‘I don’t recall’

“I don’t recall.” From President Reagan to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it has been the mantra of elected and appointed officials forced to testify. Should Mayor Filner’s alleged behavior indeed lead he or staffers to court, it’s a safe bet it will be uttered at least once by someone who has blocked a potentially damaging memory.

For me, it has a different meaning. As in, “I don’t recall” elected officials.

I voted against the recall of Gov. Gray Davis, and tend to think the Schwarzenegger years have proven me on the right side of that one. Never say never, but at this point I don’t see myself voting to recall Mayor Filner, and I hope I would be consistent if a politician from the other side of the aisle is recalled.

This isn’t really about the mayor or the horrific accusations. It’s about election philosophy. In our predominantly two party system, voters are selecting a party and governing philosophy as much as a candidate. (Yes, I am aware that San Diego mayoral elections are non-partisan. If you really believe that, I have a decline-to-state bridge to sell you.) That was particularly true in the 2012 mayoral election, where many people in the middle didn’t care for Filner or former Councilmember Carl DeMaio.

As much as I wouldn’t want to live in a city that tolerated harassment in the mayor’s office, I am equally uncomfortable with the behavior of one person so dramatically changing the chosen path of a city.

I also believe that the best elections are the most reflective of the will of the people – in other words, the more voters, the better the election. If we are going to change course, it should be with the permission of as many or more voters than elected the mayor in the first place.

The current recall system in San Diego fails on my metrics. It does not ensure continuity of governing philosophy, as the impeachment of the president does by elevating the vice president. Instead, it throws leadership back to the electorate in a way that gives small constituencies huge voices.

A recall requires signatures from 15 percent of the number of registered voters in the city for the last election. As signature gathering goes, that’s a high bar, but it still means that fewer than half of the people who voted for DeMaio can begin to unravel Filner’s election. If paid signature gatherers are used, it could take even fewer who are willing to pay.

If enough signatures are gathered, the ballot has two questions for voters. First, you vote yes or no on the recall. Simple enough. Then the fun begins.

If you vote no on the recall, you can, and should, still move on and choose a candidate. Unfortunately many people don’t, assuming that if they aren’t for a recall, they shouldn’t vote for a new mayor. If you skip the recall question, the rules say you can’t vote for a candidate, but that’s probably unconstitutional, so the whole thing may be called into question.

For those who remember and are allowed to vote for a candidate, the process more resembles a WWE Battle Royale than a sensible election. The slate can be huge (the Davis recall featured 135 candidates), and the one with the most votes becomes mayor, even if he or she only gets 10 percent. So we go from someone elected by a majority of voting San Diegans to one who could represent a very narrow constituency. Given the compressed time frame, that person may have avoided the kind of scrutiny that we hope would identify any problematic history, increasing the chances we’ll be in the same place in six months.

A resignation is electorally preferable, as it initiates a more normal electoral process, including a run-off if no candidate wins 50 percent in the first special election. That may explain why many of the groups and politicians calling for Filner’s resignation haven’t officially joined the recall effort.

Other than a resignation or a recall, about the only thing available to the City Council would be to make the mayor legislatively irrelevant. The same seven members who have called for his resignation could override all his vetoes. It could be risky, as collusion prior to votes could violate the Brown Act. At least now, if they prefer that plan to a recall, they can all say they got the idea from this column.