Why An Important Part of the California Recall Process Is Unconstitutional, According to U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

I'm a Californian, and a fairly apolitical one. I think the current effort to recall Governor Davis is silly, if for no other reason than that it will cost $35 million in the middle of California's worst budget crunch ever, and I think it is basically a clever way for Republican Darrell Issa to get his name burned into the memory of every Californian for only $1 million of his own money. (Quite a bargain if you think about it. Hopefully, Californians will ultimately remember how much Mr. Issa's little stunt cost them . . . .) But, at the end of the day, I don't really care.

But two California law professors do, and they think the recall may violate the U.S. Constitution:

FindLaw columnist and U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram Amar, and FindLaw guest columnist and U.C. Davis law professor Alan Brownstein, discuss the important constitutional issues that have arisen in the controversy over the California recall process. Amar and Brownstein contend that one constitutional argument that has been made is probably in error, but that another is correct, and may well require invalidation of part of the recall scheme.

The details are here from Findlaw.com.