Will 2011 be the year of the recall election?
In January, conservative activists tried -- and failed -- to recall the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, Jim Suttle, because he tried to raise taxes and negotiate with local unions. More recently, critics of Gov. Jan Brewer have begun collecting signatures to force a recall election in Arizona. And in Wisconsin, unions have begun a massive effort to recall three Republican state senators for their support of Gov. Scott Walker and his plan to end collective bargaining for public-sector employees.
The Wisconsin effort in particular has garnered widespread national attention. According to Talking Points Memo, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America has raised more than half a million dollars for TV ads in support of the recall effort, and The Washington Post reports that the state's Democratic Party has thrown its full support behind the organizers.
On paper, the recall sounds great as a means toward democratic accountability. In practice, however, it's less than ideal. By allowing citizens to remove politicians for any reason at all -- provided there are enough signatures -- recall elections do more to harm democratic legitimacy than they do to help it.
Of course, recalls were intended to give more power to the people. Along with the initiative and the referendum, the recall election was one of the major electoral reforms proposed by Progressive reformers in the early 20th century. Aimed at curbing corruption on a local level, the first recall device was established in Los Angeles in 1903, and the first successful recall was in 1911, when Progressives removed Seattle Mayor Hiram C. Gill for his alcoholism, gambling, and general tolerance for corruption. At least 29 states have recall provisions for local officials, and 18 have them for state-level officials.
The vast majority of state-level recall attempts have been exercises in failure. Aside from the 2003 recall of then-Gov. Gray Davis of California, the only successful gubernatorial recall was of North Dakota Gov. Lynn Frazier, in 1921. Only six other state-level officials have been recalled in the last century: two Michigan state senators in 1983, two California state assemblymen in 1995, a Wisconsin state senator in 1996, and another Wisconsin state senator in 2003 (if the attempt to recall Walker is successful, he the won't be without company).
The rationale for the modern recall is pretty straightforward: It provides a tool with which voters can remove officials who are not representing the best interests of their constituents, who are incompetent, or unable to perform the duties of office. As historian Charles Beard wrote in 1912, "The principle upon which it is based is simple, namely, that elected officers are merely agents of popular will, and that electors should have an opportunity at all times to pass upon the conduct of their representatives."
The problem is that, in our political culture, we've agreed that elections signal the beginning of democratic legitimacy. Once you've won an election, you're entitled to serve your full term, barring illegal activity.
The recall throws a wrench into this equation. Legitimacy begins with elections but can be revoked at any time, for any reason. As such, they can undermine the independence of elected officials -- who begin to fear reprisal for their choices -- become an excuse to refight election battles (with the advantage of a smaller electorate, because fewer voters will come out for a non-Election Day vote), or lead to abuses by well-heeled special-interest groups. Gray Davis, for example, was targeted by well-financed Republicans and blamed for a series of energy crises that were outside of his control.
To be sure, there are times when recalls are appropriate -- for example, the 1987 recall of Portsmouth, Virginia, Mayor James Holley for flagrant abuse of the city expense account.
But those instances are few and far between. Omaha's Jim Suttle, for example, was targeted for policies that he campaigned on. It wasn't that he broke the law or mismanaged the city into oblivion but that he angered a handful of voters who opposed his policies.
There are other, more practical downsides to recall elections. In addition to removing Gray Davis from office, the 2003 California recall removed his political appointees and agency heads. As a result, the incoming governor -- Arnold Schwarzenegger -- was forced to restaff an entire government and ensure some measure of continuity between administrations, and submit a budget proposal before years' end. Undoubtedly, some aspects of governance suffered during this compact and expedited process (a 5-week transition instead of the normal 8 weeks). The merits of Davis' recall notwithstanding, it's simply not good for government to change so often and so quickly.
The Wisconsin recall has more substance -- unions are justly outraged by the attempt to end collective bargaining -- but it's also true that Republicans were elected in fair contests by a majority of voters. At a certain point, we simply have to accept the results of democracy, even when they run against our favor.
There is a certain nobility to direct democracy, and it's hard to fault the Progressives for working to make government more responsive to the people it serves. Unfortunately, the recall's good intentions can't make up for the fact that it's a lousy way to keep politicians accountable. We should thank the Progressives for their civic idealism and confine the recall election to the pages of history.
