Thursday, November 3, 2011
Wisconsin: Sheboygan petitioners turn in 4500 signatures
The Sheboygan recall, started due to the Mayor Bob Ryan's well-publicized drinking problems, are reporting that they have 4,500 signatures. The earliest an election would be held is mid-January.
Oregon: Josephine Recall set for December
The recall against a County Commissioner (claiming unprofessional or harassing conduct) is set for Dec. 6. If the official is recalled, the other two county commissioners will name a replacement
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
It's Money that Matters -- Editorial on Pearce recall complaints on campaign funds
Editorial claims that most of the money donated by constituents in the Pearce recall have gone to Lewis. However, Pearce has greatly outraised his opponent.
Mark Hanna may have said that "there are two things that are important in politics, one is money and I can't remember what the second one is." However, there are instances of money not making in difference in a recall. According to their ballotpedia pages, the two Michigan Senators targeted in 1983 vastly outspent their opponents ($105K to $10K), but got blown out of the water.
Idaho: Proponents claim enough signatures in Culdesac School Board recall
Complaints focus on a failed local ballot measure.
Oregon: Two School Board members kicked out in Forest Grove recall
Two school board members were kicked out of office in yesterday's Forest Grove recall. Replacement will be by board appointment.
The unofficial results are one board member, Anna Tavera-Weller, lost 2,820-1,598 (63% against), and Terry Howell lost 2,535 to 1,640 (56.7% against). 29% of the registered voters turned out for the election, which apparently cost $6,706.
The issue was the closing of one school, the adoption of a $500K textbook program and the restoration of administrative COLA increases.
The unofficial results are one board member, Anna Tavera-Weller, lost 2,820-1,598 (63% against), and Terry Howell lost 2,535 to 1,640 (56.7% against). 29% of the registered voters turned out for the election, which apparently cost $6,706.
The issue was the closing of one school, the adoption of a $500K textbook program and the restoration of administrative COLA increases.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
What to expect when you're expecting a recall -- Michigan State Rep edition
Edit Note: Since publication, I've found out about a 1981 state legislative recall, pushing the pre-2011 amount of recalls from 20 to 21. I've changed the number to reflect that figure.
On November 8th, Michigan state Representative Paul Scott, the chair of the House Education Committee, will be facing a recall vote. This will be the 32th state legislative recall election in US history, and the 11th this year alone (on the same day, the Arizona Senate Leader Russell Pearce will be facing a recall).
Scott was one of at least 20 Michigan legislators to face a recall challenge, and so far he is the only to get on the ballot. The primary backers of the recall were the Michigan Education Association, the teacher's union, in retaliation for Scott's backing on anti-collective bargaining measures. Scott's recall only got to the ballot after numerous legal challenges, resulting in a Michigan Supreme Court decision effectively ordering it go on. Scott also failed to push the recall to next year's primary -- which would have undoubtedly help him (as it would have been the same day as the Republican presidential primary, boosting Republican turnout).
This boom in recalls, which this year also includes the largest municipality in US history to hold a mayoral recall, has been credited/blamed on the recession, but the recall has been growing for at least the last thirty years. Only seven of the 32 legislative recalls took place before 1981. I cite the technological changes as a major reason for the growth in the recall.
With that being said, here are the key talking points, facts and figures to understand about the recall:
Fourth time around:
Scott is the fourth Michigan legislator to face a recall. The first two were Senators David Serotkin and Phil Mastin in 1983 over a tax hike issue. Both lost their seats, resulting in a rare switch in control over the legislature (that has happened two other times).
The third recall was House Speaker Andy Dillon in 2008, the second legislative leader to face a recall. Dillon easily triumphed. His recall was held on a primary day.
Come on, let's go:
Recalls are about turnout. Historically, few people come out to vote in recalls or other special elections (you have to know about the recall and want to show up). In 1983, the two Michigan Senate recalls saw 20-25% turnout, as did the three California Assembly recalls of 1994. A Wisconsin Senate recall in 2003 saw 8% turnout.
Recent high profile recalls saw much higher turnout -- Gray Davis' recall saw more voters come out than in his reelection race. The Wisconsin recalls also saw some high numbers.
However, the Dillon recall highlights a different type of recall -- one held the same day as a regularly scheduled election. The advantage to recall proponents is lost -- people don't necessarily need to be told to show up. Dillon and California state Senator both faced primary day recalls in 2008. Both won handily.
Scott is a little different. His recall is on a regularly scheduled election day, but in a true off-year election. We'll see what that means for turnout on Tuesday.
