Party at The French Laundry

Newsom was widely criticized in November 2020 for his attendance at a birthday party with more than three households at The French Laundry restaurant in Yountville in the Napa Valley, despite guidelines issued by his administration ahead of an expected holiday COVID-19 surge, which limited private gatherings to at most three households.^[27] Also in attendance were multiple lobbyists, including both the head lobbyist and the CEO of the California Medical Association.^[28] Newsom and his office initially defended the outing while saying it was the first time he and his wife dined with others in public since the COVID-19 pandemic began, that public dining recommendations were separate from state guidelines for private gatherings, and that the party was held outdoors.^[29][30]

The day after Newsom claimed the party had been held outdoors, photographs showing an enclosed and maskless gathering were published and widely shared.^[31] Neighboring diners said Newsom's party was so loud, restaurant staff closed off their garage-like dining space with sliding glass doors, essentially making an indoor dining space.^[32] Napa County was in the "orange tier" of pandemic severity at the time, which permitted some indoor dining.^[33] Newsom later apologized for attending the celebration.^[34] The incident severely damaged Newsom's image and credibility amid the public health crisis.^[31]

This incident^[35] and voter anger over lockdowns, job losses, and school and business closures^[36] were widely credited for the recall petition's surge in support. Other reasons included a $31 billion^[37] fraud scandal at the state unemployment agency and pre-pandemic grievances over homelessness and high taxes.^[36] By August 2020, the petitioners had submitted 55,000 valid signatures, and from August 2020 through October 2020, a total of 890 new valid signatures were submitted.^[38] Coincidentally, both the French Laundry party and the extension of the signature collection deadline happened on November 6, 2020^[39] and between November 5, 2020, and December 7, 2020, over 442,000 new signatures were submitted and verified; 1,664,010 valid signatures, representing roughly 111 percent of the 1,495,709 minimum required signatures and 98 percent of the 1,719,900 final certified signature count, would be submitted from November 2020 to the March 2021 deadline.^[38]

Reactions

Though the state's Republican Party establishment was not involved with the launch of the recall petition,^[40] the growing recall effort eventually received the attention and support of statewide and nationwide Republicans, with the Republican Governors Association commissioning a poll involving prospective candidates in February 2021.^[41] In January 2021, Newsom refused to acknowledge the developing recall movement when questioned by reporters.^[42] In January 2021, Rusty Hicks, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, likened it to the storming of the U.S. Capitol, calling it the "California coup".^[42][43] The comparison drew bipartisan criticism, with Newsom's former deputy chief of staff, Yashar Ali, saying it was "absolutely insane to frame a recall where the voters go to the polls a coup".^[43][44]

Certification

The recall campaign submitted 2,117,730 signatures by the March 2021 deadline.^[45] On April 26, 2021, the office of Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced that the recall effort had gained enough signatures to pass the 1,495,709 threshold and qualify for the ballot, pending official certification after a period of 30 days where voters could retract their signatures^{[note 1]} and where state officials tallied the costs to conduct the election (up to 60 days).^[47] The count yielded 1,719,943 valid signatures, which was roughly 13.8 percent of votes cast in 2018, exceeding the 12 percent threshold required to trigger the recall election.^[48] On June 23, 2021, the secretary of state announced that only 43 recall signatories withdrew their signatures statewide prior to the withdrawal deadline, resulting in a final count of 1,719,900 signatures (224,191 more than the required total), and all but ensuring a special election to recall Newsom from the governor's office.^[49]

After official certification, Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis was legally required to call the election within 60 to 80 days (per recent changes in recall election procedures signed by Governor Newsom, which eliminated the election cost review requirements if sufficient funding had been appropriated for the election).^[50] The signature drive was officially certified on July 1, 2021^[51] and on the same day, Kounalakis called the election for September 14, 2021 (76 days later and the last Tuesday within the 60 to 80 day time period available to Kounalakis).^[52]

Newsom under recall

Although the recall petition was introduced in February 2020, before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Newsom's response faced scrutiny by recall supporters and the news media.^[63] Many in favor of recalling Newsom cited issues unrelated to the pandemic as reasons for their support.^[64]

