By The Center for Michigan - October 15, 2007
Recalls should be reserved for somebody who commits a crime, steals money, displays moral turpitude. I voted the way I did because I thought it was the best for my district and for my state. If the voters disagree, they’ll have their voice at the election next year.
State Representative Ed Gaffney (R-Grosse Pointe
Wouldn’t I have been smarter to have ducked the tough vote? Sure, but it wouldn’t have been the best for the voters in my district, the people of my state, and for my own self respect.
State Representative Marc Corriveau (D-Northville)
So we’ve arrived at the point of recall in Michigan.
The law -- for once -- is pretty clear on how to recall a member of the legislature. Petitions must be filed in the county where the target legislator lives. They also must be submitted by a resident of the legislator’s district. After the petitions are in, the relevant County Election Commission has 20 days to review and then approve, reject, or modify the language. Once that’s done, those who want to force a recall election must collect valid signatures of district residents.
How many? To successfully get a recall on the ballot you then need to collect signatures equal to one-quarter of the total number of votes cast in the district for governor in the last election.
We need to know how recalls are done, because we are about to hear a lot more about them. It now looks as though there will be at least 10 legislators targeted for recall efforts, five from each party.
Consequently, you can expect recall efforts to be way overplayed in the press. That’s too bad, because we need the media to pay more attention to the really important stories unfolding in Michigan. My own sense is that the pro-recall folks represent a small, but noisy and very partisan minority. They are happy to beat the drum of discontent and hope it calls forth reporters who need a story.
Yet these recall attempts threaten to poison the process, and should be fought against for at least four good reasons:
1. Recalls don’t do anything that elections do. If any of the recalls are successful, the targeted legislators will clear out less than a year before the November, 2008 election anyway.
Those who foam at the mouth about spending tax dollars might be asked why we should pay for expensive special elections when sitting legislators are going to have to face the voters in less than a year. If the recalls succeed, it means we’ll have paid a lot of extra money to put a bunch of completely inexperienced lawmakers.
We have a system of regularly-held “recalls” in this country, and always have had. They are called elections. If voters are angry with their local legislator for his or her votes on the budget, they’ve plenty of opportunity to express that in the primary and general elections.
2. Recalls result in loss of local control to fringe groups supported by lots of out-of-state money. Why is it that Leon Drolet, a former state representative from Macomb County, should have the power to pick legislators from all over the state?
Do voters in Warren (Steve Bieda), or Redford Township (Andy Dillon), or Northville (Marc Corriveau), or the Grosse Pointes (Ed Gaffney), or Muskegon (Mary Valentine), Norton Shores (Gerald Van Woerkom), or Brighton (Chris Ward), or Howell (Valde Garcia) or Holland (Wayne Kuipers) want to sign their rights over to Drolet?
All these folks picked their own representatives last November, and I see no reason why the choices of the Leon Drolets of the world should be more important than theirs were last November.
3. Recalls will only add more vicious partisanship to a political system that already is much, much too partisan. Everybody in Lansing knows that Democrats in the House of Representatives are being targeted because House Minority Leader Craig DeRoche (R-Novi) wants to put Republicans back in control.
Everybody in Lansing knows that enormous effort went into setting up the final tax vote in the Senate to orchestrate a 19-19 split, forcing Lt. Gov. John Cherry to break the tie, something Republicans hope to use against him in the future.
For months, politicians in Lansing talked grandly about “good public policy” and “financial responsibility” while the state edged ever closer to shutdown. But what most of them had in the back of their minds was a purely partisan agenda. This is outrageous.
Why should the interests of 10 million Michigan citizens be held hostage to the purely partisan interests of our warring political parties and their respective officeholders?
4. If these recalls succeed, our legislature will become essentially worthless in critical times, because the lawmakers will never again take a tough vote on anything. Michigan is in bad shape and needs to make hard decisions about our future.
The legislature just barely managed to make a decision necessary to keep the state from shutting down. If it is constantly paralyzed by fear of recalls, it will surely lack the guts to do anything courageous or far-reaching. The only effective power in Michigan will be that wielded by powerful, rich interest groups who put stuff on the statewide ballot.
Finally, as for taxes -- nobody much likes ‘em, But we vote for our local legislators to represent the interests of their districts, using their best judgment under the circumstances. That’s what representative democracy is about. Substituting recall-driven fear and intimidation (even blackmail) is no way to govern.
It is, however, a way to ruin a great state.
Editor’s Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a centrist think-and-do tank. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. Power welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.
13 Comments
Is there a group working against the recall effort(s)? What can I do to help?
I totally agree with you on this Phil!
Recalling someone is not an easy thing to do. It requires people who feel strongly about what they are doing. I know what I am doing. I am recalling the person who misrepresented hiself to me. The leader of the pack - the person I voted for, Speaker Dillon.
