealthier voters, and are easily influenced by large-scale corporate funding. Democrats can also point to a host of California ballot initiatives that have done damage over the past 50 years, from Proposition 15 (a conservative pet project that has hamstrung local governments) to Proposition 8 (which briefly banned gay marriage).

There are two clear problems with the debate over recalls and referendums. The most obvious is the partisan nature of supporters and opponents. Purely partisan arguments are often bad faith attempts to protect one political side or the other. They make no impact on the public besides serving as ammunition for the culture wars. In many cases, recalls and referendums fit this mold. The recall process was not substantially challenged by Democrats in 2012 when Wisconsin governor Scott Walker was nearly recalled and replaced by a Democrat. It was seen as the culmination of a great popular movement and an expression of the will of the people. As John Nichols wrote for The Nation on the eve of that election,

While silly pundits (think George Will) and political insiders moan about election fatigue, you won’t find many actual Wisconsinites complaining. The year-and-a-half-long struggle for worker rights and local democracy — which began in February 2011, and continues to this day — has created a level of engagement that is simply unprecedented.

The same dynamic has been in place with other Democratic victories at the ballot box, such as independent redistricting commissions, the legalization of marijuana, and the citizen-led repeal of laws that Democrats oppose.

Besides the superficial partisan issues, there is the wider question of the role these practices should have in the American political system. Opponents of recall and referendum suggest that they relay too much information for the average American voter. They provide yet another election to study and another opportunity for message experts to propagandize.

But the attention span of voters has been a hotly debated topic in American politics for the past century. At the same time as the recall and referendum were adopted, other liberals argued that American voters were already overwhelmed with information in their annual elections. Herbert Croly, Walter Lippmann, and others believed that nonpartisan experts should have a greater role in interpreting information and handling many of the decisions of the government. Walter Lippmann once dismissed these kinds of reforms as incomplete, the “universal solvent of political evil” in the eyes of their supporters but wholly incapable of solving the problems of democracy on their own.

The criticisms of Croly and Lippmann have been decisively rejected. Following the New Deal, it became clear that traditional democratic policies could create a reformist state and sustain a liberal majority for decades. Voters built up institutions such as nonprofits and unions that would advocate on their behalf against the interests of capital owners and executives. The American people found ways to expand the franchise and experimented with new forms of voting that gave more power to individuals.

Furthermore, Americans were able to balance the new Progressive-era reforms in a responsible way for much of the 20th century. It is often forgotten that the drive for recall, initiative, and referendum also brought the American people the party primary. Primaries are seen as an essential part of American democracy today. But in many ways, they are just as problematic as recalls or initiatives. The American political system has determined that primaries are worth the possible pitfalls and criticizes parties or leaders who restrict the use of this tool.

American democracy is a constant balancing act between the protection of rights and the ability for individuals to have their political voices heard. In many instances, Democrats have supported voting rights and the expansion of the franchise. They should keep this broad support for democracy in mind when debating the power of recalls and referendums, even when many of these initiatives have gone against them in recent years.