I almost never set out to “fisk” an article. Generally, I start out by attempting to comment on and/or rebut a few really weak points in an article, only to find that there were a couple more equally weak ones immediately below it. So I respond to them, too, then discover a couple more poorly reasoned bits, and sooner or later, there’s nothing left of the article. That was the case with this anti-recall op-ed in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune by Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at Loyola who specializes in, of all things, election law. Like his friends at “Taxpayers” Against The Recall, he does a pretty crappy job of concealing his own partisan motives for opposing the recall. Here goes:

Before California voters decide to sign a recall petition, they should first consider four troubling aspects of the special rules governing recall elections that may make them think twice. [Emphasis added.]

First, if a majority of voters decide to recall Davis, his successor will be chosen at the same election by merely a plurality of the voters.

A plurality? Really? Silly me, I thought you had to get an absolute majority of the vote to win a recall election, just like Davis did in the general election last fall. At least I think that’s what he did; 47.3% of the vote is greater than 50%, right?

The plurality rule means that if there are 20 candidates on the ballot, the candidate with the greatest number of votes becomes the next governor, even if that candidate polled only 10 percent or 20 percent of the votes. There are no primaries, no runoffs.

In other words, with the exception of a primary, the “special” rules aren’t so special after all. The election will be run just like any other gubernatorial race, except that Davis himself won’t be among the contenders.

The candidate with the most votes becomes governor for the rest of Davis’ term.

Unless he too is recalled, that is. Not a likely scenario overall, but it probably would happen if the anti-recall people’s nightmare scenario occurred and we elected a real nutcase, like, say, Lyndon LaRouche (a Democrat).

The plurality requirement is even worse than it looks.

Really? Then why isn’t the good professor calling to get rid of it for general elections, too? While we’re at it, let’s require absolute majorities for primaries, too. Wouldn’t want to run the risk that each major party nominates a nutcase with 10% of its vote, would we? OK, maybe we should read on to see why this requirement is so bad:

Recall proponents are trying to qualify the recall for the a special election in the fall, when fewer Democrats would be expected to turn out to vote.

There you have it, folks. “Fewer Democrats might vote” equals “bad.” But why does Mr. Gore Professor Hasen think that a November October election will systematically favor Republicans over Democrats? The Democrats did fine in November 1998 and November 2002. Is there something special about this November fall that makes things different?

The alternative to a special fall election is March 2004, when Democrats will turn out in larger numbers to vote for a Democratic nominee for president.

In other words, there’s nothing wrong with November October. Clearly, any Democrats who like Gray Davis will turn out to vote in November October. So will any Democrats who don’t like Davis but do care who replaces him. The only thing that a November October recall won’t do for the Democrats is to stack the deck in their favor by timing the election to coincide with the Democratic Presidential Primary. [Yes, I know, it's also the day of the Republican primary. Gee, I wonder who is going to win that one?]

If the recall election takes place in the fall, turnout could be quite low, meaning that just a few percent of the population conceivably could choose the next governor.

Good. Anyone too lazy to vote in an election that determines who will govern the most populous state in the world’s most powerful country shouldn’t be voting anyway.

Second, in the campaign for and against the recall, usual campaign contribution limits are off. Anyone can give as much as they want for or against the recall, raising concerns about the potential for corruption, or at least concerns about the appearance of corruption. Disclosure is the only rule in place.

OK, so candidates can be corrupt bastards if they like, provided they are willing to go on record saying “I hereby declare myself to be a corrupt bastard.” I can live with that.

Do we really want Davis and his opponents to be out there raising even more money?

Who’s “we?” I couldn’t care less if Davis or his opponents want to raise money. Nothing wrong with raising money, in and of itself. It’s part of living in a democracy. Are “we” OK with democracy, or is that a bad thing, too? Wouldn’t want to provoke politicians to raise money now, would we?

Democrats allege Issa already has broken the anti-solicitation law by soliciting the corporation he controls and other entities to donate to the recall effort.

Democrats allege that the current George Bush murders senior citizens and committed an impeachable act by liberating Iraq. Democrats allege that both Presidents Bush “stole” an election (recall the “October Surprise” Surprise). Democrats allege all kinds of screwy things. Even if they turned out to be right this time around – think of the old stopped-clock clich