Rep. Gaffney you are stealing from me and my family by wasting my money and spending it foolishly. Rep.Corriveau,if I am to believe what you say, what have you been doing prior to this vote? Certainly you have not been making tough decisions on our behalf.
If these legislators are so noble, they will remember who is sovereign and elected them. It was not the lobbyists. If they are that good they will be retained in a recall attempt. They can not play politics with our livelyhood and our children. If they feel so strongly about their vote, they will not mind falling on their sword.
Rose Bogaert, Chair
Wayne County Taxpayers Association,Inc.
I agree recalls solve nothing. I have always been opposed to term limits other than what is in the constitution. It is called voting. Our problem in this state and nation is our legislatures are for sale to lobbyists. We the people basically set on our butts and watch TV and the candidate who spends the most money will probably win. That is money received from special interests in exchange for promises made. We allow it, whine about it then change channels thankful when the political ads are over and we can get back to "Desperate Houswives" or "CSI"!
A group of us have proposed extending the state sales tax to campaign advertising. It is estimated that over one billion dollars will be spent on just the presidential campaigns in 2008. Think of how much revenue could be generated by a six percent tax on all print and media ads for national, state-wide and local elections and campaigns. Far more than a sales tax on the bronzing of baby shoes. Who would be hurt? For the first time in history, taxpaying voters would WANT to see more campaign ads!
Oh brother! Lobbyists or Think Tank. Grassroots or Unruly Mob. Republican or Democrat. Whig or Federalist. Patriot or Tory. Blogger or Media Mogul. Whiner or Winner. Rich Man or Poor Man.
Owner or Laborer. Get a life!
Sorry...I disagree. These recalls are essentially punitive in nature, a public recognition of demonstrated political incompetence on a level almost beyond comprehension. How in the world could this have been such a "suprise" to our elected officials, and why did they not begin to resolve these issues five years ago instead of deliberately waiting and using "11th hour" tactics as an excuse for their own leadership failings? Anyone who allowed such an artifical emergency to happen in a corporate environment would be justifiably terminated rather quickly. The same level of accountability should be maintained in politics, and most especially now.
" YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW "!!
I guess this author feel's that __OUR
REPRESENITIVES should NOT be held ACCOUNTABLE
for their ACTION'S OR LACK OF ACTION.
WE the VOTER'S have voiced our concern's.
Shame , on the Individual that would Ignore
these concern's!
The PRICE that must be PAID , is their
Employment as our Represenitives.
GUESS WHAT ? YOU DO WORK FOR FOR US !
OR , WE CAN ALWAY"S TAKE AWAY YOUR REPRESENTATION AND EMPLOYMENT. DO YOU WANT
TO IGNORE US , NOW!!!!!!?
Thank You.
Donald Prunkard
Allen Park , MI.
Excellent summary.
Unfortunately, it is all to easy for potential petition signers to be swayed to support such a recall campaign. If there was a way to estimate the cost of just one recall election, and this was equated to the services of x state employees (e.g. working for the state police, Secretary of State, etc.) for a year, voters may realize that their signatures will have an impact on their pocketbook (or reduced services) if the petition drive is successful.
Thanks for reading - no reply is necessary.
By the way, the Principles are excellent. I presume it is the intent of the community conversations to identify action plans supporting those; I hope we can keep those non-partisan.
Phil,
As someone who would probably sign a petition to recall Wayne Kuipers (I'm from Holland), I appreciated your points on creating an environment where hard decisions need to be made, and how a recall may jeopardize that. However, I think it would have been fine to have the state government shut down for a week...it would help with the budget deficiency (I know better). But I'm most disappointed with the way that this agreement was completed. What good policy was it that our legislators were able to hash out in the last 10 hours (sleep deprived and all), that they were not able to figure out in the 9 months preceding? What hard decisions were made about cutting costs?
To your points: First, I think putting "inexperienced" lawmakers in the legislature would be the best thing we can do as a State. In fact, let's replace all of them with lawmakers who have never served a lick of government. They would pretty much start from scratch, which is what we, as an economy, need to do anyway. Its not a 'fresh idea' thing, its an elimination of bad habits.
Second, putting someone in office who is responsible yesterday is better than today, and today better than tomorrow, etc. Let's not waste time. Who controls the process is less important to me than making sure the end result is the right result.
Third, partisanship is actually better because then legislators can't act. When legislators can't get any of their policies implemented, then we as constituents win because they can't spend more money.
Finally, maybe a recall would scare some legislators into avoiding the tough decisions, but more importantly it should scare the rest of them into making the right ones.
I've read the case for higher personal income taxes in the Michigan Future, Inc.'s A New Agenda for a New Michigan. I'm not opposed to increasing taxes to 'right size' our income base. But to add new business taxes, and dramatically increase the personal income tax is not showing me that fat has been cut. I've talked to several state agency employees in the past 6 months, and they all seem to say that there are inefficiencies and waste in their organizations. True or not, when I hear that, I get furious that its going to cost me extra money to uphold that system.
