.

It’s Time for the Political Left to Step Forward, Start Acting and Not Just Reacting —Part II

In this article, I take a look at state and local recall election law and possible corrective actions.

You don’t have to be a committed Republican or Democrat to acknowledge that the State of Wisconsin has just gone through one of the most divisive and unsettling periods in the state’s history. We have been in a perpetual election mode since the general election of November 2010. That election swept Republican majorities into both chambers of the legislature; and besides capturing the statehouse, the Republicans found themselves in control of the State Attorney General’s Office and a conservative majority in the State Supreme Court.  The liberal political left reacted and thus began the power struggle using every legal means possible to change the power matrix.

Recall

Beginning in 1905, then Governor Bob La Follette (“Fighting Bob"), began the push for Wisconsin to have a recall law. The idea was based on the principle that the public should have a means to directly challenge and remove public officials in the state of Wisconsin who were not performing to the expectations of the electorate. A law was passed in 1911 and then a constitutional amendment was finalized and took effect in 1926. Until recently the recall provision was used sparingly and never was a major issue. However, with the results of the election of November 2010, all that changed. The Republicans, who gained complete control, began passing their “wish list of legislation and reforms” and alienated nearly half of the electorate, resulting in 16 recalls in a 16-month period. We could debate from now and untill the cows come home whether the recalls were justified or not.

In hind sight, both the politically right and left now see that the recall law probably should be amended. Some are calling for the elected official to be removed from office only based on malfeasance; but, that is already addressed within the state constitution’s impeachment section. Other’s want to see recall removed completely, while still others want to see a change in criteria and conditions for recall. The political left should only support the option of changing the criteria for recall, primarily the number of signatures required to trigger the recall.

Not all elected offices are of equal importance and the impact of a recall on governmental functioning is not equal either. Officials who stand for statewide election are of much greater importance than officials elected to local districts, counties and municipalities. Therefore, the criteria for recall should be different for officials based on whether they are elected by statewide elections or limited local elections.  

Currently, to recall an elected official in the State of Wisconsin, a recall can be triggered in state races by the accumulation of 25 percent of qualified electors during the last election for governor.  The question posed is if this should remain as the criteria for recall. I maintain that for some positions that it is sufficient and for others it isn’t. I recommend the following recall signature levels:

  • All local elected positions should remain at the 25 percent level.
  • State Assembly and Senate Representatives should remain at the 25 percent level.
  • Secretary of State should be 35 percent.
  • State Attorney General should be 35 percent.
  • Lt. Governor should be 35 percent.
  • Governor should be 45 percent.
  • Supreme Court Justice should be 45 percent.
  • U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator should be 45 percent.

Currently, once a recall signature campaign begins, the incumbent who is the target of the recall is able to begin accumulating funds for use in defense of a recall election. This provision should be dropped and all recall campaigns should be publically financed once the signature collection officially begins. No campaigning could occur by any candidate, incumbent included; until the G.A.B. certifies that sufficient numbers have been collected to trigger the recall. At that point, candidates could begin expending the government provided funds.

Recall campaign financial limits

The 16 recalls have been estimated that between public and private funds, to have came to represent expenditures of around $125 million. This is clearly obscene and requires positive action to eliminate buying elections through excessive campaign donations and third party actions. Our goal should be to level the playing field and make running for political office under recall as inexpensive as possible to gain responsible leadership. I propose that recall campaign financial limits should be limited to the following:

  • Governor - $5 million to each qualified candidate
  • Lt. Governor – $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
  • State Supreme Court Justice - $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
  • Attorney General -  $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
  • Secretary of State - $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
  • State Assembly Representative - $1.5 million to each qualified candidate
  • State Senate Representative - $1.5 million to each qualified candidate
  • U.S. Congressional Representative - $5 million to each qualified candidate
  • U.S. Senator - $5 million to each qualified candidate
  • County Officials - $1 million to each qualified candidate
  • Municipal Officials - $1 million to each qualified candidate
  • Village and School Board Elected Officials - $50,000 to each qualified candidate

I know that there will be many who will view these changes as making it too easy to recall an elected official. However, the purpose of a recall is obvious, to keep politicians from promising one thing and doing something else. This is nonpartisan and doesn’t give an edge to either the political right or left. By rationalizing the signatures needed to trigger a recall, recalls will only again occur on a rare basis. By severely limiting campaigns to public funding only with strict conditions will reduce the “buying of elections” by outspending the competition.

Recall funding revenue sources

Funding for such changes will always be of a primary concern to some, especially in light of the current feelings about cutting the size of government. However, the recall process is so important and getting the obscene levels of money out of the equation, it is imperative to publically fund recall elections. My preferred means to fund recall elections would be to set up an isolated special fund, administered by the Government Accountability Board, from an additional 1/2 percent added to state sales tax. This would mean that the state sales tax would increase from 5 percent to 5.5 percent.  This could also set the precedent for public funding of all state elections in the future.

