My crazy cousin Aaron is going off on Facebook about how a democracy is so much worse than a republic. I generally finds such semantic hair-splitting a useless exercise in poseur-stroking semantics.
But if any conservatives want to go there, consider this: some of the hard-right conservatives most inclined to engage in "Republic Not A Democracy!" souting are sponsoring a remarkably democratic bill. House Bill 1233 would expand the power of the people to recall elected officials from merely municipal officials to every elected official in South Dakota, from His Majesty the Governor on down to county coroner and sanitary district trustee.
HB 1233 does make recalls a little harder, raising the petition signature requirement for a recall from 15% of registered voters as of the last general election to 25%. Recalling Madison mayor Roy Lindsay (but who would want to do such a thing?) currently requires about 830 signatures; HB 1233 would raise that threshold to about 1380 signatures. Recalling Governor Daugaard or Secretary of State Jason Gant would require over 79,000 signatures. HB 1233 leaves the petition-gathering period at 60 days.
For perspective, recall (hee hee!) that when we South Dakota teachers, Democrats, and other friends of education got riled up and referred Governor Daugaard's really bad 2012 education bill to a public vote, we gathered just over 30,000 signatures in 90 days. Do the math: we'd have to work four times harder than we did against the education bill to recall any statewide official.
But hey, where there's a democratic will, there's a way. And a dozen of our favorite arch-conservative Republican reps, along with three Senators, are backing this expansion of the democratic will. Four of the sponsors—prime sponsor Rep. Stace Nelson, Rep. Steve Hickey, Rep. Charlie Hoffman, and Rep. Mike Verchio—have all been known to hang out on this avidly democratic (yes, small d!) blog. Evidently the Madville Times is rubbing off on their republican (yes, small r!) sensibilities and luring them into allowing more opportunities for straight majority rule! Whoo-hoo!
Madville Times readers have often expressed a desire to recall various state officials, legislators, and other purveyors of poor public policy. So here's your chance, friends! Are you ready to support HB 1233? Can the threat of recall hold our elected officials more accountable, or is expanding recall to all of our elected officials a democratic step too far?
No, the local coroner and city council members are the most needy of being recalled. And who among you has not had a run-in with your county commissioner or have more than one county commissioner insaner than you-know-who's stepsister?
1.2.3.3. is another good law.
I don't mind having a way to recall our elected officials but I feel we have to make it hard to do.
25% is harder then 15 % but is it high enough? To me to be recalled the elected person has to have done something pretty bad.
Just because some people might diasagree on policy doesn't mean the elected offical should be recalled. That's why it should be hard to do.
Badder than Mr. Gant?
that's close grudz
What is the wingnut threshhold for recall in SoDak? On the national scene,lying about sex was the standard for wingnuts to try to impeach Clinton. Mass murdering war crimes weren't enough for them to attack dumb bass dubya. Outing a covert CIA agent didn't do it either. For Obama,everything about him is grist for the impeachment mill.
Those of us in South Dakota will vote on it, Mr. Mike, and then we'll let you know. In the meantime, you should stay over there until we make it safe for you here. Thanks.
Mr. H, where does your cousin Aaron live and why does he not blog here alos?
The problem with the recall is it's a very blunt instrument and probably shouldn't be used except involving illegality/corruption. I think it's reasonable to have the recall available for those instances. But raising the signature requirements is dumb.
A recall capability should be limited to issues of criminality, incapacity, or incompetence demonstrated by a certain dollar amount loss to the coffers of a governmental entity as result of the direct actions of the public official in question. The latter qualifier should not include deficit spending or a financial calamity which happen during the tenure of the public official in question rather only committed government funds which resulted in a substantial loss of capital for the government entity like the default of a loan by a third party, which the governmental entity guaranteed or the loss of capital do to bad investments by a government official who has a fiduciary responsibility over governmental investment funds, and this issue would only be germane to the public official who established the potential liability and not a government official who politically inherited it, unless their actions significantly precipitated the loss.
