|
DIRECT LEGISLATION
|
cast for governor in the last guberna-
torial election, or the total number of
votes cast for all persons in the office
occupied by the incumbent. If the offi-
cer is a local official, the size of the
governmental unit may determine how
many signatures must be secured.
When the petition is completed, it is
in most cases filed with the secretary of
state. If he decides that it has the req-
uisite number of signatures and is proper
in all other respects, he can then call
for the election, provided that a general
election is not imminent. The question
of removal will then appear on the
ballot.
When a petition is filed and the in-
cumbent decides to attempt to remain
in office, he must do some campaigning.
The states of Arizona, Oregon, Cali-
fornia, and Colorado provide for pay-
ment out of the state treasury for the
reasonable expenses incurred for such a
campaign by the incumbent, if he is not
removed. Until the election is held, the
duties of the office are carried on by the
incumbent in several states. Some states
provide for this contingency by law,
others by appointment.
|
Some states provide that the resigna-
tion by the incumbent within a specified
time after the filing of a recall petition
will remove the question from the ballot.
The election may still be held in order
to determine a successor to the vacant
office. Even if the incumbent does not
resign, there may be other persons run-
ning in the election, in which case the
one who receives a majority of the votes,
including the incumbent, would take
office for the remainder of the term. If
the election determines only whether the
official is removed and he subsequently
is removed, the office can be filled in
some states by appointment.
The history of the recall device
reflects its use mainly as a political weap-
on. Opponents argue that it makes
officials engage in a kind of constant
campaign to retain public favor and
public notice when they should be en-
gaged solely in the duties of their offices.
Proponents argue that the device has
been used in most areas with much re-
straint, as a "whip on the wall" rather
than one in action, and its intent is
political in the first place; it is a supple-
ment to, rather than a substitute for,
impeachment.
|
CONCLUSION
It has been argued that the referen-
dum protects the people from measures
which may be passed by a poorly appor-
tioned legislature, or one that was
elected from highly gerrymandered dis-
tricts. The current trend toward more
equable apportionment does not destroy
this argument. Political consequences
will continue to receive high priority
when legislative districts are drawn.
While reapportionment will prevent the
legislature from being under the control
of certain minorities, there will always
be minorities which should not be de-
nied a valid means of protecting their
interests.
|
These arguments hold true for the
power of initiative as well. There is no
good reason for having referendum
without initiative. Initiative has often
resulted in good legislation in those
states where it is permitted, frequently
resulting in the establishment of laws
which would have been extremely diffi-
cult for the legislature to enact. An ex-
ample of this is the repeal of prohibition
in Oklahoma in 1959. Whether pro-
hibition be good or bad, the fact is that
a majority of the people wanted it re-
pealed, while substantial public support
for retaining it was sufficient to prevent
legislative action.
75
|
|
 |
