The criteria qualifying an elected official for recall would be narrowed by a recently proposed amendment. If passed, the Legislature would establish a code of ethics to determine if a politician facing serious crimes or ethical problems could be eligible for recall. Recall petitioners would also have to show sufficient grounds for a recall.
The obvious impetus behind the proposal comes from the current recalls against Republicans like Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau. The argument favoring the proposed amendment is pretty simple: We don’t want officials going in and out of office like it’s a revolving door. A state would only suffer if citizens continually recalled elected officials simply because they disagreed with them politically. But does that warrant restricting recalls to ethical concerns?
My first concern is who decides what’s ethical? Any arbiter will have bias. Will legislators decide what constitutes “unethical”? Do the courts? In the end, someone with some kind of bias will decide. Ethics, in many ways, is politics. Some Wisconsinites will say the Walker administration has been morally upstanding, while others won’t hesitate to describe it as unethical. Creating an amendment that lets an individual, or a group of individuals, decide what is ethical seems like a quick and easy way to infuse the election system with bias.
What also concerns me is that it would require petitioners to show some sort of “sufficient evidence” for a recall. Again, who decides what’s sufficient? Furthermore, if there is unethical corruption, chances are the officials who would be subject to recall would be willing to act unethically to cover up evidence. Hell, they might even sign secrecy oaths!
The proposed amendment would have to pass the Legislature in the current and next session, eventually being decided by a statewide voter referendum. I’m worried because on face value, yes, the proposed amendment sounds logical. We shouldn’t have politicians getting thrown out of office on the whims of the voters. But in reality, citizens aren’t politically motivated enough to be that whimsical. The current recalls are the only ones I can remember experiencing in my life. Politicians just simply don’t face frequent recalls. The proposed amendment seems like just another solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, similar to the voter ID law.
Sometimes politicians engage in unethical behavior. But that shouldn’t be the only reason they can be recalled. Sometimes they get in office and take a more drastic approach than any of their supporters expected. Recall for non-ethical reasons is another check and balance on despotic approaches to power, and this one’s linked directly to the people. I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to take away the public’s ability to keep elected officials more reasonable and balanced.
There are already speed bumps to cull recall attempts. There is a threshold of needed signatures and a mandatory waiting time. These two obstacles are considerable enough to make sure only the legitimate attempts survive.
Ultimately, it should be the people deciding whether a politician ought to be recalled. Not legislators, not some arbiter, but the people. The proposed amendment to narrow the grounds for recall would erase a check and balance on public offices that keeps officials from getting too radical and should not become part of our state constitution.
Reginald Young ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in legal studies and Scandinavian studies.