Running up the Score:
Though Wisconsin saw some nail-biters, most recalls can qualify as blowouts -- the winner of recall elections generally triumph with over 60% of the vote.
Burned rate:
Historically, the big hurdle to the recall is getting on the ballot. Once it's there, elected officials are frequently kicked out of office. Of the 21 state legislators to face a recall before this year, 13 were kicked out. However, the numbers are improving in recent years. 2008 saw two survivors. And Wisconsin hit barely above the Mendoza line with an anemic 2 for 9. So we now stand at 15-30.
On the state-wide level, the recall has been rare but successful. Two Governors have faced a recall (California's Gray Davis in 2003, North Dakota's Lynn Frazier in 1921), both were removed. In 1921, the North Dakota Attorney General and Commissioner of Agriculture were also removed with a recall.
Interest Groups:
Scott's recall can be directly tied to a union. Does it make a difference if an interest group launches the recall or if instead it is done by a political party? History seems to suggest that an interest group recall is less likely to succeed than one launched by a political party. The Wisconsin recalls, which are widely credited to union groups, knocked out 2 of 6 Republicans (the Democratic recalls were a little different, though all 3 failed). Here's are some other examples of failed interest groups recalls (and successful party-led ones).
The Future in Michigan:
Michigan's recall law appears to give a lot of leeway to election officials and judges to delay recalls. Despite being a "political recall" state, officials can apparently regularly demand changes to the recall petition, holding up the recall. Hence, none of the other recalls launched against legislators have gotten on the ballot as of yet.
One very weird, and still unexplained, instance was the recall against Rep. Nancy Jenkins. The recall petitioner claimed to have gotten into a car accident right before he was to turn in the petitions. However, there are numerous questions about his claims.
At the moment, there are numerous recall petitions attempts against legislators from both parties, as well as against the Governor and the Attorney General.
Money, that's what I want:
The Scott recall has already seen over $250,000 in campaign fundraising by both sides. According to reports, Scott has a 2-1 advantage in available funds (though I'm not sure what that means when you are dealing with the new independent expenditure regime). Unlike Wisconsin, the amount of money raised and spent will not raise eyebrows.
Michigan and the recall:
The recall is very popular in the state -- in the last 20 years, 340 recalls have been filed in Berrien County alone. Michigan has had the recall for some time. According to some reports, it was tied for the first state to adopt the recall for state-level officials (1908), but for what I've seen they actually adopted it a few years later (1913).
Two votes, but a long delay:
If the recall is successful, the new Senator will be chosen at the next regularly scheduled election day, which I gather should be the primary in February. Here's the law. It sounds like the state doesn't know what would happen if the Governor were recalled.
On November 8th, Michigan state Representative Paul Scott, the chair of the House Education Committee, will be facing a recall vote. This will be the 32th state legislative recall election in US history, and the 11th this year alone (on the same day, the Arizona Senate Leader Russell Pearce will be facing a recall).
Scott was one of at least 20 Michigan legislators to face a recall challenge, and so far he is the only to get on the ballot. The primary backers of the recall were the Michigan Education Association, the teacher's union, in retaliation for Scott's backing on anti-collective bargaining measures. Scott's recall only got to the ballot after numerous legal challenges, resulting in a Michigan Supreme Court decision effectively ordering it go on. Scott also failed to push the recall to next year's primary -- which would have undoubtedly help him (as it would have been the same day as the Republican presidential primary, boosting Republican turnout).
This boom in recalls, which this year also includes the largest municipality in US history to hold a mayoral recall, has been credited/blamed on the recession, but the recall has been growing for at least the last thirty years. Only seven of the 32 legislative recalls took place before 1981. I cite the technological changes as a major reason for the growth in the recall.
With that being said, here are the key talking points, facts and figures to understand about the recall:
Fourth time around:
Scott is the fourth Michigan legislator to face a recall. The first two were Senators David Serotkin and Phil Mastin in 1983 over a tax hike issue. Both lost their seats, resulting in a rare switch in control over the legislature (that has happened two other times).
The third recall was House Speaker Andy Dillon in 2008, the second legislative leader to face a recall. Dillon easily triumphed. His recall was held on a primary day.
Come on, let's go:
Recalls are about turnout. Historically, few people come out to vote in recalls or other special elections (you have to know about the recall and want to show up). In 1983, the two Michigan Senate recalls saw 20-25% turnout, as did the three California Assembly recalls of 1994. A Wisconsin Senate recall in 2003 saw 8% turnout.
Recent high profile recalls saw much higher turnout -- Gray Davis' recall saw more voters come out than in his reelection race. The Wisconsin recalls also saw some high numbers.
