Limitations upon the power to recall. Application of the general election laws. The Recall in practice. Industrial sets a Recall cessor. at said election. The candidate who shall receive the highest number of votes, shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term. Unless the incumbent receive the highest number of votes, he shall be deemed to be removed from office, upon qualification of his sucIn the event that his successor shall not qualify within five days after the result of said election shall have been declared, the said office shall be vacant, and may be filled as provided by law. Section 5. No Recall Petition shall be circulated against any officer until he shall have held his office for a period of six months, except that it may be filed against a member of the Legislature at any time after five days from the beginning of the first session after his election. After one Recall Petition and election, no further Recall Petition shall be filed against the same officer during the term for which he was elected, unless petitioners signing such petition shall first pay into the public treasury which has paid such election expenses, all expenses of the preceding election. Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elec tions in so far as applicable. Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted. ... 223. An example of how the Recall is used 1 A satisfactory decision upon the merits of the Recall is difficult because it is so recent a development, and still so little used, that few data are available. The state-wide Recall has been in existence for more than a decade, yet few state officials have been removed by it. There are more cases in which the Recall has been used against municipal officials, though not always wisely and not always with success. In the following selection, Mr. F. M. Shannonhouse describes the use of the Recall in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 1919: [In the summer of 1919 a street car strike developed in Charlotte. On one occasion] mobs all over the city, composed of delegations from the various cotton mills, stoned the cars and engaged in other lawlessness. The police force remained practically inactive. The day the cars stopped, and the disorders above mentioned occurred, Mon 1 From the National Municipal Review, Vol. IX, No. 1, January, 1920. F. M. Shannonhouse, "How the Recall Worked in Charlotte"; pp. 4-5. day, August 25, numbers of reputable citizens signed the petition for a Recall [against the mayor] and others threatened to sign unless order was maintained. [That night a mob gathered in front of the car barns, held a conference], and voted to enter the car barn and "get" the strike breakers. Upon approaching the barn a shot was fired the mob claims by chief of police, the policemen claim by a member of the mob - immediately followed by promiscuous shooting, resulting in five of the mob being killed and twenty or thirty others being wounded. Peace, long delayed, reigned. Immediately the demand for the Recall was taken by the mob, and a large portion of union labor. A committee nominated officers to run on the Recall Petition. The recall candidate for mayor made the issue the unlawful shoot- The result. ing at the car barn. The attitude of a large number who had originally signed the recall petition suddenly reversed. Our newspapers and citizens, neutral so far as unionism was concerned, accepted the issue, waged a fight and defeated the Recall Petition by a vote of 3,300 to 1,900, the biggest election ever held in the city. It was not a question of candidates. It was simply a question of Significance enforcement of the law for the present and the future. The city commissioners, unionists and all others have learned where this community stands on that issue. Election. While the Recall is condemned by a great many, it is the opinion of the Recall of many familiar with the apathy and indifference on the part of a majority of the citizens that the Recall Election led to a campaign of education and action absolutely necessary and essential to head off a rapidly growing spirit of bolshevism, class autocracy and political chaos such as would have led to results unknown. ... The Recall rendered an invaluable service under our most trying conditions, and amply justified its inclusion in our charter. Present and new conditions make necessary some proper agency for the majority to ascertain immediately where they stand, and whether or not the majority shall rule, and particularly so when the city government is committed to the hands of three or a few men with full legislative and executive authority. The Recall Election brought out one thousand to fifteen hun- Conclusion. dred more voters than ever voted before in a city election, because The Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall are relatively little used. Popular control in Alabama, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, it was not "politics." It was law, order, security, life for all - the union man and the non-union man. The fire was quenched instead of being allowed to smoulder for months awaiting a regular election, while the peripatetic agitator and selfish and unscrupulous office seeker would have fanned the flame of hatred and discontent in the community by his misrepresentations. 