Newsom presided over an unexpected surplus in the state's 2021 finances, attributable to the recovery in the stock market, the state's progressive tax code, and $26 billion in federal aid, and announced a $100 billion post-pandemic spending proposal in May 2021 which would expand the eligibility for stimulus checks issued by the state to higher-wage earners with an additional payment to those with children, provide rental and utility assistance, and give funds to small businesses.^[65][66] While Newsom was required to return some of the surplus to taxpayers due to the Gann limit, which requires surplus funds to "be returned by a revision of tax rates or fee schedules", the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said the law was likely being misapplied with the issuance of rebate checks to targeted constituencies rather than with the reduction of tax rates for all taxpayers.^[67] A report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, published shortly after the proposal was revealed, said that when considering spending that must go towards public schools, pay off debt, or be placed in the state's main reserve account, the surplus was actually $38 billion, not $75 billion as claimed by Newsom, that the proposal was being rushed since more time was needed to determine which solutions would be effective, and that the proposal was "shortsighted and inadvisable" since it requested $12 billion from the state's existing reserves in spite of the surplus.^[68][69][70] Newsom's Democratic predecessor Jerry Brown said the spending plans were "not sustainable" and said, "I would predict, certainly within two years, we're going to see fiscal stress."^[71][72] Proponents of Newsom's proposal said the high amount of spending was "historic" and would help the economy recover from the pandemic, while opponents said Newsom's proposal was crafted in response to the imminent recall election.^[68][73] According to state officials, a stimulus payment would be issued to eligible individuals starting in September 2021.^[74][75] The first round of 600,000 stimulus checks was directly deposited into bank accounts on August 27, 2021, with payments to other recipients scheduled to be disbursed every two weeks.^[76]

In May 2021, Kaiser Health News reported that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Newsom was "routinely outsourcing life-or-death public health duties to his allies in the private sector" with lucrative no-bid government contracts. The report said the "vast majority" of awardees were Newsom supporters and donors who had collectively donated $113 million to his political campaigns (including to his campaign to fight the recall), charitable causes, or policy initiatives, since his entry into state-level politics in 2010.^[77]

In June 2021, The Sacramento Bee reported that the non-profit organization founded by Newsom's wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, had received over $800,000 in donations from companies that lobbied or did business with California state government, and paid her over $2.3 million since 2011 for leading the organization and producing documentary films through her production company, Girl's Club Entertainment.^[78][79] When questioned about his wife's non-profit, Newsom denied that there was any conflict of interest with the arrangement.^[79] In response to the report, several recall challengers called for a ban on donations to non-profit organizations of elected officials' family members from companies engaged in business with the state.^[78]

Partisanship

The recall effort was not launched by state Republican Party apparatus, but by activists who had unsuccessfully attempted to recall Newsom before; the activists said the party establishment did not get involved in a substantial way until the recall effort had almost triggered the election.^[40]

Newsom did not acknowledge the recall election until its occurrence became all but certain, calling the effort "partisan, Republican". He recruited nationwide Democrats to help fundraise against it.^[80][81] State Democratic leaders warned members of their party against running in the recall election to avoid a potential split electorate, which some attribute to the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis, where Democratic Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante was defeated in his candidacy by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.^[82] A May 2021 UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies poll sponsored by the Los Angeles Times found that Democratic voters overwhelmingly preferred having a prominent Democratic replacement candidate on the ballot in case the recall was successful, at odds with attempts by party leadership to prevent such a scenario.^[83]

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger disputed the supposed partisan motives of the recall, comparing the 2021 effort to the successful 2003 recall and saying,

"It's pretty much the same atmosphere today as it was then. There was dissatisfaction, to the highest level. And it's the same with the momentum. Something that sets it off to a higher level, kind of the straw that breaks the camel's back ... like an explosion."^[84]

Democratic strategist Katie Merrill said that the chance for a successful recall in 2021 was low:

"Politically, we're a completely different state than we were in 2003. If you look at the statewide races, the Republican Party has effectively become a third party in California."^[85]

Newsom sought to connect the backers of the recall effort to "the RNC, anti-mask and anti-vax extremists, and pro-Trump forces", while recall proponents said that the recall was only about Newsom and his performance as governor, and claimed that around one-third of recall petition signatories were registered Democrats or independents.^[86] As of April 30, 2021, nearly a year after the recall campaign was approved for petition circulation by the secretary of state, Trump had yet to personally comment on the recall effort.^[87] In September 2021, Trump commented on the recall election, claiming without evidence that it was "probably rigged".^[88]

