In 2006, New Jersey voters elected Robert Menendez, a Democrat, to the U.S. Senate. His term ends in 2012. A group of New Jersey Tea Party activists want to start to circulate a recall petition against Menendez. The Secretary of State has ruled that recall cannot be used for federal office-holders, but the Tea Party group is suing in state court to overturn that decision. See this story.
In 1967 an Idaho state court ruled that Idaho’s recall procedures cannot be used against members of Congress. The 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling U.S. Term Limits v Thornton also suggests strongly that states cannot recall members of Congress.
How many valid petition signatures would it take to place a recall of a US Senator in New Jersey on the ballot (assuming that they can do this petition)?
Check this Site to see – varies by State Constitution. http://www.ehow.com/how_2096900_recall-us-senator.html
The Lugar case is a Machine Response. Investigate the case and you will see that the Plaintiffs sought to CHANGE rules written in the Constitution.
The current Right to RECALL campaign is supported by 1st, 10th, 17th Ammendment RIGHTS, and the fact that WE THE PEOPLE have NOT given up the rights to Un-ELECT, not should we in the future.
Joe Elector
RestoreOurColorado.org
Predatory Lending is a major contributor to the economic turmoil we are currently experiencing.
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Scott Veerkamp / Predatory Lending (Franklin Township School Board Member.)
Please review this information from U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley regarding deceptive lending practices:
“Steering payments were made to brokers who enticed unsuspecting homeowners into deceptive and expensive mortgages. These secret bonus payments, often called Yield Spread Premiums, turned home mortgages into a SCAM.”
The Center for Responsible Lending says YSP “steals equity from struggling families.”
1. Scott collected nearly $10,000 on two separate mortgages using YSP and junk fees. 2. This is an average of $5,000 per loan. 3. The median value of the properties was $135,000. 4. Clearly, this type of lending represents a major ripoff for consumers.
http://merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=A09C6A80-537A-4EB1-83C5-31925F046B6F
A person involved in trying to recall former NJ Gov Corzine told me the petition requirement is 25 percent of registered voters. That’s a huge wall. It can be done, but it requires talking to nearly every fellow citizen in the state.
Most signature requirements are based on the last vote for governor and the highest statewide threshold for a ballot initiative or referendum is 15 percent. (Massachusetts mandates 3% and Colorado requires 5% of the last vote for governor.) A 25 percent registered voters requirement is roughly equivalent to a 35 percent or greater last vote threshold.
My view of U.S. Term Limits v Thornton is that it is bad law. Hopefully someday the court will stumble back towards a better reading of our Constitution.
“Paul Jacob Says:
February 6th, 2010 at 8:23 am
A person involved in trying to recall former NJ Gov Corzine told me the petition requirement is 25 percent of registered voters. That’s a huge wall. It can be done, but it requires talking to nearly every fellow citizen in the state.”
If the signature requirement is really that high I’d say that it means that this recall is not likely to qualify for the ballot.
To me, recalls are a part of the “redress of grievances” right in the first amendment. Federal office holders shouldn’t be immune.
Well, _US Term Limits v Thornton_ quotes extensively from the earlier _Powell v McCormack_ — which also focused on the “Qualifications Clauses”. And one whole section of the analysis goes over the fact that _Powell_ was based on the ” ‘fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.” ‘ ” Two paragraphs later, the Court also recognized “the critical postulate that sovereignty is vested in the people, and that sovereignty confers on the people the right to choose freely their representatives to the National Government.” These themes re-appear throughout the opinion, sometimes in slightly different words — for example, “the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people.”
So I’m not convinced that recall — being a power exercised directly by the people, a power to decide who shall represent them — is all that clearly ruled out.
That said, I know Michigan’s Election Code (specifically MCL 168.974) also provides that someone who is successfully recalled (or who resigns after a recall petition is filed against them) is restricted from serving for the rest of that term:
/==============================================
(1) An officer who was recalled shall not
be a candidate to fill the vacancy created by
the recall nor be appointed to fill a vacancy
in an elective office in the electoral district
or governmental unit from which the recall was
made during the term of office from which the
officer was recalled.
(2) An officer who has resigned subsequent
to the filing of a recall petition shall not
be appointed to fill a vacancy in elective
office in that electoral district or govern-
mental unit during the term of the office from
which the officer resigned.
(3) If an officer resigns subsequent to
the filing of petitions to recall that
officer from office, it shall not be necessary
for the office with which the recall petitions
have been filed to proceed under sections 961
and 963.
(4) If an officer whose recall is sought
resigns after the calling of a recall election,
the election shall not be held.
==============================================/
I could well believe that those restrictions fall prey to the Qualifications Clauses — and thus you couldn’t bar a recalled Senator or Congressperson from running again . . . even in a special election to re-fill her/his old seat. But that’s a matter of the state saying who the people may or may not have available to choose to represent them. A popular-vote recall is considerably — and I think significantly — different.
Oh, yes — and MCL 168.121 and 168.149 do say US Senators and US Representatives (respectively) may be recalled. In fact, MCL 168.951 says it too: “Every elective officer in the state, except a judicial officer, is subject to recall by the voters of the electoral district in which the officer is elected as provided in this chapter.” And MCL 168.955 says that, to recall an officer, you need petitions “signed by registered and qualified electors equal to not less than 25% of the number of votes cast for candidates for the office of governor at the last preceding general election in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled.”
And one last note: Michigan doesn’t require that the reason for a recall be misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance. In fact, the reason on the petition may be a mistake — or it may be an untruth. The only requirements (from MCL 168.952) are that it concern action(s) taken by the public official within her/his current term of office, that the petition not be filed within the first or last six months of that term, and “that each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is being sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.” (Some school board members in my town were recalled for *not* exceeding their legal authority and putting a question of the high-school team nickname up to a public vote.)
One more item to add to the list of LIFE or DEATH constitutional amendments —-
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
Direct voter petitions for candidate ballot access, recalls, constitutional amendments and laws.
P.R. and A.V. in ALL regimes.
Democracy NOW — before the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander party hack arrogant EVIL MORONS in the gerrymander Congress and gerrymander State legislatures destroy Western Civilization — via debt increases, welfare, etc.
This stuff AIN’T atomic physics — except for the MORONS having a death wish fixation with the almost dead U.S.A. gerrymander Constitution — barely tolerable in 1787 — now a very EVIL deadly document regarding political structures — gerrymanders, etc.
“Vaughn Says:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:25 am
To me, recalls are a part of the “redress of grievances†right in the first amendment. Federal office holders shouldn’t be immune.”
I would like to see a usable initiative, referendum, and recall process at the city/town, county, and state level everywhere in the USA.