224. Popular control chiefly a threat1 The Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall are seldom used in most of the cities and states which have provided for these forms of direct popular control. In an investigation conducted by him a few years ago, Dr. Charles F. Taylor found that of 197 municipalities which had provided for the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall, 137 had not used any of these devices. It is true, of course, that these measures may be more valuable in their existence than in their use, that is to say, they may be of service by inducing a keen sense of duty and responsibility in the minds of officials, without, however, requiring actual use. The following summaries by Dr. Taylor illustrate something of the degree to which these three measures of popular control have been used: Birmingham, Ala. (April, 1911.) Has used the referendum twice: January, 1912, electric light contract; September, 1912, water contract. In both instances contracts were annulled. Santa Cruz, Cal. (February, 1911.) Initiative: May 6, 1913. Moline, Ill. (April, 1911.) Initiative: July 23, 1912. Telephone franchise; "carried by large majority." Marshalltown, Iowa. One attempt has been made to recall the mayor: failed. Pratt, Kan. Referendum: July, 1913, fixing electric light rates. "Ordinance 'knocked out.'" Recall: September, 1913, unsuccessful attempt to recall the mayor. Missoula, Mont. (July, 1911.) Initiative: General election, 1912, on question of closing saloon on Sundays; carried. 1 From the National Municipal Review, Vol. III, No. 4. October, 1914. Charles F. Taylor, "Municipal Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Practice"; pp, 695 Ocean City, N. J. "Have had the initiative and referendum invoked New Jersey, a number of times, possibly two each, with satisfactory results. No recalls have been made or attempted." Greensboro, N.C. (March, 1911.) Initiative, 1911; establishment North of a municipally owned and operated meat market, the city to buy Carolina, and sell meat; defeated. Mandan, N.D. Recall: One unsuccessful attempt. North Dakota, Bartlesville, Okla. (August, 1910.) Recall: September 14, 1911. Oklahoma, Attempt to recall mayor and two city commissioners. Failed on account of insufficiency of petition. Portland, Ore. (1903.) [The Initiative and the Referendum have Oregon, been used rather freely, and on the whole successfully.] Dallas, Texas. (April, 1907.) [The Initiative, the Referendum Texas, and the Recall have been used rather freely.] Hoquiam, Wash. (August, 1911.) Recall: April 24, 1912. Mayor Washington, recalled on the charge of incompetency. Wisconsin Oshkosh, Wis. Referendum: Fall of 1912, general election. Shall and city own water works? carried by an overwhelming majority. . . We see in this review a safe, healthy and commendable exercise of Conclusion. direct powers of the voters in the public affairs of municipalities. These powers have not been abused, as is plainly seen by the large number of municipalities which have these powers, but which have never used them; and in the fact that in no place has their use been cranky" or excessive. These powers have been used rather freely in Portland, Oregon, and in Dallas, Texas, but we have no evidence that there is any sentiment in these places for the abolition of these powers on account of their somewhat free use. On the contrary, we may reasonably assume that the use of these powers is an evidence of their appreciation - when there is occasion for their use. Questions on the foregoing Readings 1. What is meant by Direct Legislation? 2. What provision for the Initiative is contained in the constitution 3. What does this constitution say concerning the Referendum? 5. What does the Missouri law have to say concerning false signatures to Initiative and Referendum petitions? 6. Describe the form of petition for Referendum in Missouri. 7. Describe the form of petition used in the case of the Initiative. 8. Why is it necessary to help the voters in the work of Direct Legislation? 9. Describe the printing, and distribution to the voters of Oregon, of literature on measures to be submitted to them. 10. Who bears the cost of printing, binding, and distributing this literature? II. When is this literature distributed? 12. What officers are subject to recall in Arizona? 13. What is the nature of the Recall Petition in Arizona? 14. Describe a Recall Election in Arizona. 15. What limitations does the constitution of Arizona place upon the use of the Recall in that state? 16. Describe the use of the Recall in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 1919. 17. What is meant by saying that the Initiative, Referendum and Recall may be more valuable in their existence than in their use? 18. Give some examples of the use of these measures of popular control in various states. 19. What is Dr. Taylor's conclusion as to the facts brought out in this review? |