Cindy Elgan has overseen elections in rural Nevada without incident for 20 years, but now even her neighbors wonder if she’s part of “the deep state cabal.”
If a sufficient amount of people that the person works for don’t like the person, that’s called the “will of the people.” If you can describe the reasons you don’t like someone and get sufficient support for your position to file a recall, that is quite literally what a recall is for and what democracy means.
You’re under the impression that if someone you’ve elected starts governing in ways you don’t appreciate, and a majority of the constituency for that person feels similarly, then it’s just “too bad, wait for the next election?” Aside from it largely not being the case, why would you want that to be the case?
I understand what you mean, insofar as it seems capricious, but if someone is duly elected, a recall is unlikely to pass merit or muster.
But in a democracy, you can and should be able to recall anyone that was elected. It’s basically the control-Z of democracy, and it’s actually a very important facet of a well functioning democracy that holds its public officials to account to the will of the people.
The article, which perhaps you didn’t finish, is precisely about this fact. You can start a recall petition, but you can’t just make stuff up and make up voters in order to do it.
You might disagree with various democratic processes, but this seems silly for someone as wise as you to have a problem with. And I mean that. I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and even-handed moderation sensibilities. I imagine we agree on a lot of things, but recalls are politics not business.
A recall petition is precisely “voting them out.” It’s a mechanism for doing it before an election cycle.
“I like you” and “I don’t like you” are exactly, for better or worse, how elections work. A recall is simply the demand of the people to run an election off-cycle if there is sufficient support. You aren’t going to get a recall petition certified if the only reason you don’t like someone is “you don’t like them,” but there are many reasons to recall a politician that don’t need to reach the level of malfeasance.
Again. Politics not private business?
I’m honestly struggling to understand why you wouldn’t support that idea.
“Article I, §33 of the Washington Constitution states that a recall can only occur if the targeted public official has “committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office.”[1]”
Misfeasance quite literally means, in this statute and in a legally denotative sense, you did something someone deems inappropriate or wrong, but not necessarily harmful or illegal. I.e., you did something someone(s) didn’t like.
You’re literally arguing against your own point now. And honestly, I meant it and still mean it when I say I have so much respect for you. I don’t understand what’s happening right now.
No, what they are doing in Nevada is an imagined grievance. They have no evidence, because nothing was done. No recall should be allowed without evidence.
If a sufficient amount of people that the person works for don’t like the person, that’s called the “will of the people.” If you can describe the reasons you don’t like someone and get sufficient support for your position to file a recall, that is quite literally what a recall is for and what democracy means.
You’re under the impression that if someone you’ve elected starts governing in ways you don’t appreciate, and a majority of the constituency for that person feels similarly, then it’s just “too bad, wait for the next election?” Aside from it largely not being the case, why would you want that to be the case?
I understand what you mean, insofar as it seems capricious, but if someone is duly elected, a recall is unlikely to pass merit or muster.
But in a democracy, you can and should be able to recall anyone that was elected. It’s basically the control-Z of democracy, and it’s actually a very important facet of a well functioning democracy that holds its public officials to account to the will of the people.
The article, which perhaps you didn’t finish, is precisely about this fact. You can start a recall petition, but you can’t just make stuff up and make up voters in order to do it.
You might disagree with various democratic processes, but this seems silly for someone as wise as you to have a problem with. And I mean that. I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and even-handed moderation sensibilities. I imagine we agree on a lot of things, but recalls are politics not business.
Will of the people is called “an election”.
If you don’t like someone, vote them out.
It there’s active malfeasance, that’s when you don’t wait for an election and run a recall, or an impeachment if a recall is not an option.
But “I don’t like you” should never be the reason. Otherwise every election would end in a recall.
A recall petition is precisely “voting them out.” It’s a mechanism for doing it before an election cycle.
“I like you” and “I don’t like you” are exactly, for better or worse, how elections work. A recall is simply the demand of the people to run an election off-cycle if there is sufficient support. You aren’t going to get a recall petition certified if the only reason you don’t like someone is “you don’t like them,” but there are many reasons to recall a politician that don’t need to reach the level of malfeasance.
Again. Politics not private business?
I’m honestly struggling to understand why you wouldn’t support that idea.
Many states require recalls be run for cause, I personally believe ALL recalls should be run that way.
If you don’t have a reason for a recall beyond “feelings” then there is no reason for a recall.
See how it works in Washington as a good example, this prevents frivolous recalls.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_recall_in_Washington
“Article I, §33 of the Washington Constitution states that a recall can only occur if the targeted public official has “committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office.”[1]”
Show the evidence, run the recall.
No evidence? GTFO. See you next election.
Misfeasance quite literally means, in this statute and in a legally denotative sense, you did something someone deems inappropriate or wrong, but not necessarily harmful or illegal. I.e., you did something someone(s) didn’t like.
You’re literally arguing against your own point now. And honestly, I meant it and still mean it when I say I have so much respect for you. I don’t understand what’s happening right now.
No, what they are doing in Nevada is an imagined grievance. They have no evidence, because nothing was done. No recall should be allowed without evidence.
There are a handful of examples of recalls without crimes by the official; Santa Clara County in California recalled a judge because people felt he was lenient with a rapist for example.
The big difference with this one is that the things the recall proponents dislike are all imagined.
I mean, being lenient with a rapist would be a breach of official duties and is well beyond the generic call of “well, we don’t like you.”
Here in Portland we had a problem with the DA failing to prosecute people, which, you know, is kind of his job?
We didn’t recall him, we just voted him out in the next election.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/elections/multnomah-county-district-attorney-race-election-results/283-e5b76f7a-9497-488b-b432-08dc9deec27d
We’ll see if the next guy wants to do the job starting in January.