As the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) enters the final stages of signature certification, California’s incumbent Democratic state senator Josh Newman (D), who was removed from office in 2018, has sparked a furor by proposing to make public the names and addresses of voters who participated in the recall ballot. Some groups have argued that the left is violating the constitutional rights of voters and intimidating public opinion.
Newman’s proposal, SB663, would require that in any future recall campaign, as long as the number of voters involved is more than 50,000, the recallee would be entitled to the names and addresses of all voters who signed the recall petition.
The proposal would also give the recallee the right to contact and persuade voters to change their minds and withdraw their recall signatures based on the voters’ personal information they have obtained. In addition, the proposal would have extended the “withdrawal of recall signatures” period from 30 days to 45 days after the filing of the recall petition.
SB663 is being resisted by California voters, Republican legislators, and various civic groups.
California State Senator Melissa Melendez (D) tweeted sarcastically, “SB663 would provide the name and address of anyone who signed a recall petition to the person targeted for recall. Dictators around the world must be so proud of California right now.”
The Election Integrity Project of California (EIPCa), an election watchdog group, said that SB663 is a serious violation of voter privacy and exposes voters to a barrage of unwanted phone calls, mailings and even door-to-door harassment in an attempt to force voters to withdraw their signatures. A recallee should never have the right to access the private information of a pro-recall voter.
“SB663 would amend Section 11048 of the Election Code,” the EIPCa group wrote in a statement, “(Once passed) unidentified agents could obtain (sign recall) petitioners’ private data and disseminate it to other agents or radicals as a threat to petitioners.”
The organization also noted, “Not only is this demeaning and insulting to the intelligence of the electorate, but it will likely force them to be reluctant to sign any future petitions.SB663 will suppress the will of the people to participate in ‘self-governance’ and force people to choose between exercising their constitutional rights and avoiding privacy violations choose between exercising their constitutional rights and avoiding privacy violations, or even withdrawing their willingness to legitimately express their political beliefs under uncomfortable pressure.”
In his proposal, Newman determined that: signature gatherers often convey inaccurate information to voters in order to obtain their signatures on recall petitions.
In response to this claim, the EIPCa organization said, “The authors of the proposal provide absolutely no evidence regarding this allegation. For citizens, this is an offense in and of itself, and it is an affront to the right of citizens to use their constitutional right to hold elected officials accountable to their oath of office.”
Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer (D) tweeted, “Every Californian has a right to privacy. This proposal would release the names of citizens and allow political thugs to intimidate them [voters] into silence. We can’t let that happen.”
Ms. Jane, a Chinese-American voter in California, said, “In an election as important as deciding the leader of the United States, the left does not verify the identity of voters to be eligible to vote, and even when the legitimacy of the election is in question, the left uses the excuse of ‘protecting voters’ personal information’ to forcefully block review of the ballot. Now it’s unconstitutional to disclose the identities of voters who disagree with the left, which is what dictators do.”
SB663 Proposal Accused of Using Mafia-Style Threats
Newman’s proposal this time is allegedly related to the current recall campaign for governor that is advancing among California citizens.
Since June of last year, California voters have begun a new “Recall Gavin 2020” campaign. More than 2.1 million signatures were collected and submitted by the March 17 deadline. This could make Newsom the second governor in California history to have a successful recall process.
All signatures are currently being certified by election offices in counties across the state. Under California election law, a special recall election can then be held if 1,497,000 valid voter signatures support the recall of Newsom.
Voter Farquhar said, “This proposal is so outrageous that Newsom will surely sign it, and there is a clear conflict of interest.” Other voters, on the other hand, said this reinforced their position in favor of recalling Newsom.
The official Twitter account of the “Recall Newsom 2020” campaign reads, “SB663 will not affect this recall campaign! …… But this proposal is using mafia-style tactics of threatening, intimidating and bullying people.”
Orrin Heatlie, one of the sponsors of the recall campaign, said, “This is a dangerous and reckless piece of legislation that threatens the very fabric of the recall process. Privacy is key to participating in the recall movement …… The governor has already shown a propensity to retaliate against opposing parties. Once the proposal passes, voters may be afraid to recall incompetent officials.”
In a statement, the California Republican Party (CAGOP) said, “After 2.1 million Californians signed a petition calling for the recall of incompetent Governor Newsom, Democrats felt pressured to change the rules when the action likely qualified for the (successfully initiated recall) election.”
“Newsom is the worst governor in California history …… Instead of addressing the broken leadership and policies that have led California to this point, Democrats have an even better idea: change the rules to serve their interests.” The California Republican Party notes that State Senator Newman, who authored SB663, is an ally of Newsom and had been one of the few California politicians to be removed from office in more than a century for supporting a gas tax increase in 2018.
SB663 had its first round of hearings in the state legislature and passed on April 1, and will next be heard in the Judiciary Committee.
Recent Comments