Full Version: Recall
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 18 states allow their respective citizens to recall state officials. 3/4ths of recall efforts are aimed at locally elected officials such as school board members or city council members. While 18 states do have the recall option, some state that only judicial officers are exempt from this, while others say all duly elected state leaders fall under the realm of potential recall action(congressmen & women are excluded) Standards for recalls vary and many do have time limits to them.
-NCSL document on the recall
Questions for debate:
1.)Do we need a constitutional amendment allowing every citizen of the union the right to recall duly elected state leaders?(NOT congressmen and senators)
2.)Does the right of recall fall under the X amendment as a right reserved to the people? If so, then does that not mean the states are violating that right in barring the removal of state officers?
3.)Utilizing the chartWhat state has the best standards for recall in your opinion? Why?
-NCSL document on the recall
Questions for debate:
1.)Do we need a constitutional amendment allowing every citizen of the union the right to recall duly elected state leaders?(NOT congressmen and senators)
2.)Does the right of recall fall under the X amendment as a right reserved to the people? If so, then does that not mean the states are violating that right in barring the removal of state officers?
3.)Utilizing the chartWhat state has the best standards for recall in your opinion? Why?
1. Although I tend to agree that the ability to recall elected officials is, in general, a good idea, I don't think it should be mandatory for each state. An amendment to the United States Constitution dealing with this issue seems neither appropriate or necessary.
2. I don't see recalls as a "right" of the people, in the sense of something that should always be allowed. As I said, I'm usually in favor of it (with some exceptions, as I'll note below), but I don't think it's a basic right.
3. Let me list my preferences first:
I. Recalling an elected official should be difficult, but within the realm of realistic possibility. A large number of signatures, collected within a reasonable time, should be required.
II. Judges should not be subject to recall. (They should be appointed rather than elected, but that's another issue.)
III. There should not be any specific reasons required for recall. "We don't like her anymore" is enough.
Trying to keep all of this in mind, I suppose I would go with the great state of Louisiana:
These numbers seem reasonable. (The difference between big and small elections seems like quibbling, but I can live with it.)
2. I don't see recalls as a "right" of the people, in the sense of something that should always be allowed. As I said, I'm usually in favor of it (with some exceptions, as I'll note below), but I don't think it's a basic right.
3. Let me list my preferences first:
I. Recalling an elected official should be difficult, but within the realm of realistic possibility. A large number of signatures, collected within a reasonable time, should be required.
II. Judges should not be subject to recall. (They should be appointed rather than elected, but that's another issue.)
III. There should not be any specific reasons required for recall. "We don't like her anymore" is enough.
Trying to keep all of this in mind, I suppose I would go with the great state of Louisiana:
QUOTE
Louisiana
All but judicial officers
If over 1,000 eligible voters: 33.3% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
If fewer than 1,000 eligible voters: 40% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
180 days
All but judicial officers
If over 1,000 eligible voters: 33.3% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
If fewer than 1,000 eligible voters: 40% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
180 days
These numbers seem reasonable. (The difference between big and small elections seems like quibbling, but I can live with it.)
1.)Do we need a constitutional amendment allowing every citizen of the union the right to recall duly elected state leaders?(NOT congressmen and senators)
No. Most certainly not. This is an issue concerning only the individual states, and thus an issue for only the states to decide. All issues concerning only the individual states, unless they are a gross violation of human rights, are for those individual states to decide. That is the core principle of federalism, and it is a boon. We are fifty states, and these states are and should be somewhat independant, each to work in its own fashion, that the nation may hold two positions at once without any hypocrisy or arbitrarity. I find it strange that many people who speak of celebrating diversity in the same breath try to homogenize the states, leaving us trapped to go in only the directions they support, allowing no one to experiment without their approval. We should most certainly not have the federal government step in over institutional structure (unless, of course, it becomes aristocratic or disenfranchising).
2.)Does the right of recall fall under the X amendment as a right reserved to the people? If so, then does that not mean the states are violating that right in barring the removal of state officers?
To be blunt, this is ludicrous. The tenth amendment is an amendment limiting federal power to that which is expressed or implied by the constitution. It is a simple, single statement: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The powers are reserved to the states or to the people - there is no indication that there is a specific set of rights to the states or the people. The states should be the ones to decide which rights are the states' and which are the people's.
3.)Utilizing the chartWhat state has the best standards for recall in your opinion? Why?
