There are no rules of purpose or triggers for a recall in Wisconsin, nor
should there be.
A recent Wisconsin State Journal editorial held a position against recall actions. The editorial stated that those
facing recalls were elected to four-year terms and “…shouldn’t be targeted for
recall, because of public policy decisions.
The recall process is designed to quickly purge politicians for illicit
behavior, not to punish those who take controversial stands on single issues.” Often speculation, or perhaps wishful
speculation, will give a voice such authority, but instead it should first be cultivated
with homework. In short, the editorial premise is inaccurate.
The matter of illicit behavior is already addressed by due process
and impeachment and so would be redundant. The recall was designed as an
umbrella protection for the people from elected officials who misrepresent
themselves, go against the public’s wishes and best interests, and instead seek
their own benefit and those of special interests to the detriment of the
people. If the purpose of something
important enough to be an amendment to the state constitution was to be
specifically for dealing with illicit behavior, the framers of the recall
amendment surely would have included that in the language.
Republican Senator and former Wisconsin
governor Robert M. LaFollette was an initial champion of the recall as well as
other citizen protections. There was in the early 20th Century a progressive
effort for the electorate to have more direct input into government. One must remember it wasn’t until 1913 the
people directly elected US
senators – prior, it was the state legislatures who decided and sent senators
to Washington DC. That
change too was an effort for the public to have direct participation in
government.
Recall is there precisely for the people to use when matters
of public policy have gone on a course that sets a destination counter to the
wants and needs of those by whom the official was elected. LaFollette said “The recall will enable the
people to dismiss from public service a representative whenever he shall cease
to serve the public interest. Then, no jackpot politician can hold his office
in defiance of the will of a constituency whose commission he has dishonored.”
Having specific criteria for a recall takes away its
purpose. An abundance of damage can be done between term elections without
there being any illicit behavior. Indeed
it is possible, before a term has ended, for an elected body to change what
constitutes illicit behavior. LaFollette
said, “Whenever a representative government fails, it fails because the
representative proves incompetent or false to his trust. Entrenched in office
for his full term, his constituency is powerless and must submit to
misrepresentation. There is no way to correct his blunders or to protect
against his betrayal.”
Recently, discussions and plans made in committees of the
Wisconsin Legislature to change the recall law have ensued. What is wrong with a picture in which the
elected officials, who could be displaced by recall, are deciding on rules to
make it more difficult for voters to use a law designed to keep those elected
officials in check?
This is a law for and of the people and it should not be altered.
In fact the last line of the amendment itself states, “…Laws may be enacted to facilitate its
operation but no law shall be enacted to hamper, restrict or impair the right
of recall.” (Art. XIII, Sec. 11 (7) Constitution, State of Wisconsin)
In the process of making this an amendment to the state
constitution in the 1920s, there was support from both the major parties of the
time -- the Socialists and the Republicans in the legislature and Republican
Governor John Blaine.
Between 1924 and 1926 the Wisconsin Legislature voted for
the recall amendment twice, both times getting support from both sides of the
aisle. Then, true to the idea of direct
input from the electorate, the recall amendment went to a state-wide
referendum. In that April 1926 referendum
the recall amendment passed with greater than 80 percent of the vote from the
people of the state of Wisconsin.
From where did the idea that there must be illicit behavior
for there to be a recall come? No triggers are required to have a recall. While the State Journal’s premise is
incorrect, one can address their concern over the number of recalls without
manufacturing the intended purpose or pushing to change the language of the
law. Simply put, the best way to prevent
recalls is for those whom we elect to heed the wishes of their constituency.
Legislators have no right to touch the recall amendment.
Doing so renders transparent their need to review the basic tenet that a
representative government is one where the representatives work for the people.
It doesn’t matter which side of the current issues one resides. When it comes
to the recall law all sides will lose if those, who could be subject to recall,
alter or impose conditions that render unavailable this tool of the people.
