The recent recall elections in our state have made it clear the recall process in Wisconsin needs to be reformed to protect against more costly and unfounded recall efforts.

Our state constitution allows the recall of any incumbent elective officer of any congressional, judicial or legislative district (Wis. Const., article XIII, section 12). Wisconsin is only one of 19 states to allow such legislative recalls.

Since the recall provision was added to the state constitution in 1926, only two state senators had successfully been recalled. Sen. Otto Mueller, R-Wausau, was the first state legislator in history to face a recall in 1932, but survived. Sens. George Petak, R-Racine, and Gary George, D-Milwaukee, were both recalled in 1996 and 2003 respectively.

In 2011, nine Wisconsin state senators faced recall elections – an unprecedented amount not only in Wisconsin history, but the history of the United States. Six Republicans were targeted for voting for Gov. Walker’s collective bargaining bill, whereas three Democrats were targeted for fleeing the state for three weeks to prevent the budget repair bill vote from taking place.

When both sides started their recall efforts, they went down the warpath for the sole purpose of punishing the state senators based on a single issue. The Republican senators were being punished for voting how they promised they would and what they were voted into office to do. The Democrats, on the other hand, were being punished for blocking the vote and leaving the state. While their actions were childish and an abdication of their duty, it did not justify a recall.

Wisconsin has seen this type of “recall as punishment” effort before. In 1996, Petak was recalled for casting the deciding vote in favor of public financing to build Miller Park. While his constituents in Racine were upset about the increase in costs to them, Petak helped to save Major League Baseball for Milwaukee. By overreacting to a single issue, the people of Racine lost a good politician who was ultimately looking out for his constituents.

The state constitution has no language in the recall provision which dictates why an elected officer can be recalled. Instead, state politicians can face a recall for any reason, whether it be they stole money from the government or they are Vikings fans. As we’ve seen, this can create political instability since an official can be recalled at the spur of the moment for a single decision he or she made.

Rep. Robin Vos, R-Burlington, has proposed an amendment to the state constitution which would place limits on the recalls of state elected officials. His proposal would limit the reasons why a state official can be recalled to egregious criminal and ethical violations.

This amendment, which is set to be presented to the Legislature in the fall, is essential to preventing any more frivolous recalls such as those which took place in 2011.

Enormous amounts of money can be spent just because of a fit thrown by dissenting citizens who were too lazy or uninformed during the last election to vote for a different legislator. Also, special interest groups could push voters into recalling their legislator because of a single issue. Both of these scenarios create enormous political instability and could lead to the collapse of the state legislative process.

The constitutional amendment would also end an inconsistency found between the local and state level. Wisconsin statute dictates that in order to recall a local elected official, the recall petition must contain a statement of reason that is related to the official responsibilities of the person being recalled. Wis. Stat. ? 9.10(2).

Imposing similar requirements on the recalls of state legislators would make perfect sense. If Wisconsin wants to be one of only 19 states to allow recalls, it should be consistent with the requirements and protect against frivolous petitions.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats who faced recalls in 2011 deserved the spiteful lick of the recall whip. No egregious criminal or ethical acts were committed. All they did was take a stand for what they believed in. If that is deserving of a recall, then what isn’t?

Alex Brousseau ([email protected]) is a second year law student.