However, the Dillon recall highlights a different type of recall -- one held the same day as a regularly scheduled election. The advantage to recall proponents is lost -- people don't necessarily need to be told to show up. Dillon and California state Senator both faced primary day recalls in 2008. Both won handily.
Scott is a little different. His recall is on a regularly scheduled election day, but in a true off-year election. We'll see what that means for turnout on Tuesday.
Running up the Score:
Though Wisconsin saw some nail-biters, most recalls can qualify as blowouts -- the winner of recall elections generally triumph with over 60% of the vote.
Burned rate:
Historically, the big hurdle to the recall is getting on the ballot. Once it's there, elected officials are frequently kicked out of office. Of the 21 state legislators to face a recall before this year, 13 were kicked out. However, the numbers are improving in recent years. 2008 saw two survivors. And Wisconsin hit barely above the Mendoza line with an anemic 2 for 9. So we now stand at 15-30.
On the state-wide level, the recall has been rare but successful. Two Governors have faced a recall (California's Gray Davis in 2003, North Dakota's Lynn Frazier in 1921), both were removed. In 1921, the North Dakota Attorney General and Commissioner of Agriculture were also removed with a recall.
Interest Groups:
Scott's recall can be directly tied to a union. Does it make a difference if an interest group launches the recall or if instead it is done by a political party? History seems to suggest that an interest group recall is less likely to succeed than one launched by a political party. The Wisconsin recalls, which are widely credited to union groups, knocked out 2 of 6 Republicans (the Democratic recalls were a little different, though all 3 failed). Here's are some other examples of failed interest groups recalls (and successful party-led ones).
The Future in Michigan:
Michigan's recall law appears to give a lot of leeway to election officials and judges to delay recalls. Despite being a "political recall" state, officials can apparently regularly demand changes to the recall petition, holding up the recall. Hence, none of the other recalls launched against legislators have gotten on the ballot as of yet.
One very weird, and still unexplained, instance was the recall against Rep. Nancy Jenkins. The recall petitioner claimed to have gotten into a car accident right before he was to turn in the petitions. However, there are numerous questions about his claims.
At the moment, there are numerous recall petitions attempts against legislators from both parties, as well as against the Governor and the Attorney General.
Money, that's what I want:
The Scott recall has already seen over $250,000 in campaign fundraising by both sides. According to reports, Scott has a 2-1 advantage in available funds (though I'm not sure what that means when you are dealing with the new independent expenditure regime). Unlike Wisconsin, the amount of money raised and spent will not raise eyebrows.
Michigan and the recall:
The recall is very popular in the state -- in the last 20 years, 340 recalls have been filed in Berrien County alone. Michigan has had the recall for some time. According to some reports, it was tied for the first state to adopt the recall for state-level officials (1908), but for what I've seen they actually adopted it a few years later (1913).
Two votes, but a long delay:
If the recall is successful, the new Senator will be chosen at the next regularly scheduled election day, which I gather should be the primary in February. Here's the law. It sounds like the state doesn't know what would happen if the Governor were recalled.
Michigan: Organizers confident about Genesee Township recall
Four Township officials are facing a recall vote next Tuesday, for laying off police and failing to cut board salaries. The organizers are confident of success, though the article mentions they went through several iterations before settling on the charges.
Arizona: Threats of recall follow Republican attempts to fire independent redistricting commission
After receiving a potentially unfavorable redistricting map, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has removed the chair of Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission, with Senate backing (the Senate is 21-9 Republican). According to the report, this could lead to an unprecedented constitutional battle.
In response, Democrats have threatened recalls against four moderate senators, which would take away the Republican two-thirds majority. If they do get on the ballot, any recalls wouldn't be held for some time (Arizona requires recalls to be held at the same time as a regularly scheduled election). Since voters don't exactly get jazzed up about redistricting issues, it's hard to know how this would play out.
This wouldn't be the first time that a veto majority led to a recall. In California in 2008 the Democrats forced a recall vote against Senator Jeff Denham in order to obtain a 2/3rds blocking majority against Gov. Schwarzenegger. The recall got on the ballot, but Denham easily won the election.
In response, Democrats have threatened recalls against four moderate senators, which would take away the Republican two-thirds majority. If they do get on the ballot, any recalls wouldn't be held for some time (Arizona requires recalls to be held at the same time as a regularly scheduled election). Since voters don't exactly get jazzed up about redistricting issues, it's hard to know how this would play out.
This wouldn't be the first time that a veto majority led to a recall. In California in 2008 the Democrats forced a recall vote against Senator Jeff Denham in order to obtain a 2/3rds blocking majority against Gov. Schwarzenegger. The recall got on the ballot, but Denham easily won the election.
