California’s direct democracy – the initiative, referendum and recall – dates to 1911, when Progressive-era Gov. Hiram Johnson ushered in these provisions so the People “may protect themselves.” The state Constitution also allows the recall of local officials, including school-board members.
While this Editorial Board agrees with Johnson in spirit, we don’t agree with every effort by the public to recall its politicians. We try to answer a simple question for each one: Is this necessary to protect the public, or are the issues motivating the activists ones better left for the normal election cycle?
With regards to the Orange Unified School Board recall on the March ballot, we believe the answer lies in the latter. Recall supporters raise concerns about Board President Rick Ledesma and Trustee Madison Miner, some of which are legitimate. But there’s no reason these issues shouldn’t have waited.
Supporters express concern about the firing of the superintendent, decisions regarding school-repair funds and the sale of a school site to a charter. They blame these trustees for an exodus of principals. The details are hard to sort through, which confirms they involve the normal day-to-day activities of a board responsible for managing a decent-sized district.
Much upset centers on a new social policy, which requires officials to notify parents if a student under 12 years old identifies at school as transgender. This is a trend by conservative boards that we find overly intrusive. Nevertheless, it is so narrow that in practice it’s largely symbolic.
Teachers’ union support for the recall also gives us pause.
A successful recall creates another mess for determining replacements (via special election, appointment or waiting until the next election, per district bylaws). So why not just wait anyway?
School-board elections have largely operated under the radar, for better or worse. After COVID closures – and the reluctance of unions and administrators to reopen schools – the state faced a record number of recall attempts. We were sympathetic to most of these given the time-sensitive nature of the problem. In this case, not so much.
We urge a “no” vote.
