Elections in the California State Assembly district are guided by the California law. According to this law, any candidate aspiring for any office in the California State Assembly district must gather a certain amount of signatures from the registered voters in the district in the case of a recall.
In most cases, the number of signatures required from the aspirant by the California law must equal 12 percent of the total number of votes cast during the previous election for the seat. It is worth noting that the signatures must be certified by the election panel before a person is declared a candidate for a particular seat (Baldassare, 2002).
After certification of the signatures, the candidates are free to launch their campaign for the specific office. The schedule for the election under the Californian law is supposed to be determined by the governor. However, there exist regular schedules for elections in the California State Assembly.
If a recall to the assembly falls in less than 180 days prior to the regular election schedules, the California law requires such a recall to be part of the regular election schedule. In case of a recall against a governor occurs, the responsibility of determining the special election is given to the lieutenant governor (Mona, 2011).
Research indicates that the California state assembly has had the highest number of recalls compared to other states in America. According to Field (201, p.20), a recall gives citizens an opportunity to replace a public official before the end of their term in office. This happens in the event that the citizens loose confidence in the leadership of a given leader. Traditionally, recalls have been common to leaders holding junior offices. The most recalled seats in the California State Assembly district according to Baldassare (2002) are include that of the city council and members to the boards of schools.
The passing of the Open Primary System on the 14th of June 2010 and the New Legislation Boundaries on 20th of November 2010 changed California’s Congressional and State Legislative delegations. These changes, which are to be effected during the 2012 general election, will make California the state the largest number of delegates and legislators in America.
For instance, these legislations will increase California’s congressional delegates to 53 and the state legislators to 120. The interpretation of these according to Mona (2011) is that new faces will see their way into the California’s congressional and legislative assembly. In addition, this is expected to bring significant changes to the public policy priorities in the state of California (Field 2011).
Proposition 14 in the California state election legislations require only the top two vote-getters to proceed to the general election, irrespective of their political parties. The aim of this legislation according to Baldassare (2002) is to eliminate the traditional party nominations forces.
It also allows the congress and state legislature to contact comprehensive campaigns that would attract support from the whole district. Aspirants in thee California state assembly district should therefore be more ambitious in their campaigns by committing both their resources and time to the campaigns.
The results of this type of campaigns in California are that only the candidate who has a district appeal has the highest chance of being elected. It makes elections in the California state assembly district individual based by divorcing it from party politics. With these changes in place, the 2012 general election is expected to be characterized by more fiercely campaigns than ever before in the history of California state assembly district politics.
The state of California deserves a change in terms of the representatives. This is based on the fact that the above mentioned changes aim at bringing new faces in the state’s leadership. In this case, the newly elected members and the incumbents, in case of any former representatives will be elected, may be presenting totally different constituents.
The newly elected officeholders are expected to bring significant changes in the running of the political politics of California State. In addition to the above mentioned changes, the California for a fresh Start (CFS) initiative is expected to bring into the election laws further changes concerning elections in the state. For instance, this initiative aims at reducing the term of holding a public office from 14 years to 12 years (Baldassare 2002)
Despite the argument by political analysts that the service of officeholders improves with their increasing time in office, I am of the opinion that the current State Assemblyman in California should be voted out. For me, new leaders should be elected into office because they bring with them new opinions and ideas.
Research has indicated that the more a leader remains in office, the more he or she becomes reluctant in his or her work. The much the current State Assemblyman in California would have done has already done and according to me, voting him back will deny the state new changes in terms of development and leadership strategies.
Baldassare, M. (2002). A Californian state of mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World. New York: Oxford University press.
Field, G. P. (2011). Struggle for Democracy with California Government and Politics today. London: Pearson Education.
Mona, F. (2011). California Government and Politics Today: London: Longman Publishers.