Future recalls require further reform.(Gubernatorial recalls)

California is the first state in more than eighty years to recall a sitting governor. Is this landmark event a fluke or part of a larger anti-incumbent strain? Would those states without a recall mechanism be wise to follow California's lead?

The Golden State's voter rebellion fits into a national nonpartisan pattern. Democratic governor Gray Davis was recalled a month after Alabama voters rejected a $1.2 billion tax hike crafted by their Republican governor. Recall movements are afoot in Nevada and Wisconsin against both Republican and Democratic lawmakers who either raised taxes or refused to support a property-tax freeze.

At present, eighteen states have recall laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. Political activists may attempt to add such provisions to more state constitutions as a means of reining in incumbents--in the same vein as the term-limit laws of a decade ago.

If recall does go national, it should reflect populist sentiment, not partisan desires. States should improve on the California model with the following reforms in mind:

More-Specific Grounds. California law says recall is appropriate as "the public good may require." Other states are more detailed. Montana limits its recall grounds to physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, or failure to perform duties prescribed by law.

Quicker Process. In California, opponents have 160 days to collect recall petition signatures. Nevada allows only sixty days, which seems more sensible, as a quicker timeline makes ...