It is time that rationality took over after this tumultuous period. No matter the political leanings, we have everything to gain and little to lose by amending the current recall provision; knowing full well such changes will require amending the State Constitution.  

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Bren June 18, 2012 at 08:35 PM
Mr. Hoffa, I believe you are not quite clear on the original point, that being the opportunity by citizen petition to undo unwelcome legislation, as opposed to recalling the elected official. That method in Wisconsin would effectively pull ALEC's teeth and keep the multi-state, cookie-cutter legislation out of Wisconsin (such as the ludicrous directive to force public union employees to "pay their fair share" for a "0" liability pension plan, for example). A special interest group may spend as much as they wish to collect signatures, as long as the rules are followed. It's up to each citizen to make up their mind to sign, and, if they believe they were coerced, report it.
Bren June 18, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Anti, I don't think it's disingenuous to assign Citizens United its fair share of blame (or more appropriately, for Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts for, in highly partisan activism, re-arguing the state-level case Michigan v. Citizens United). I like Mr. Ruble's suggestions because as I wrote above, I believe the entire system is out of alignment. The baseline is not specifically a set of job requirements but rather a guide. If the voting public an informal standard on which to measure candidates we would all be better served. For example, if someone does not have a degree (Scott Walker) or an unrelated degree (Kleefisch) it should not preclude their candidacy but they should be prepared to present the case for why they are more qualified than their degreed challenger. I think you would agree that this is appropriate. We have had recent situations where candidates' qualifications are questionable (for example, Sarah Palin's appearance on the GOP presidential ticket with then one-year's experience as a governor and an undergrad degree in journalism). Several GOP acquaintances shared Palin was the reason they voted for Obama, they felt she did not represent the best of their party. I understand that union-stripping legislation in some form was almost immediately re-introduced in Ohio. It's a recession so financial challenges remain, everywhere.
James R Hoffa June 18, 2012 at 09:21 PM
@Bren - "I think you would agree that this is appropriate." Actually, I couldn't disagree more! Where in the Constitution does it state that a candidate for public office has to have a college degree, and even then, only degrees in areas that Bren feels is appropriately indicative of being able to provide solid governmental leadership? In fact, our Constitution expressly does the exact opposite, with only three qualifiers being present - citizenship, minimum age, and continuous residency. Don't you think that if our founders had intended that only formally educated people in certain disciplines should qualify for an executive level candidacy / position, that they would have expressly inserted such an additional qualifier(s) into Article II, Section I? After, all, these were pretty sharp guys, weren't they? Personally, I had originally intended to vote third party / independent in 2008 until Palin joined the McCain ticket - and I know several others with a similar sentiment. I found her to be an aptly qualified leader. Just because she didn't know everything about every issue didn't mean that she was incapable of researching an issue and coming to a well reasoned conclusion, does it? Obviously, Obama doesn't understand how global economies of scale work, but I don't see you criticizing his lack of understanding as a detriment. I'd take 100 Palins over 1 Obama! Drop the intellectual elitism crap Bren - it's a failing argument and makes you look conceited!
James R Hoffa June 18, 2012 at 09:33 PM
@Bren - "That method in Wisconsin would effectively pull ALEC's teeth and keep the multi-state, cookie-cutter legislation out of Wisconsin…." If that was true, then how come Walker and most of the GOP legislators retained their seats? After all, this was in fact a recall on the issues, wasn't it? I know that the Barrett campaign tried to make it about the man, but if that were indeed true, then why the recalls against all the GOP senators? In reality Bren, not all ALEC legislation is bad / evil as you seem to think it is. After all, the people that comprise ALEC are Americans - they live here, work here, raise children here, etc. So why do you honestly think that ALEC wants to turn America into a third world waste land? Add to that, there wasn't a single piece of ALEC cookie cutter legislation that was passed under the Walker administration, was there? BTW - Once again, nice execution of the shifting the subject strategy / tactic when you've been called out - you're getting quite good at it ;-)
James R Hoffa June 18, 2012 at 09:47 PM
@Bren - Mr. Trivedi was known, was on the ballot, had a website, and received votes in the recall election in every county in the state. The fact of the matter is that he was weak on platform, although, his was much more developed than Barrett's. Honestly, Walker was the only person on the ballot that appealed to conservatives. However, Mr. Trivedi was positioned as a slightly left of center moderate. Thus, it's the liberals that should have been turning out for him had they done their homework. But for some reason, I noticed that you and other anti-Walkerites that post here were only ever backing no platform Barrett. Why is that Bren? Is a law degree so much better than a medical degree? Hari's platform was 10 times more developed than Barrett's, and he was just as educated and qualified to lead as Barrett, plus he didn't have the baggage of Barrett's negative record in Milwaukee. And, in an issue driven recall, as you claimed it was, shouldn't you have been backing the issue driven man, Trivedi? You're so hypocritical and full of spin that everytime I read one of your recent posts, I get dizzy ;-)

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »