During the recall of California Governor Gray Davis, many were asking if the recall of Davis would lead to impotence in the executive of California? In response, California was given the Schwartzenegger alternative who has succeeded in much that he has attempted to accomplish. But given the uniqueness of his situation it remains to be seen if his successors will have any power in Sacramento with the threat of imminent removal hanging over their heads. Like the Sword of Damocles, recall remains a threat to any future governor with an ambitious agenda.
Historically, this is not a unique situation. Edward Gibbon attributed the threat of removal of the emperor as one of the causes of weak executives governing ancient Rome in succession to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Gibbon traced it back first to the death of Gaius Caligula and the appointment of his succesor Claudius by the guards, then to the scramble for succession after the death of Nero. The eventual winner owed his position to the army, and the threat of removal hung over almost every emperor until the fall of the Roman Empire.
Here in Wisconsin we have our own history with the removal from office of various public officials through the recall and subsequent election process. Most famously, and a situation I witnessed personally, was the recall in Racine of State Senator George Petak. Petak cast the deciding vote to build Miller Park using a small add-on to the sales tax which included Racine County, breaking a promise he made to his constituents. They reacted disporportionately, prompted by a Democrat Party (led by the disgraced Mark Sostarich) eager to regain temporary control of the State Senate. Petak was recalled, and Racine became represented by a real tax-and-spend advocate in Kim Plache.
After Petak, recalls became more common at the local levels of governance. In Milwaukee County, scandal forced the recall of several County Supervisors and the resignation of County Executive Tom Ament. In his place, Scott Walker has proved to be a strong executive, but it helps that his powerbase exists outside the County Courthouse among the conservatives and moderates of Milwaukee County and that he took office during a perceived fiscal crisis. One wonders if his successor, too, will have accomplishments like Walker's, or will the County Board follow through on an idea floated at the time of Ament's removal: the elimination of the County Executive position.
The recall has become commonplace, almost expected, and the targets of recall are fighting back. In New Berlin recently four Conservatives were targeted precisely because they governed the way they were expected to when elected. They fought back from the first days of the process and prevailed when the organizers failed to gather enough signatures.
Now State Representative Al Ott (R-Forest Junction) is proposing stricter requirements for the recall of public officials. Under his bill, the recall petition signature gatherers would have to obtain a circuit court ruling that the recall of an elected official serving on a school board or in city, town and village village falls under a specified category: inefficiency, neglect of duty, misconduct or malfeasance.
Despite the unliklihood of this legislation passing any time soon, Ott has come in for quite a bit of flak. Citizens for Responsible Government calls it a "no cut contract." Blogger Beer, in turn, defended Ott from the charge of being a RINO, at least where this issue is concerned, in response I think to the attacks made on Ott over at Boots and Sabers.
I think the criteria Ott gives for a recall are probably sound ones. They're open to interpretation but basically the criteria describe an overall failure of representation rather than the reaction to one issue.
Where I have trouble with Ott's criteria is in the mechanism. Asking a private citizen group to gather the petition singatures necessary for the recall is already an onerous burden, a burden that has strangled many recall efforts right in the cradle. Citizen groups that manage to gather enough signatures are then confronted with legal challenges. To add subjective criteria for a recall, and to have that recall certified by a judge using the subjective criteria, is to create insurmountable barriers to the recall process. Setting aside the costs of the legal effort, when an elected judge is presented with a recall petition there is a certain amount of fear that he may be the next target. Better to make the process impossible than to make the removal of oneself even more possible.
So given the impossible conditions imposed on the recall process, Representative Ott's bill is not the solution.
However, it would be more in the public interest if recall petitioners stuck to the criteria laid out by Represenative Ott, and if the recallers actually made a specific case of misconduct for their recall efforts.
To recall in an effort to merely extend the previous election cycle, or to protest a single vote of the representative, undermines the ability of a public official to act in the best interests of the constituency. Fearing removal from office, the public official is not only limited to choosing the popular course but is even discouraged from making the innovative choice the popularity of which is untested. In the end, we'll drive the few excellent representatives from government service and be stuck with the kind of mediocrities many recall petitioners have dreams of removing in the first place.
