Our View: Now that election is done, we vote for recall reform
September 8, 2011 at 3:03 am in Hudson Star-Observer
The recently completed recall elections that were conducted across Wisconsin were an interesting exercise in the democratic process. No matter what side one believes was the winner, one thing remains clear: The loser in the whole situation was the voter. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
27
How is that tax-payer funded computer equipment working out for your blogging Alice? Should the county get a new server, faster internet speed, or maybe you need to equip your computer with one of those privacy screens so that passers by can’t see what you are ‘working’ on? Don’t worry, just order it. Taxpayers will pay for it. You worry about paid bloggers being out here? What do you think you are? Apparently it’s the taxpayers who are paying you to blog when you’ve been hired to do something else. Nice gig if you can get it. No wonder you haven’t earned a raise in twelve years.
Like or Dislike:
12 
8
Blow it out yer arse chump – you really don’t know a thing about me or my schedule.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
I think recall reform, as suggested in this editorial, should be put to the voters of the state via a referendum.
This whole protest/tantrum/recall movement, highlighted by out-of-state radicals like Jesse Jackson and former elected officials like Sen. Feingold (“This game’s not over until we win.”) have demonstrated common sense and fiscal responsibility are lost when a radical minority try to force their will on the people.
If Feingold ever runs for elected office again, it will be interesting to see him run away from his radical agenda and move to the middle in his campaign. But that won’t be corrupt in the eyes of the libs.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/russ-feingold-games-not-over-until-i.html
Like or Dislike:
19 
9
Learn more about and carefully consider the facts regarding both the origin and history of Wisconsin’s constitutional and statutory provisions for the recall of elected state officials before advocating for reducing the exercise of authority by Wisconsin voters over state governance. (See: “Recall elections: Constitutionally protected, rarely executed” at http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=InsideTrack&Template=/CustomSource/InsideTrack/contentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=101541)
The right of Wisconsin voters to recall elected state officials was part of a broad movement across Wisconsin to bring direct democracy to Wisconsin voters during the early 1900s–along with referenda, direct primary elections, and women’s suffrage; in 1926, Wisconsin voters amended the Wisconsin constitution to include the right to recall elected state officials.
The Wisconsin Constitution, Wisconsin Statutes, and administrative rules of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Wisconsin set clear and strictly enforced standards that must be met before an elected state official is subject to a recall election:
*an incumbent must have served at least one full year of his or her term;
*recall petitioners must collect signatures from eligible voters in the incumbent’s district that equal at least 25% of the number of votes cast for governor in the last election in that district; and
*petitioners must collect the required number of signatures within no more than 60 days.
From 1926 until 2011, only four Wisconsin legislators were subjects of recall elections:
*in 1932, Senator Otto Mueller (R-Wausau), for his refusal to obey orders of Governor LaFollette;
*in 1990, Representative Jim Holperin (D-Eagle River), for his vote on tribal spearfishing rights;
*in 1996, Senator George Petak (R-Racine), for his vote to extend the Brewer’s stadium tax to Racine County; and
*in 2003, Senator Gary George (D-Milwaukee), for his anti-casino gambling vote and his indictment on federal charges regarding a kick-back scheme.
Wisconsin voters also unsuccessfully attempted to recall U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954.
The fact that prior to 2011 only four Wisconsin legislators were subjects of recall elections indicates that the long-standing right of Wisconsin voters to recall an elected state official is not easily invoked.
The existing standards Wisconsin voters must meet in order to exercise their right to recall an elected state official are not low; rather, the standards require demonstrating significant disapproval of the incumbent by his or her constituents within a brief and limited timeframe.
Nevertheless, in 2011 Wisconsin voters petitioned for and successfully compelled recall elections for nine out of sixteen state senators who were elected in 2008; no other elected state officials had served at least one full year of their terms, so no other incumbents could be recalled by their constituents.
Wisconsin voters are not “disenfranchised” through their exercise of their right to recall their elected state officials. Instead, it is proposals to limit this exercise of direct democracy that will “disenfranchise” Wisconsin voters.
Check your dictionary:
*”democracy” is defined as “government by the people” and “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy);
*”disenfranchise” is defined as “to deprive of a . . . legal right” and “especially: to deprive of the right to vote” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise).
Like or Dislike:
7 
0