With threats to recall all of Minnesota's Democratic House Representatives and one of the
Republicans, we could see an historic recall battle up north. But we won't.
Here's (and above) is
my article on how Minnesota's recall law works and why the state has only had two recalls go to the ballot since it adopted this version of the recall in 1996 (with
one removal) and two resignations.
In addition to giving a full look at the full use of state legislative recalls in the US, the article looks at how malfeasance standard/judicial recalls work and why Minnesota has a particularly difficult one. There is one thing that I do not go into in the article, but I'll mention below.
As mentioned in the piece, Minnesota is different than Washington State, another malfeasance standard state. Washington does not have a lot of recalls, but more than Minnesota, and many more are threatened. The difference may be that in Washington, the courts approve or reject the petitions before the full signature gathering starts. Here's where it gets strange.
Minnesota's law for state level officials seems to be the same requirement, and occasionally that pre-approval seems to have
occurred. But in practice, at least at the local level, the court seems to get involved after the signatures are collected and submitted.
There are a
number of
instances of the "collect the signatures and then have the Supreme Court toss out recall" process. There's also a case in
Red Wing where the council refused to schedule the recall and the matter seems to have been dropped (and another one in
Blue Harbor without the signature verification).
I don't know why Minnesota practice and law appear to be different at least for state and local officials, but it feels like this a critical question for recalls in the state.