Despite the CDC's mid-May guidance that it was not necessary for persons fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to wear masks in most indoor settings, Newsom's administration decided that California would continue its indoor mask mandate for another month, until June 15, 2021. Reception to the CDC's new guidance among public health experts had been mixed, with some favoring quick implementation and others favoring a delay, including Bob Wachter, chair of the UCSF Department of Medicine, who called the CDC's new guidance "premature".^[89] The delayed implementation was criticized by UCSF scientist and COVID-19 expert Dr. Monica Gandhi who said it had no scientific rationale, while potentially causing harm by suggesting there is "still a danger when there isn't one".^[90] Isaac Hale, a lecturer of political science at UC Davis, said partisan politics concerning the recall may have been a factor in the decision:

"One of [the] top political priorities Newsom has is keeping the Democratic base together, which is why they're really focused on arguing the recall is a partisan Republican endeavor. The biggest thing that could damage that narrative is if a prominent Democrat or progressive emerged as a candidate in the recall, like Cruz Bustamante did in 2003. The key to Newsom staying in power is keeping the Democratic base happy, consolidated and making sure the California Democratic Party is the party of Gavin Newsom, and Gavin Newsom only. It's smart politics since mask mandates are popular among California Democrats."^[91]

Jack Citrin, a political science professor at UC Berkeley, said changing the electoral calendar threatened to reinforce the public's cynicism about politicians using any means available to stay in power, and that they were "trying to create a situation that is most favorable for the partisan outcome that they favor".^[92] The changes were heavily criticized by Newsom's Republican opponents.^[93]

In August, recall proponents filed suit challenging language proposed by Newsom for the voter information handbook, alleging it falsely or misleading characterized the recall as a "power grab" by "Republicans and Trump supporters".^[94] On August 5, 2021, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Laurie M. Earl ruled against the suit and allowed inclusion of the disputed language, saying, "There is nothing false or misleading about describing the recall effort's leaders as Trump supporters."^[95] Judge Earl wrote that while it may have been an exaggeration to describe the election as a "Republican recall", the rhetoric was "common to political debate" and "permissible".^[96]

On July 24, 2021, the California Republican Party's steering committee voted to allow the party to endorse a candidate in the recall election, if the candidate received at least 60 percent of delegate votes in an upcoming August 7 meeting. Some Republicans opposed the move out of concern that endorsing a single candidate would reduce Republican voter turnout.^[97] On August 7, the party voted to cancel the endorsement vote and issue no endorsement;^[98] prior to the cancellation of the endorsement vote, Republican delegates were set to choose an endorsee from the four candidates who each had received the support of at least 200 delegates, which were Larry Elder, Kevin Faulconer, Kevin Kiley, and Doug Ose.^[99]

With political allies having successfully dissuaded prospective high-level Democrats from joining the race, Newsom's campaign urged supporters to skip the second question on the recall ballot. The directive was criticized by nonpartisan political observers, who said that it was misleading and could cause voter confusion.^[100]

Election administration

After some blueprints of the Dominion Voting Systems voting machines were leaked, a group of eight cybersecurity experts called, in a letter to Secretary of State Shirley Weber, for rigorous auditing of the recall election with a risk-limiting audit to mitigate any cyberattack risk.^[101] The experts wrote that they had no evidence of a hacking threat, and did not cast any blame on Dominion, but said that the state and counties should take steps to ensure that "the release of the Dominion software into the wild" did not increase election security risks.^[101] The California Secretary of State's office said the 40 counties in California using Dominion election management system use a different version of the software that meets state requirements, and noted that California election systems have layered security protections, including routine vulnerability testing, pre-election testing, access controls, and physical security.^[101] California also uses paper ballots with a voter-verified paper audit trail, another security measure.^[101]

Larry Elder's unsubstantiated fraud claim prior to election day

The day before the end of voting, candidate Larry Elder claimed on his campaign website that fraud had already been detected and linked to a petition for citizens to sign "demanding a special session of the California legislature to investigate and ameliorate the twisted results" of the election,^[102] though no vote totals had yet been reported. Elder would concede defeat on election day.^[5] His claim that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election result was accompanied by similar unsubstantiated claims from former President Donald Trump and several right-wing media figures.^[103][102]

Recall election timeline (SB 117 and SB 152)

