See more at http://www.illinoisrecallamendment.org
--
The ability of voters to recall corrupt or ineffective governors was a hot topic in the days after the arrest of Rod Blagojevich. Voters will get the chance to adopt an amendment that purports to give citizens this right. I support recall. The public needs a means to fire public servants who no longer serve the public. However, I will be voting no on the recall amendment in November. The reason is simple; this amendment is a sham.
In order for citizens to initiate a recall election, they need to collect about 550,000 signatures from voters in 150 days (15% of the number of votes in the last governor election). In reality, it should be double that to deal with the inevitable signature challenges and court fight to throw out signatures. That, however, isn’t the worst provision.
Before a single signature can be gathered, an affidavit signed by at least 20 State Representatives (10 Republicans, 10 Democrats) and at least 10 State Senators (5 Republicans, 5 Democrats) needs to be filed with the Secretary of State. You see, in Illinois politicians will let you hold them accountable only when they think it is ok.
To show you how absurd this is we can examine the lay of the land during the Blagojevich administration to see if this recall would have worked. After Rod was arrested, every legislator was stumbling over themselves to impeach the governor and they did it far faster than 150 days.
Before he was arrested, however, you would have been hard pressed to get 10 Democratic State Representatives to sign an affidavit for a recall. You most certainly would not have gotten 5 Democratic State Senators. You might not even get the Republicans.
Gathering over a million signatures is no easy prospect with no assurance of being successful. During the time a recall petition was undertaken, those legislators would be exposed to every manner of retaliation at the disposal of the governor’s office. You would have to get 30 state legislators, many of whom epitomize the definition of timidity, to stick their necks out on a difficult process that may not be successful.
In short, this recall amendment would have been useless to get rid of Rod Blagojevich. If we couldn’t have recalled Rod with it, what good is it?
Adding the legislator affidavit was a “compromise” because politicians were afraid that voters might actually avail themselves of the recall process for reasons they did not deem valid. To put it another way, politicians felt the affidavit provided an “important” check and balance against citizen action. You read that correctly; our Illinois politicians are so afraid of citizen action they introduced a constitutional amendment to actually check the power of the voters and subject it to their discretion.
What makes this an even more laughable position is that the recall amendment can only be used against the governor. Of the 18 states that already have this process (with some states having it over a century) it has only led to recall elections twice against a governor. In one case, the governor was impeached before the recall. The latest instance was Gray Davis in California who was equally a disgrace. Illinois will be the only state to have recall that is subject to the discretion of the state legislature.
I believe in recall, it is an important tool to hold politicians accountable but this recall amendment is a sham and a disgrace. It was designed to give voters the appearance of reform. By the time we come around to actually try to use it, we will discover the con job too late. Join me in November in voting no on this preposterous amendment so we can push for a real recall amendment and real accountability in Springfield… accountability not requiring us to get a permission slip from our legislators to use.
Revise the amendment to mirror that of California so that all and any elected official can be removed at any time or this is a waste of time.
Bambenek hit this one right on the nose. As The News-Gazette opined: whether you want recall or don't want it, this amendment is a bad approach either way.
I agree. And you know this is a lose-lose either way for the voters. If passed, it'll be touted as real reform though it is not. If rejected, they'll say "see, the voters don't want recall and don't care about corruption".
The pamphlet on the Constitutional Amendment for voter recall of the governor was mailed to everyone, but from the results of the Illinois Homepage poll, I wonder if anyone else read it besides me. Initially I was totally in favor of the idea in principle until I read the pamphlet cover to cover and realized it wasn't presented to enable voters to recall the governor. It was written by the politicians to prevent it from being exercised, but to enable politicians to engage in political terrorism to prevent public servants from conscientiously operating in the best interests of their constituents. Our legislature proved we are perfectly capable of removing a governor that needs to be removed before the next election, faster, more efficiently, and cheaper than this amendment would allow. If this amendment passes we might as well disband the legislature, because they certainly don't need another procedure to distract them and slow their current gridlock.
I guess I don't understand why we need it. We had a crazy governor, and we got rid of him... Why would we need an amendment to change how this happened already?
By the way it was written it just seemed to be a move to make the voters feel safer as if they have more power without really giving them much. The biggest problem with Illinois is that it only applies to governor. What is the point of that. Let's compare Illinois to California, which had the successful recall of Davis. The first and biggest difference is that California's applies to all state and local officials. Now depending on the position there are different requirements, but let's take a look at governor. They need 12% of the vote in signatures and are given 160 days. Now correct me if I am wrong here, but I have not seen any requirement of signatures from government officials. The only government approval it needs is from the secretary of state, which only reviews if everything is in order and has been done correctly, ie the process of filing, publishing, petitioning, making sure all signatures are in order etc.
Are we trying to dupe Illinois voters again?
And of course when it comes to recall amendments, the problem that can arise is the guilty until proven innocent when the courts are taken out of it. It can become more of an emotional plea than that of hard evidence and if you get a very well spoken proponent, things can turn ugly and the recall can backfire on the voters, especially if an offical is removed hastily and unjustly.
Bambenek pulled back the curtain on this proposal. Good for him. Illinois needs recall provisions in a form acceptable to Mr. Bambenek and other advocates. The voters re-elected Blago even though his abuses and crimes were well known, which is why John Kass was writing about Illinois and Chicago voters as "cows" to be milked by Madigan, Daley and Blago. Sadly, the most liberal provisions for recall may not amount to much. We will likely need rescue again by a federal prosecutor when the next Blago takes hold of office.
Sorry. I am still wary of what I'm learning a recall provision to be. I think it is far more subjective in nature than objective. With the party out of power all primed to recall at the drop of a hat, and with only a small, dedicated core of incensed people emotionally pushing for signatures, I think it could be far too easily used simply as a political tool.
Since 1818 we Illinoisians have been able to endure the worst the incompetent office holders have aggravated us with. Use the ballot box. Stay the course.
Regards,
I'd been leaning against this amendment, but if Bambenek is against it, then it's probably a better idea than I'd originally thought.
I agree. It is hard to take anything Mr Bambanek says seriously after his ridiculous Daily Illini column a few years ago in which he proclaimed that feminists are simply suffering from penis envy and are trying to establish what he described as a "vagina monopoly" in response.
Thank you spangwurelt for a very unenlightening comment
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.