The major reason Gov. Walker was not successfully recalled in Wisconsin in 2012 is not because a majority of Wisconsinites liked his politics or policies, rather a significant minority did like his politics and policies and those votes combined with those who did not believe a recall should be done for merely political reasons prevailed. In essence, this latter group believed that recalls should not be used for policy positions and I think they were right. Even though as a liberal Democrat, I would have personally loved to have seen Walker get his walking papers back in '12.
As long as we maintain a representative republic with democratic overtones instead of a direct democracy in our state, then the political tool of a recall should be limited to the legitimate reasons which complement the continuance of a free people and a free society within a representative republic, and it should not be used for the mere partisan and/or emotional political interests of a given time and a particular given group.
Money had a lot to do with Walker's recall win, and voter suppression by using strategic lawsuits to delay the election until the summer. With the help of the Koch's and other righty funders and third party money, Walker bought the election with a lot of lying ads. After a number of his aides were convicted as a result of his run for Governor, there is another John Doe investigation involving the Walker campaign during the recall.
DP - But those are actions which further indict the efficacy of any recall, its intent, and its capability as a political tool, when it is all said and done. And when the Walker recall was all said and done, it was that minority of anti-Walker voters who did not want a recall to be used for political reasons who prevailed; and I believe they have a legitimate political argument which should not be tainted by the political acts of any given politician, but those established and document acts, however, could them self lend themselves to a legitimate recall in and of itself down the road.
Agreed, but the initial sliver of anti-recall sentiment developed and grew as a result of a huge advertising blitz that focus on the recall specifically. Wisconsin campaign finance law has a loophole, which allowed Walker to raise unlimited amounts of money prior to the recall. He used strategic lawsuits to extend that time frame so he could raise lots of righty money from outside the state, and to get the election delayed until summer.
If you are going to have recall in South Dakota, you need to think about the entire process, and not allowing loopholes and lawsuits to delay the process.
The righties LOVE democratic governance when it suits THEIR interests. If it doesn't, then they go back to the old reliable "We are a REPUBLIC" talking point. Pot-Kettle-Black anyone?
DP, that's fine, but I think what you have also illustrated with the Wisconsin '12 recall is how a political recall has a shelf life that is most likely far shorter than the shelf life of a recall due to an issue of criminality, incapacity, or incompetence, issues which tend not to erode over time as much, which further challenges the legitimacy of a political recall itself and shows how other political issues can then resonate from the initial recall act which may not be complementary to it, but grants undue legitimacy to a political recall if your answer is to severely limit the period between the petition gathering time and submission, and the actual recall election.
Trust me Brian, I am not a "righty." But we do live in a republic, and as long as we live in a republic, it can only work if we give our political leadership the establish time to make political decisions which represent our best interests or what are perceived to be our best interest by our elected representatives. If we do not like our representatives' decisions then there are these things called elections, which empower us the people and very much resemble a direct democratic act found within our democratic representative republic.
Grudz-I'm armed to the teeth and meaner than old Griz with a toothache. Had a Mother-In-Law once so I ain't afeared of nuthing. Especially wingnuts. I see evidence that wingnuts ain't getting full value from their leadership.Let Alaska show you how it is done.
http://www.themudflats.net/archives/41898
Parnell=Christie=wingnuts everywhere
I think we agree, Winston. South Dakota has the referendum and initiative to deal with policy issues. If Wisconsin had the referendum, there would have been no recall, because there would have been other ways to redress greivances. The most likely outcome would have been a less confrontational way to address the budget issues than was passed in Act 10. Rather than divide people Walker would have been able to bring labor to the table. Labor had already caved on most of the issues anyway. If Walker had insisted on Act 10, people would have referred Act 10 and a couple of others. These bills would have been defeated, and after that the Republicans would have figured out a more moderate path.
Scott Walker told some rw outfit last month that he voted for Ronnie Raygun. In 980,Walker was 13. In 84,he would have still been too young to vote. So he is liar and a cheater. Better recall him again.