The Independent View: Federal Judge Rejects CA Lawsuit That Sought To Block Governor Recall Election

A Federal Judge, on Friday, Rejected a Lawsuit that claimed the Recall of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), is Unconstitutional, allowing the Election to Proceed.

The Lawsuit centered on the Recall’s Two-Question Ballot. The Ballot asks Voters whether Newsom should be Recalled, Yes or No, and if Yes, who should Replace him.

The Plaintiffs argued those Questions Violate the Constitutional Principle of “one person, one vote,” because they say Newsom’s Critics get Two Choices while his Supporters have Only one.

Their Case mirrored an Argument, by University of California, Berkeley School of Law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, and Berkeley Professor Aaron Edlin, who pointed out that Newsom’s Successor could be Elected with Fewer Votes than the Number of People who Vote to keep him in Office.

The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, argued that the Recall Election should either be Blocked, or Delayed, until the Ballot could be Amended so that Californians can Vote for Newsom for the Second Question.

Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, shot down their Argument.

“First, as a matter of logic and common sense, it simply is not true that plaintiff only gets to vote once while others get to vote twice. Plaintiff and all California voters have the opportunity to vote two distinct issues. The first is whether the governor should be recalled. Plaintiff and all other voters have the opportunity but not the obligation to vote for a replacement candidate,” the Judge wrote.

“Obviously, that vote only matters if a majority of the voters turn out to have voted ‘Yes.’ Plaintiff and all other voters have the same equal vote as to who the governor’s replacement should be. Voters do not need to vote on the recall in order to vote on a replacement candidate,” he continued.

Fitzgerald wrote that Clark’s Rights as a Voter “simply are not violated,” and that there is No chance for the Plaintiff to Prevail on the Merits for a Preliminary Injunction.

The Judge noted that Clark “plainly feels disgruntled” that a Candidate to Replace Newsom could become Governor with a Small Plurality of the Vote with 46 Candidates.

“As that may be, such disgruntlement raises no federal constitutional issues and certainly does not give the federal judiciary the right to halt the mammoth undertaking of this gubernatorial recall election,” Fitzgerald wrote.

The Judge conceded that it would be Cheaper and Simpler if the Lt. Governor were to Replace the Governor in the event of a Successful Recall Election, “but for over 100 years, California has chosen a different procedure.”

The Judge said that anyone who is dubious of a “Plurality Lottery” can simply Vote “No” on the First Question.

The Judge gave the Plaintiff, until Sept. 21st, to Show Cause for why he should Not Issue a Summary Judgment in Favor of the State. The Recall Election is September 14th, 2021.