I appreciate your insight, and look forward to reading your future articles. I always look positively on challenging viewpoints and use them to sharpen my thoughts.
Dear Mr. Power:
I am so tired of reading your liberal viewpoints that you sometimes try to dress up as "moderate," until you are angry and then return to your liberal roots of attacking those of us who are conservative.
1. You allege - "Recalls don't do anything that elections do." Remember the words "John Engler"? Remember the 1983 Democrat tax increase that ultimately led to reversal of control of the Michigan Senate? Even though Blanchard won in 1986, it helped established Michigan as an anti-tax state, and made legislators scared to raise taxes for almost a generation, until now. Recalls act as a way of reminding legislators for whom they work, and humbling them. The public does have the right to get angry and fire its representatives in this state.
Let me also point out that this marked the turn from the Romney-Milliken me-too RINO wing of the Republican Party, in favor of actual Republicans like John Engler and others who decided Michiganders deserve a choice, not an echo, to borrow someone else's great expression. The recalls were consequential and changed Michigan. You know that. I would argue for the better, and you would argue for the worse, but they clearly changed Michigan and we both know it. Thank God the RINO wing of the party is in retreat, as evidenced by Joe Schwartz's failure last year. I like choices, and apparently so do a significant percentage of Michigan's voters. Milliken and Granholm are an echo, Power and Joe Schwartz are an echo, etc.
Let's be honest, recalls give outraged voters a chance to fire someone over one big issue...and it is the single most effective anti-incumbent procedure around. And you know it...and it scares you for that reason. And sometimes the fear of the voters is the only way we have to make sure that we have control over legislators, notwithstanding the political leanings of the former newspaper chain owners, and the such...
2. You allege - "Recalls result in loss of local control to fringe groups supported by lots of out-of-state money."
Local control? Again, Mr. Power, you need a reality check. What local control is there when Andy Dillon and Mike Bishop abandon the principles that got them elected in the name of a bigger Lansing government? What local control is there when Governor Granholm and her supporters push welfare state big government as a bigger interest than staying the heck out the pockets of Michigan's hard pressed tax payers? You don't have a clue of what's going on with those of us who really are trying to make ends meat here in Michigan. I don't begrudge you your wealth and noblesse oblige feeling toward poor people, don't begrudge my middle class desire to fire anyone who increases any tax on me at all.
Recalls represent reassertion of local control over wayward elected officials. Leon Drolet and interest groups and out of staters don't win recall elections, voters determine who does. If the media and national pressure were to dictate elections, then we would've had Presidents Gore and Kerry, and never would've had President Reagan or Governor Engler. Recall is an assertion by a majority of voters that it is time to fire the incumbent for cause midway through a term. That, Mr. Power, is Civics 101 on local control.
I didn't hear you whining about local control when massive out of state money came in, with massive media support, on behalf of affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Nor do you apparently fathom that voters rejected the advice of leading liberal politicians and Republican "I am so sensitive and moderate and kind, me-too folks" on both of those matters. Or maybe you do and that loss of "influence" bothers you as a former newspaper publisher.
Leon Drolet, John Engler, the Pope, the Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel, George Bush, and Governor Granholm will not decide if Mike Bishop stays in office. Only the voters of his district will decide. What is there about that that is so difficult for you to understand?
3. You talk about the power of money. It's funny, Mr. Power, you allege to be the head of a "moderate" think tank, but you have been an anti-tax cutting, pro-Democrat liberal for as long as I've followed your career. And when you lose high office, you never consider the possibility that the voters considered your ideology and decided that they did not want it. I am sure you are a nice family and decent man, but you really need to stop attacking your opponents the way you do, we're tired of it. I was a tax cutting conservative who favored a strong American foreign policy long before Rush Limbaugh, John Engler, George W. Bush, etc. My preferences are my own, not Leon Drolet's or MoveOn.Org's or the such.
Your talk about the power of money flies in the face of your using your own money to influence and favor entrenched school boards in Farmington and elsewhere before you sold your paper. That influence and the golf games with superintendents and the back slapping relationship with board members always seemed to matter more than mismanagement by the folks you were supposed to be reporting on.
Your talk about the power of money flies in the face of the fact that when it came to labor situations at your paper, you suddenly were a staunch conservative who cared about the bottom line. You ran financials at the paper that were good because it was your money, but you refuse to acknowledge the need and right for many of us to believe that Michigan's government bureaucracy must cut expenses even if they hurt. Michigan needs to become a low tax, much smaller government state if it is to recover. You may disagree, but stop calling your opponents such as myself extremists. You ran your paper well from a business perspective...I just want the state run by similar principles, adjusting for the difference between private and public entities.