None of these. The ideal recall would not be given to judicial officers because the judiciary must not be swayed by public opinion, and be subject only to impeachment. I understand that this is an impossibility, Aristotelian perfection, but we must find our way as near to this hypothetical as possible. Also, the recall period should be indefinite, lest officials wait until its end to make unjust decisions. I understand that some unpopular decisions can be just, but again, this is a flaw impossible to correct. This question, to be honest, is marginally offensive, as it makes an assumption of support for the recall.
No. Most certainly not. This is an issue concerning only the individual states, and thus an issue for only the states to decide. All issues concerning only the individual states, unless they are a gross violation of human rights, are for those individual states to decide. That is the core principle of federalism, and it is a boon. We are fifty states, and these states are and should be somewhat independant, each to work in its own fashion, that the nation may hold two positions at once without any hypocrisy or arbitrarity. I find it strange that many people who speak of celebrating diversity in the same breath try to homogenize the states, leaving us trapped to go in only the directions they support, allowing no one to experiment without their approval. We should most certainly not have the federal government step in over institutional structure (unless, of course, it becomes aristocratic or disenfranchising).
2.)Does the right of recall fall under the X amendment as a right reserved to the people? If so, then does that not mean the states are violating that right in barring the removal of state officers?
To be blunt, this is ludicrous. The tenth amendment is an amendment limiting federal power to that which is expressed or implied by the constitution. It is a simple, single statement: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The powers are reserved to the states or to the people - there is no indication that there is a specific set of rights to the states or the people. The states should be the ones to decide which rights are the states' and which are the people's.
3.)Utilizing the chartWhat state has the best standards for recall in your opinion? Why?
None of these. The ideal recall would not be given to judicial officers because the judiciary must not be swayed by public opinion, and be subject only to impeachment. I understand that this is an impossibility, Aristotelian perfection, but we must find our way as near to this hypothetical as possible. Also, the recall period should be indefinite, lest officials wait until its end to make unjust decisions. I understand that some unpopular decisions can be just, but again, this is a flaw impossible to correct. This question, to be honest, is marginally offensive, as it makes an assumption of support for the recall.
Interesting topic. I think I would be inclined to side with the other respondents to this thread and argue that the concept, while quite appealing, is better left for the individual states to decide. This would be a gross encroachment on state's autonomy.
The only Federal action I would support in this sphere might be something of a resolution, asking the governors of each state to consider legislation to this effect. I think the idea has significant merit, as does term limits for Federal office, but in this instance a Federal constitutional amendment to enact such an idea is flawed at the outset. Leave this one to the states.
Doc
The only Federal action I would support in this sphere might be something of a resolution, asking the governors of each state to consider legislation to this effect. I think the idea has significant merit, as does term limits for Federal office, but in this instance a Federal constitutional amendment to enact such an idea is flawed at the outset. Leave this one to the states.
Doc
1.)Do we need a constitutional amendment allowing every citizen of the union the right to recall duly elected state leaders?(NOT congressmen and senators)
Absolutely not. This is completely a state issue. The fact that the majority of the states don't have recall provisions implies that it has not historically been a real problem. Terms and term limits have probably been satisfactory "recall" mechanisms. For those that do have them, it's likely that it was a problem at some time, and was addressed appropriately.
2.)Does the right of recall fall under the X amendment as a right reserved to the people? If so, then does that not mean the states are violating that right in barring the removal of state officers?
The U.S. does not have the power to decide which powers belong to the States and which to the People...only that those powers do not belong to the U.S.
3.)Utilizing the chart what state has the best standards for recall in your opinion? Why?
Grounds for recall
I think there should be stated grounds for recall, and that it shouldn't just be "We don't like him/her anymore." I like Alaska's. It is short and consise, but very general.
Who Can Be Recalled
I would start by saying that every elected official can be recalled, and then identify exceptions if any. This would only be judges, in the cases where they are elected. I would also state that every appointed official is immune from recall, but not from impeachment. This includes appointed judges. I would leave out general language such as "all judicial officers", and instead make the rule and enumerate the exceptions.
I see no reason to exclude U.S. Congressional delegates.
Signature requirement
There has to be a balance between making the recall process difficult enough to prevent trivial recalls, based on the whims of a few, and feasible enough that it can be done when an officer really should be removed. This is going to depend heavily on population. In Idaho, where I live, getting signatures from n% of voters is going to be significantly easier than in more populated states like Michigan and California. As a general rule of thumb, I would set it at about 10% to trigger a recall election, and 50%+1 in the election to succeed.
