SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS
|
|
government. It has allowed people to
instruct willing legislators on matters on
which the representatives have been un-
certain. The direct process stimulates
popular interest in government because
it enables the electorate to enact laws
that are needed and disapprove those
that are not. It produces more carefully
drafted laws because sponsors engage
specialists to help draft bills for par-
ticular needs. Thus, major compromise
legislation is eliminated. In states where
the direct process is an operative device,
citizens have been sustained in their
efforts to bring about political reforms,
long delayed by recalcitrant legislatures.
This method serves as a constant "shot-
gun behind the door" to hold the legis-
lature in constructive and productive
paths. In some states direct legislative
devices have provided a sort of balance
for the forces of population against a
badly gerrymandered legislature, or even
a means to force legislative reappor-
tionment when the legislature has re-
fused to follow the state constitution's
mandate on the subject.
|
THE BALANCE OF THE ARGUMENT
"No great drive appears today for
the adoption of direct legislation in
states that do not have it, nor for its
abandonment in those that do. Most
recent contests over direct legislation
have involved reforms in detail in the
systems already in use, to raise the
signature requirements (particularly
for the constitutional initiative), to
limit repeated submissions of the
same measures, or to require financ-
ing plans or 'price tags' to accompany
bills calling for expenditures.
"The claims made by its early sup-
porters for direct legislation as a
panacea for all political evils have
hardly been borne out, but neither
have the dire predictions of disaster
made by its early enemies. No great
flood of either radical or reactionary
legislation has come from the initia-
tive nor have legislative bodies been
hamstrung by the statutory referen-
dum. The people's direct legislative
products have resembled closely those
of representative bodies."18
|
RECALL
Recall provisions authorize the public
to remove an elected and, in some states,
appointed official by an adverse popular
vote. Constitutions in thirteen states
provide for the recall of public officials.
Details of these provisions vary consid-
erably and these differences will be
reflected below.
Generally, recall applies to "elective
public officers" but some states use the
term "public officer" to indicate who is
subject to recall. Kansas and Arizona
provide expressly that the official can
be either elected or appointed and be
subject to removal by an adverse vote.
Five states have subjected judges to re-
call, but five more states have expressly
excluded them.
74
|
After the term of an incumbent has
run for a specified period (ranging from
five days to one year), a petition may
be prepared and filed. In a majority of
states, the petition prescribes reasons for
recalling the official. The number of
signatures required and the base from
which that number is computed differ
from state to state. The lowest number
of signatures required is 12 per cent of
the voters; the highest, 30 per cent.
This is computed from either the total
number of votes cast in the last general
election, or the total number of votes
18 J. swarthout & E. bartly, principles
and problems of state and local govern-
ment 75 (1958).
|
|
 |