Wisconsin: Key Republican Senator opposes accelerating redistricting to avoid recalls
Following the GAB's decision that senators facing a recall will have to run in the districts that elected them in 2010, not the newly created Senate districts, the Senate Republicans have authored a bill to change the law to have Senators face the recall in their new districts. As the districts were drawn by the Republican senate, such a law would presumably benefit any sitting Republican Senator. However, a key Republican has stated that he will vote against the change, which may kill it.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Oregon: Silverton City Council recall
A former Mayoral resident claims to be 75% of the way to recalling four city council members. The reason cited is complaints about municipal spending.
Wisconsin: Sheboygan organizers claim enough signatures for mayoral recall
Recall organizers are claiming that they have 4,500 signatures, 400 more than needed for the recall of Mayor Bob Ryan.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Massachusetts: New attempt on Bridgewater recalls
New recall petitions are being taken out against two Bridgewater Town Councilors after the original petitions were rejected because "they did not include the words that they were signed “under the penalties of perjury.”
No decision whether the recall law is actually not enforce, as the Town Councilors argued, because it was written before the Town Council existed and includes the defunct Board of Selectmen.
Ohio: Tallmadage charter vote looks to limit recall petitioners to city residents
City Charter amendment in Tallmadage will limit petitioners to city residents or, if it is a district-based recall, just residents from that district.
* ISSUE 58. Shall Section 17.02 of the Charter be amended to provide that each individual circulating a recall petition shall be an elector of the City or the single ward, as appropriate?
This amendment requires the circulator of a recall petition to be an elector of the city or a single ward. The change basically prevents someone outside the city from circulating a petition.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Massachusetts: Signs posted announcing upcoming recall campaign in Templeton
No petitions have been taken out, but like an earlier trailer to a movie, signs are popping up saying a recall is coming in Templeton. No word on the stars, but the early focus is a trio of selectmen. According to the report, the selectmen voted for a few changes:
The changes include hiring three new law firms to replace the town counsel, Kopelman & Paige of Boston, and eliminating long-term town employees or “cost-effective vendors” without cause — a thinly veiled reference to the firing of Mrs. Skelton and the change of law firms. The website also questions why some meetings are run differently from others, why only three members of the Board of Selectmen are given important information and whether other people’s jobs are at risk in town.
Mrs. Skelton was fired at the end of a contentious meeting on Oct. 11, with Mrs. Farrell and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bennett voting in favor of the firing and Selectmen Robert Columbus and Christopher Stewart opposed.
Mrs. Skelton was fired at the end of a contentious meeting on Oct. 11, with Mrs. Farrell and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bennett voting in favor of the firing and Selectmen Robert Columbus and Christopher Stewart opposed.
Wisconsin: Daily Kos on proposed notarization requirements for petitions
The Daily Kos' David Nir highlights, and heavily criticizes, a key point in the latest bill designed to revise the recall process. The bill would require notarization of the petitions, which is on top of the fact that it already requires certification.
As I've mentioned before, the Brooklynite in me is never surprised with attempts by sitting officials to prevent other from getting on the ballot. The ratcheting up of ballot requirements always has to be seen as part of an "incumbent protection plan." In this case, as Nir points out, it does appear to be a Republican v. Democrat issue. But the long term view of it should disturb some of the more ballot-issue friendly Republicans. Those rules can and will be used against opponents of whoever is in office, be it a Democrat, Republican or other.
This actually will only be slight nuisance to the Democrat/union efforts to get a recall of Walker or other Republican officials on the ballot. The Democrats and unions are well versed in election law, and will easily be able to get all their ducks in a row. Instead, it will serve as a barrier for the fully volunteer local efforts at recalls.
This actually will only be slight nuisance to the Democrat/union efforts to get a recall of Walker or other Republican officials on the ballot. The Democrats and unions are well versed in election law, and will easily be able to get all their ducks in a row. Instead, it will serve as a barrier for the fully volunteer local efforts at recalls.
Mexico: Complaints that political reform lacks a recall
The Chamber of Deputies in Mexico are hearing complaints that they're political reform proposal lacks a recall. Here's some coverage of the original PRD proposal.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Oregon: Oregon City Commissioner recall makes the ballot
Follow-up from here, the Oregon City Commissioner Jim Nicita will face the voters, as the signatures were deemed to have met the standard.
Oregon: Josephine Election Commission reports enough signatures to recall County Commissioner
No word on date, but looks like recall will get on the ballot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)