In 2017, ahead of the successful recall of State Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), Democratic legislators changed the law concerning recall elections with Senate Bill 117^[118] to give voters 30 business days to withdraw their names from the recall petition.^[119] The 2017 law change also added a 30-day period for the state Department of Finance to conduct a cost estimate and gave the Joint Legislative Budget Committee 30 days to review the estimate.^[120]

On June 28, 2021, Newsom signed Senate Bill 152 into law, which allowed for his recall election to be held as early as August 2021 by allowing for a shorter recall timeline, which had been lengthened prior to the recall of Senator Newman.^[121] The changes allowed the lieutenant governor to set a date for the recall without waiting for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to review the cost estimate "so long as the Legislature has appropriated the funds it determines 'reasonably necessary' to conduct the recall election".^[122] With the same law change, the legislature appropriated $250 million to administer the recall election.^[123]

Election cost

While Newsom's pre-pandemic response to the recall effort in early 2020 warned that a special recall election would cost $81 million,^[124][19] county officials estimated in June 2021 that a statewide recall election, which at the time was expected to be held in the fall of 2021, would cost taxpayers $215 million.^[125][126] This higher estimate had presumed higher paper costs due to California's requirements for universal mail-in ballots instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which covered all elections held in 2020 and 2021, as well as a lengthy recall calendar featuring the rule changes enacted in 2017, ahead of Senator Newman's recall.^[126][127]

With the shortened timeline from SB 152 now ensuring a summertime election, California's county election clerks nonetheless urged Lieutenant Governor Kounalakis to schedule the election as late as possible, citing an inability to guarantee a successful August election, possible voter confusion, and the potential for costs far beyond the original estimate.^[126] A summertime election, held in late August or early September, could have helped Newsom defeat the recall by avoiding political fallout over fires, virus variants, or school reopenings, which could coincide with what had been anticipated to be a late October or early November recall election; this strategic advantage was the rationale for public advocacy for an earlier election by Democratic State Senator Steve Glazer.^[128] On July 1, the Department of Finance released an estimate of the cost of the September 14, 2021 election at $276 million, an increase of $61 million from the prior $215 million estimated by county election offices.^[129][125]

Newsom's campaign and Democratic legislative leaders of both state houses had criticized the recall election as a waste of taxpayer money, while recall proponents said, "You can't put a price on democracy," and that some costs could have been avoided if officials allowed for a "traditional" election without universal mail-in ballots.^[130] While the projected $276 million cost of the recall was close to the $292 million spent on the 2020 general election in California, which was the first to feature universal mail-in ballots, the cost per voter was significantly higher than in the 2018 midterm elections.^[130]

Secretary of State Weber said in an interview with KABC-TV that the recall election's total cost by election day had surpassed $276 million and was on track to eventually exceed $300 million.^[131] On February 3, 2022, election officials released a final tally of the costs for the recall election, at a little over $200.2 million.^[132]

Incumbent's party preference (SB 151)

In 2019, Newsom signed Senate Bill 151 into law,^[133] which gave recall targets the right to state their party preference on the recall ballot. Newsom was unable to take advantage of the new law after his campaign missed a February 2020 deadline (when the recall petition was filed) to state his party preference. In June and July 2021, Newsom's campaign sued Secretary of State Shirley Weber (whom he appointed earlier in 2021) over the issue, but lost the case. Weber sided with him, telling the judge that voters would benefit from knowing Newsom's political party preference. The lawyers arguing the case in opposition to Newsom before Judge James P. Arguelles (who had also approved the recall signature deadline extension)^[134] represented replacement candidate Caitlyn Jenner and proponents of the recall.^[135][136]

Misapplication of tax return disclosure law (SB 27)

A new requirement for gubernatorial candidates to disclose their most recent tax returns was passed into law in 2019, when Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 27.^{[note 2]} Although the language of the law says that gubernatorial candidates must publicize the prior five years of their tax returns in order for their names to appear on a "primary ballot", the secretary of state applied the law to the recall election.^[138] The law has been cited as a potential reason for the major reduction in recall replacement candidates relative to the number of candidates in the 2003 gubernatorial recall.^[139]

The tax return disclosure requirement did not apply to Newsom, who was not considered a "candidate" in the recall. Newsom's campaign nonetheless submitted his tax documents to Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who refused to publish them on the grounds that the governor was not required to disclose them. Newsom's campaign did not respond to a reporter's July 19, 2021, request for his recent tax returns.^[140]

