‘Damage control’: Newsom struck by recall movement after series of lawsuits

A March 5 announcement from the California Department of Public Health and California updated guidelines for a return to youth competitive sports amidst the increasing possibility of California Governor Gavin Newsom being subjected to a recall election. WikiCommons

With an emphasis on his alleged poor handling of the pandemic, California Governor Gavin Newsom is the target in a recall campaign making headway in the Golden State. The campaign’s rhetoric opposes the governor’s perceived hypocrisy in following COVID-19 guidelines and criticizes his integration of reopening policies. 

Effective March 5, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) announced updates to the guidelines for outdoor and indoor youth and recreational adult sports. These changes follow public unrest visible in a series of lawsuits and temporary restraining orders against Newsom and his cohorts.

Newsom approved the executive change with the caveat that youth sports will only engage in competition so long as they firmly adhere to the same COVID-19 safety protocol as players at the collegiate and professional levels. This includes social distancing, mask-wearing, symptom screening, COVID-19 testing and contact tracing.

“It reads to me a lot like damage control; like a way to cover his (expletive) for the way he has been blatantly disregarding his own rules for this pandemic for a little while now,” said Zoe Bell, a sophomore political science major and member of Chapman Progressives. “It’s not entirely clear if he really has an end goal in mind for containing this or whether or not he’s just acting at the will of whoever tells him to.”

The decision marked the cumulative settlement of a Feb. 19 preliminary court hearing jointly filed by San Diego residents Nicholas Gardinera and Cameron Woolsey against the County of San Diego, San Diego Public Health Officer Wilma Wooten, Newsom, CDPH and up to 100 other defendants. According to Stephen Grebing, the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendants were in violation of the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution based on age group alone. This was determined by virtue of selectively allowing collegiate and professional competitive sports to play, but not high school sports. 

“It’s the lowest constitutional standard in the United States,” Grebing told The Panther. “All (the government officials) have to do is show that they have a rational basis for what they did, for the decisions that they made, and they couldn’t even do that.”

Both plaintiffs are minors, with Gardinera finishing off his senior year at Scripps Ranch High School and Woolsey completing his at Mission Hills High School. Both students were slated to be the running-backs on their respective football teams for their final season. 

“Each (plaintiff was) looking forward to their senior season for not only the experience of completing their high school careers, but competing for a (California Interscholastic Federation) Section championship and potentially securing an NCAA Division I scholarship to extend their playing careers and allow them to attend universities they may not otherwise have had the opportunity to attend due to their athletic prowess and accomplishments,” Grebing wrote in the cause of action and writ in the filing.

San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan also wrote a letter outlining the societal ramifications of youth sports remaining canceled in an effort to help sway the jury’s stance. The letter cited concerns such as the increase of teen pregnancy, gang affiliation, crime, drug and alcohol addiction, disappearances of minors and online exploitation — concerns that, according to Grebing, are significantly diminished when minors are allowed to partake in extracurriculars where they can be supervised by adult teachers and coaches.

“I would never be doing this if I didn’t think it could be done safely,” Grebing, who typically specializes in business, real estate and corporate governance, told The Panther. “I do not deal with these issues daily — or ever. I did this because I have two kids in high school that aren’t playing now, and what we were doing was traveling over to Arizona every other weekend for tournaments. It just was asinine.”

Grebing also told The Panther that with Newsom’s emphasis on COVID-19 testing for competitive sports being on football, water polo and rugby — two of which are primarily male-dominated activities — the discrepancy in focus on women’s sports provides another avenue for an equal protection clause claim. 

The basis of the suit was also taken up by other individuals across California, supported by grassroots campaign “Let Them Play.” In Orange County specifically, two volleyball players, a basketball player, a wrestler and a cheerleader jointly filed for a temporary restraining order March 1 against any government or law enforcement officers who prevent athletes from participating in high school sports under safety regulations. Newsom, the California Department of Public Health and the Orange County Health Care Agency were named as defendants in the claim.

Although motives for suing the state governor are not always as clear-cut as getting student athletes back to competition, a Chapman University poll of 703 Orange County residents revealed that 48% of respondents thought Newsom should be removed from office before his term expires, compared to 52% who said otherwise. The poll also accounts for political affiliation, showing that 80% of Republicans favor the recall while 84% of Democrats stand against it, indicating an evident partisan disparity.

“People are using this (case), unfortunately, as one more reason to pull (Newsom) out of office,” Grebing said. “I’m not a Democrat, but I’m not for pulling governors out of office. He got elected; let him stay there until his term’s done.”

With over 2 million signed petitions, the “Recall Gavin Newsom” movement has far surpassed the almost 1.5 million signature requirement before the March 17 deadline. The movement has steadily gained traction in the wake of public controversy over his recently approved plan for statewide reintegration of public education: AB-86 COVID-19 relief and school reopening, reporting and public health requirements. The bill does not enforce schools to reopen, but rather offers an apportioned $2 billion in financial incentive to schools that open before April 1, even if the schools are in districts still in the purple, “widespread” tier of the county watchlist.

While Fred Smoller, who conducted the aforementioned Chapman University poll, believes Newsom’s negative press as of late will ultimately result in his name ending up on the ballot for a special election come October, he expects the situation will fade into nonexistence given California’s track record of 55 attempted governor recalls since 1913 — only one of which was successful.

“Only one governor has been recalled in forever and that was Gray Davis,” Smoller said. “(Recall campaigns) are very expensive to launch. They may not like (Newsom), but you have to do an advertising campaign and it has to be funded by somebody, so you have to get a lot of money.”

Following the March 17 petition deadline, California’s 58 county registrar offices will verify the signatures, which will then be passed on to the California Secretary of State’s office. From there, costs will be estimated for a recall election in several months.

“The state of our state remains determined,” said Newsom during the 2021 State of the State Address March 9, addressing public criticism. “I remain determined. We won’t change course just because of a few nay-sayers and dooms-dayers. So to the California critics, who are promoting partisan power grabs and outdated prejudices … We will not be distracted from getting shots in arms and our economy booming again.”