Source: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/recall-of-state-officials.aspx
Timestamp: 2014-10-02 00:23:44
Document Index: 195745582

Matched Legal Cases: ['§8', '§168', 'Art. 8', '§1', '§19', 'Art. 3', '§7', '§24']

Back Recall of State Officials
List of States with Recall Process
Recalling Local Officials
History and Use of the Recall in the U.S. Pros and Cons
Nineteen states permit the recall of state officials:
The District of Columbia also allows recalls. Virginia has a process similar to a recall, but it is not listed here as a recall state because its process, while requiring citizen petitions, calls for a recall trial rather than an election. After sufficient petition signatures are gathered and verified, a circuit court decides whether a Virginia official will be removed from office. In all other recall states, the voters decide through an election.
The recall device began in the United States in a municipality--Los Angeles--in 1903. Michigan and Oregon, in 1908, were the first states to adopt recall procedures for state officials; Minnesota (1996) and New Jersey (1993) were the most recent.
There have been three gubernatorial recall elections held in U.S. history. In 2012, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker survived a recall attempt. In 2003, California voters successfully recalled Governor Gray Davis, and in North Dakota in 1921, voters removed from office not only Governor Lynn J. Frazier, but also the attorney general and the commissioner of agriculture. California voters have initiated 32 gubernatorial recall attempts since 1911, but the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis in 2003 was the first to ever reach the ballot. In 1988, Arizona voters filed enough signatures to trigger a recall election for Governor Evan Mecham, but he was impeached by the state's House of Representatives before the date of the scheduled recall election.
In most states, any registered voter can begin a recall campaign for any reason. Often, the reasons are political. The 2011 recall efforts provide a good example for politically-motivated recalls. In Wisconsin, Republican senators faced recalls for their support of the governor's effort to reduce the influence of public employee unions, while Democratic senators faced recall because voters disapproved when they left the state to delay a vote on the union issue. In Arizona, a senator faced recall for his sponsorship of a controversial immigration bill.
The language in Michigan's constitution is typical of most states: "The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds ... shall be a political rather than a judicial question." (Const. Art. II §8)
In 2012, Michigan passed a new requirement that a recall petition must state clearly and factually the reason(s) for the recall, which must be based on the the elected official's conduct during his or her term of office (M.C.L. §168.951A). This doesn't really compare to the types of grounds required in other states. Even with this new law in Michigan, politically-motivated recalls can continue. For instance, a voter could initiate a recall against a legislator on the grounds that he voted against an issue the voter supports. As long as that is stated clearly and factually, it would presumably meet this new criteria.
The recall process is similar to the initiative process in that citizen petitions are required. The number of signatures necessary to qualify a recall petition, however, is often significantly higher than for initiatives. Signature requirements are based on a formula, generally a percentage of the vote in the last election for the office in question, although some states base the formula on the number of eligible voters or other variants. Whatever the formula, the signature requirements are high: 25 percent in nine states; 25 percent for statewide offices and 35 percent for legislators in Washington; one-third in Louisiana; and 40 percent in Kansas. California's requirements are 12 percent for statewide offices; 20 percent for legislators and appellate judges. Georgia requires 15 percent for statewide offices and 30 percent for all others. Idaho requires 20 percent for all offices. Montana has the lowest number of required signatures: 10 percent for statewide officials and 15 percent for state district offices such as legislative districts.
12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties State Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, judges of courts of appeal:
In six states,the election for a successor is held simultaneously with the recall election. In California and Colorado, the first question on the ballot is whether the official should be recalled. Voters are then asked to vote for a candidate for the office; the official who is the subject of the recall may not be listed among these candidates. If a majority of voters votes "yes" on the recall question, then the incumbent is recalled and the successor is elected via the second part of the ballot. If a majority of voters votes "no" on the recall question, then the incumbent remains in office and the second portion of the ballot is moot.
In the remaining 13 states, the recall ballot contains only the question of whether or not the official should be recalled. If the majority vote is "yes" for recall, the office is declared vacant and is filled at a special election or as otherwise provided by law, which in some states is by appointment for the remainder of the term. The chart below details how the recall election is conducted in each state.
Recall Election; Successor is Appointed
2) In these states, the recall ballot consists of two parts. The first asks whether the officer against whom the recall petition was filed should be recalled. The second part consists of a list of candidates who have qualified for the election. Note that courts in both states have ruled that a voter's choice of candidate on the second part of the ballot must be counted regardless of whether or not the person cast a vote on the yes/no recall question first.
Arizona - Const. Art. 8, §1-6; Ariz. Rev. Stat. §19-201 – 19-234
Illinois - Const. Art. 3. §7
Virginia - Va. Code §24.2-233
Go 16581