4. You allege - "If these recalls succeed, our Legislature will become essentially worthless in critical times, because the lawmakers will never again take a tough vote on anything." Mr. Power, let me give you a news flash: it already is worthless in critical times, and in some times that are not critical, too. It is easy to raise taxes. It is much harder to cut expenses. Witness the fact that tax increases have been accomplished, but spending cuts have not been made as promised. Need I say more?
Let me also point out that George H.W. Bush was fired by the voters. He would've won despite Ross Perot and his inability to articulate had he not broken his promise. His broken promise and his son's more steely resolve (on Iraq and taxes, unfortunately not on spending) have guaranteed that his son has lived up to promises to the voters on the tax issue. Recalls on the local level have the same effect. Look at CA, where the recall allowed voters to correct the mistake of electing Gray Davis and put in a Republican, a scenario that in a general election would probably not have happened.
5. You refer to voter backlash against tax increasers as sometimes "blackmail". Again, you are being disingenuous. Blackmail is when I try to get something out of you I am not entitled to by threatening you. When I tell a politician that he if crosses lines by voting for tax increases, I will work to fire him for cause early under legal recall procedures, that is not blackmail, that is my right as a taxpayer. If you don't like Michigan's recall law, join the others who cannot afford the tax structure and bad economy and move out of state. Or try to change it. But don't attack those who choose to use it.
I have never met Leon Drolet, don't know what he looks like, and don't much care. I just remember every time Governor Milliken functioned as a liberal while I was a teenager, thinking that I wish we had real Republicans like Ronald Reagan who actually were against taxes and who would stand up to the mayor of Detroit, unlike the RINO crowd of William Milliken and Helen Milliken, James Brickley and the latter's leftist wife, Joyce Braithwaite. I'd rather have a Governor Power than a Governor Milliken, because you at least have a party affiliation that is consistent with your principles. But, I'd rather have a Governor Engler or Governor DeVos than either one.
Best of the day to you.
Dear Mr. Power:
I have great respect for your efforts on behalf of our state, and certainly your work on behalf of our state universities, but I regret to say I disagree with some of the thoughts in your column of today.
The thrust of your column is reflected in the headline (at least in the Birmingham edition) that "Recall Efforts Waste Time and Energy..." That's possibly true, though I think it sends a message to those that wish to follow into the legislative arena that they ought to reflect the will of the constituents that put them there. Those who put them there can remove them if the elected don't do the bidding of the electorate. Is that so wrong?
I agree taxes are unpopular, of course, and that local legislators are elected to represent the interests of their districts. Shouldn't that be done in the light of day, however, as opposed to all-night/late night sessions where deals are cut, and explained to the populace? My opinion is we got a minimal explanation from all concerned that "we had to get something done, and we did, like it or not" concerning the October 1 debacle, with "we couldn't allow state government to shut down" as an excuse for not acting earlier, and infinitely more wisely.
I also disagree that "[r]ecalls don't do anything that elections do." They send a message. Our legislators apparently don't have the message of what their job is. They couldn't get the job done in the several months since the budget problems were made clear. How much harm can they do in another year? I submit the answer is, "a lot of harm." Removing them accomplishes more than only sending the message that the will of the people should be respected. It also forces them to confront the people who elected them in order to keep their positions; if they don't do that, it seems to me an open admission that they shouldn't have been there in the first place (and they were fooling the public about what they could or would do). It's certainly possible that the legislators can be as inactive as they were on the budget problem and nothing will result detrimental to the state, but there is also the possiblilty they could come up with lame-brained schemes for who knows what(?).
After all, they continue to pass "optional helmet for motorcycle riders" laws and send them on to certain veto. I personally don't ride, and don't much care if those who do wear helmets or not, though it is our law that a motorcyclist hitting a car gets his no-fault benefits from the car. That's as imbecilic a law as I have ever heard of, and I've lived in California.
Finally, you say that, "the Legislature will become essentially worthless..[and]...will never again take a tough vote on anything." I disagree. An honest politician will tell the people what he or she will vote for or against while keeping in touch with his or her constituents and, most importantly, why that vote will be cast. Such communication invites dialog between representative and constituent. My opinion is that is what we needed all along.
Upon reading this again and seeing "an honest politician" in the previous paragraph I may have created an oxymoron.
I respect your views, but, as mentioned, disagree in several respects. I understand your effort to discourage recall efforts, but I understand the motivation of those who want to intiate them and follow thorugh. I side with the latter. I'm sure you'll acknowledge it is their right to do so, and--of course--their right to fail at the effort, should that happen. So be it, in that event.
All who have an opposing opinion to what we thought would be the thrust of "The Center for Michigan" and Phil Power's stance on recall elections NEED to attend the upcoming meetings... By your absence, Liberals win. By your attendance, the people win! john@foolmenot.com
Post a Comment