My goodness. Apparently, California's recall idiocy is catching. Who knew?
Wisconsin state senator who faces recall asks state Supreme Court for delay: A Democratic state senator who faces a recall election this week for siding with Republicans on a veto override asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday to delay the vote. Sen. Gary George asked the court to delay Tuesday's primary vote so it could review his lawsuit seeking to cancel the election outright. An appeals court had already turned George's lawsuit down. George's opponents started the recall effort this spring after he sided with Republicans in a vote to override Gov. Jim Doyle's veto of a bill that would have given lawmakers final say over gambling compacts with American Indian tribes. The override effort failed.
Mind, there does seem to be some confusion as to why State Senator George is actually being recalled.
ON WISCONSIN : JS ONLINE : NEWS : MILWAUKEE : George recall election generates little interest among voters (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Online, Oct. 12, 2003): ..... The Milwaukee Election Commission projects that fewer than 9% of the more than 88,000 registered voters in the district will cast ballots. And some residents in the district are saying that even that estimate may be optimistic. ... Challenges in Dane County Circuit Court and the state Court of Appeals have left many voters with little or no awareness of the primary or the campaigning now under way. The first of a series of town hall meetings held by George drew no participants. ... Some attribute the lack of interest to the fact that the recall effort was long stalled in court. Others point to the lack of agreement on why George is being recalled. Is it the result of a single issue, such as George casting a vote with Republicans against expanded gambling compacts for Indian tribes? Or is it George himself and the feeling among some of his constituents that he has grown aloof from the district and no longer represents issues that matter to them? Some have even charged that he no longer lives in his district and maintains a primary residence in Grafton.
The problem with any one of those above reasons, aside from the rather surprising lack of interest being generated, is that a recall is the proper venue to decide only the last one -- and THAT only after a court has determined where, in fact, Mr George lives; if he does in fact live in the district, then the recall loses justification on even that issue. The proper venue to get rid of Mr George would be in either the normal primary or general elections, not in this recall. And whatever his flaws, it would seem that Mr George's constituents are not motivated to get rid of him during the normal electoral process. Hence, this attempt to subvert the whole thing.
Assuming that the projections for voter turnout are accurate, this election looms as more profoundly antidemocratic than California's recent gubernatorial circus, if less visible and less generally important. It's possible that the fate of the representation of a district of 88,000 voters could be determined by fewer than 8,000 of them, a small minority by almost every definition. And all of it seems to point to a reluctance by the losers -- in this case, losers in George's own Democratic party -- to abide by the results of elections, or to wait for the next election in which they can be vindicated. The advantage of recall mania -- on those occasions when you can get the affected constituents to notice that there actually IS a recall, that is -- is that it allows you to do an endrun around the process. For example, as a moderate-to-liberal Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger would probably not have survived California's Republican gubernatorial primaries; the primaries tend to favor the extremes of either party, since the more extreme voters are the ones who bother to vote in primaries. (Which would explain why both parties tend to wind up with presidential candidates that can't in any reasonable way be said to represent the bulk of their party. But I digress.) And Mr George was unopposed in his party primary; thus, there originally was no primary.
To be sure, this seems to be something of a special case. There actually does seem to be a general election occuring on November 18, in which Mr George would have run unopposed. Since Mr George was also unopposed in the primary, this seems to be something of an "Oops! We forgot to run!" recall. (The opponent, state Rep. G. Spencer Coggs, seems to be having quite a few of those moments, actually. Refusing to debate is one thing, but not showing up after you've committed to doing so -- and problems witn campaign literature would seem to be a piss-poor excuse for ducking a debate -- would surely be an indicator of manifest unfitness for the position.)
One wonders how long it will be before politicians tire of being at the voters' beck and call in quite such an insane way, and decide to rewrite some of these recall laws. Surely, at a minimum, recall thresholds need to be raised, and actual, concrete reasons should be given. (Granted, reasons were given for California's recall. They didn't amount to much, but they were given, and Davis had the chance to respond on the circulated petition.)
Either that, or we go all the way to a Max Headroom type candidacy. Vote through the interactive television (which doesn't quite exist yet, but never mind that) on how you feel about your representatives at that very second. Nonstop votes of confidence. We'll have the eternal campaign and government will be effectively both paralyzed and pandering. It'll be useless, but ever so entertaining!
Posted by iain at October 20, 2003 02:59 PM