On July 21, 2021, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Laurie Earl invalidated all tax return disclosure requirements for the 2021 recall election. The ruling was on a suit filed by prospective recall challenger Larry Elder against Secretary of State Weber, alleging she overstepped her authority by disqualifying him from his candidacy due to a purported tax return filing error.^[141] The judge ruled that Weber had improperly disqualified Elder, who had "substantially complied" with the requirements and that the special recall election was not a primary election and therefore Senate Bill 27 did not even apply.^[142] By then, 42 candidates' tax returns had already been made public by the secretary of state's office.^[143] Weber's office said it would comply with the ruling and did not appeal.^[144]

Constitutional legal challenge

In August 2021, an essay by UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and UC Berkeley Professor of Law and Economics Aaron Edlin appeared in The New York Times claiming California's recall process violates the Constitution of the United States, since more people could vote to retain Newsom than for any particular candidate while still ousting him, thus potentially violating "one person, one vote" legal precedent (conversely, if a majority of voters favored retaining Newsom, but an even greater number of voters favored a particular replacement candidate, Newsom would nonetheless prevail).^[145][146] Charles C. W. Cooke, writing in The National Review in the same month, criticized the rationale and timing of the essay's publication and said Chemerinsky had selectively taken issue with California's recall, in which a Democrat was targeted, by not bringing up the pivotal 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia, which would also be invalid by his logic.^[147] Many experts have said the current recall process would probably survive legal challenges.^[148]

On August 13, 2021, two California voters filed a federal lawsuit against California's recall process, with formerly disbarred^[149] attorney Stephen Yagman and Joseph Reichmann as counsel,^[150] alleging violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.^[151] California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on August 16, 2021, that he was monitoring the lawsuit and legal debate; by then, millions of ballots had already been sent out.^[151] On August 27, 2021, United States District Court for the Central District of California Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, an Obama appointee, dismissed the lawsuit.^[152] Judge Fitzgerald, in his ruling, said of the plaintiffs' grievances: "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."^[153] The office of Secretary of State Shirley Weber (the defendant in the case) said they would not appeal the ruling.^[153]

Proposed changes to state recall election law

In April 2021, two bills that could make future recalls less likely were introduced in the California Senate: the first, a bill originally authored by Senator Ben Allen (D-Redondo Beach) two years prior, in response to the recall of Senator Josh Newman, would allow a targeted incumbent to be a candidate on the recall ballot;^[154] the second, authored by Senator Josh Newman (who by 2020 had reclaimed his lost state senate seat) would have allowed targets of recall campaigns to access the lists of recall petition signers and try to persuade them to remove their signatures. Neither bill would have impacted the 2021 recall election.^[155]

Newman's proposed law (Senate Bill 663)^[155] cleared the State Senate's Elections Committee on April 12, but he pulled the bill before it headed to the Judiciary Committee^[156][157] after it received fierce opposition from proponents of the 2021 recall over privacy and voter intimidation concerns.^[158][159] As of July 2021, Senator Allen's bill (Senate Constitutional Amendment 3)^[155] was on hold in the legislative "suspense file".^[154][160]

In September 2021, while voting in the recall election was underway, Democratic State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said discussions were being held to alter California's recall process; support and opposition to changes in the recall process in California have fallen along partisan lines.^[161] Any major changes to the recall process must be approved by California's voters via an amendment to the Constitution of California.^[162]

Top candidates

Participation

On recall question

For candidates

On recall question

Here are the results of the recall election by county. Khaki represents counties won by No. Light blue represents counties won by Yes.^[329]

On replacement candidates

Here are the results of the election by county for replacement candidates. Red represents counties won by Elder. Blue represents a county won by Paffrath.

On recall question

Khaki represents congressional districts won by No. Light blue represents congressional districts won by Yes.^[336] All districts with incumbent Democratic representatives voted for No except one, and all districts with incumbent Republican representatives voted for Yes except two.

On replacement candidates

Elder swept all congressional districts except two, losing to Paffrath in 12th and 13th districts: the latter was the best performance for both Paffrath and Newsom.^[337] Conversely, Elder's best result was in the 23rd district, which supported recalling Newsom the most.