Not too long ago, opponents of the recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom were calling the effort “undemocratic.”

The issue, apparently, was that Newsom could have potentially been replaced by someone with fewer votes than him, even though the recall and replacement were essentially two separate elections.

An underwhelming outcome? Maybe. But labeling it undemocratic was silly then and is somehow even sillier today.

Last week, three far-out San Francisco school board members were recalled for many reasons, which included being more concerned with renaming schools during COVID than educating students, fighting against schools being open, so much so that Mayor London Breed sued the school district, blocking a gay parent of a biracial child from serving on a parent council because they felt he didn’t bring enough diversity, and mishandling the budget.

Voters recalled them and the vote was not even close, but instead of voters choosing the replacements, the vacancies will be filled by Breed.

Wait: I thought democracy was at stake here. If it was “undemocratic” for someone to be recalled and replaced by someone else with fewer votes, then it’s surely a crime against humanity for a recalled politician to be replaced by mayoral appointment, right?

Nope!

For context: The recalls were slightly different. The first question on the gubernatorial ballot was like the SF recall, thumbs up or down on Newsom.

If a majority chose thumbs down, then the winner would have been selected in a second question out of more than 40 candidates.

Unless a candidate was a global movie star and one of the most recognizable people in the world — someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger 20 years ago — it would be almost impossible for this person to perform better than an incumbent in a binary choice.

To put it another way, getting only 40% in a binary choice is a crippling loss, while getting 40% in a race of 46 people could be an overwhelming victory.

Anyway, it’s irrelevant now because Newsom ultimately won. But in preparation for this supposedly apocalyptic event, the Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote that the “arrangement is not just perilous for the state’s stability, it’s undemocratic.”

That’s nonsense. If voters decide to do something and there’s no foul play, it’s clearly democratic (what else could it be?).

The Times added the state’s “stability” was in peril! Yet the Times was unconcerned with stability post-recall in San Francisco.

It’s possible the Times is uninterested in SF affairs and was not worried about this pocket of undemocracy hundreds of miles up the coastline.

But what about Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law?

He filed a lawsuit begging the court to intervene on Newsom’s behalf because he saw the gubernatorial recall as “unconstitutional” because of the same scenario causing the Times to panic.

Surely Chemerinsky is concerned that someone with zero votes could replace a recalled SF school board member, right?

No, not him either.

The San Francisco Chronicle was in lockstep with the Times and Chemerinsky in opposing the Newsom recall, though in a much more measured tone that relegated this silly argument to the back bench.

Strangely, its editorial supporting the school board recall made no mention of the fact that these board members would be replaced by appointment.

Why does this matter? First, these are respected institutions and people making arguments about democracy being in peril, but only when it’s convenient for them.

Second, lawmakers are at the moment debating changing the state’s recall rules with the Times/Chemerinsky/Chronicle argument in mind.

The Times is even back on the warpath with an editorial earlier this month titled: “Fix the biggest flaw with California’s recall or next time a loser could win.”

Want to guess what perceived flaw it mentions?

Related Articles

California’s recall process, though not perfect, is fine as is and the arguments against it are not really about democracy at all.

Instead, these arguments are about people in power trying to retain power by preventing a non-Democrat from being elected, which was the only difference between the Newsom recall and the SF school board recall.

It’s possible Newsom could have been replaced by a Republican, but it’s doubtful Breed will fill vacancies with anyone but Democrats.

This gaslighting from respected institutions and people is certain to threaten democracy more than an undesirable electoral outcome ever could.

Leave the recall process alone.

Matt Fleming is a member of the Southern California News Group’s editorial board. Follow him on Twitter @FlemingWords.