Circulation time
Again, this will depend heavily on state population. I would go probably go for a floating-180 day limit, where it can take as long as it takes, but the dates of the signatures must all fall within the last 180-day period.
Recall procedure
For practical purposes, I like the idea of a simultaneous recall/election. This saves time and money, rather than scheduling a second vote later on if the first one succeeds. I don't think the recalled official should be allowed as a candidate, however. If it takes 50%+1 to recall him, then rationally, he does not have 50%+1 to get re-elected.
So overall, I would lean towards Alaska, but I would probably also mix and match from various other states.
Absolutely not. This is completely a state issue. The fact that the majority of the states don't have recall provisions implies that it has not historically been a real problem. Terms and term limits have probably been satisfactory "recall" mechanisms. For those that do have them, it's likely that it was a problem at some time, and was addressed appropriately.
2.)Does the right of recall fall under the X amendment as a right reserved to the people? If so, then does that not mean the states are violating that right in barring the removal of state officers?
QUOTE(10th Amendment)
...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Emphasis mine)
The U.S. does not have the power to decide which powers belong to the States and which to the People...only that those powers do not belong to the U.S.
3.)Utilizing the chart what state has the best standards for recall in your opinion? Why?
Grounds for recall
I think there should be stated grounds for recall, and that it shouldn't just be "We don't like him/her anymore." I like Alaska's. It is short and consise, but very general.
QUOTE
lack of fitness, incompetence, neglect of duties or corruption
This gives the voters plenty of latitude in determining reasons for removal, but requires that there be reasons. I like Georgia's clause, but I don't think it's necessary given the Alaska clause.QUOTE
Discretionary performance of a lawful act or a prescribed duty shall not constitute a ground for recall of an elected public official.
Michigan's language might be a good idea, depending on whether the recall process tends to turn into a legal brawl in Alaska:QUOTE
The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds...shall be a political rather than a judicial question.
Who Can Be Recalled
I would start by saying that every elected official can be recalled, and then identify exceptions if any. This would only be judges, in the cases where they are elected. I would also state that every appointed official is immune from recall, but not from impeachment. This includes appointed judges. I would leave out general language such as "all judicial officers", and instead make the rule and enumerate the exceptions.
I see no reason to exclude U.S. Congressional delegates.
Signature requirement
There has to be a balance between making the recall process difficult enough to prevent trivial recalls, based on the whims of a few, and feasible enough that it can be done when an officer really should be removed. This is going to depend heavily on population. In Idaho, where I live, getting signatures from n% of voters is going to be significantly easier than in more populated states like Michigan and California. As a general rule of thumb, I would set it at about 10% to trigger a recall election, and 50%+1 in the election to succeed.
Circulation time
Again, this will depend heavily on state population. I would go probably go for a floating-180 day limit, where it can take as long as it takes, but the dates of the signatures must all fall within the last 180-day period.
Recall procedure
For practical purposes, I like the idea of a simultaneous recall/election. This saves time and money, rather than scheduling a second vote later on if the first one succeeds. I don't think the recalled official should be allowed as a candidate, however. If it takes 50%+1 to recall him, then rationally, he does not have 50%+1 to get re-elected.
So overall, I would lean towards Alaska, but I would probably also mix and match from various other states.
I do agree that rights not appropriated to the federal government belongs to the states and the people as stated. With that being said, those rights are not given(or given equally) to people in certain states. By making an amendment for this, it simply guarantees that it is a right and that every citizen should have it. Potentially possessing the right of recall is not necessarily the same thing as actually having that right. 
So to me, the wording of the X amendment is somewhat ambiguous here. The problem here is also along the same realm of civil rights. “State’s rights” was a popular refrain of those who didn’t want the feds to (gasp!) actually enforce civil rights provisions, since it was argued that it was the state’s job to do it. If they won’t do it, then that responsibility falls upon the feds. 
So to me, the wording of the X amendment is somewhat ambiguous here. The problem here is also along the same realm of civil rights. “State’s rights” was a popular refrain of those who didn’t want the feds to (gasp!) actually enforce civil rights provisions, since it was argued that it was the state’s job to do it. If they won’t do it, then that responsibility falls upon the feds.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.