When I first ran for Illinois state representative in 2014, one reform I proposed was simple: Give Illinois citizens the same right that citizens in many other states enjoy – the right to recall elected officials.
Twelve years later, Illinois politicians have demonstrated that recall is not merely a good idea. It is necessary.
State Reps. Carol Ammons and Harry Benton are just two names in a long line of Illinois public officials whose alleged or reported conduct has raised serious questions about their fitness for office. Yet Illinois voters have little ability to do anything about an elected official who proves incompetent, corrupt, or otherwise unfit between elections.
That needs to change.
Every elected official in Illinois – state or local, Democrat or Republican – should be subject to recall.
There is a broader benefit to recall that goes beyond removal: Elected officials tend to behave better when they know the people who hired them also have the ability to fire them early.
Illinois technically has a recall process for governor, but it is extraordinarily limited. Most importantly, it is not truly citizen-led. The process must begin in the General Assembly before voters can even attempt a recall. That isn’t a real citizen recall.
Critics of recall laws generally raise three legitimate concerns:
- Special elections are expensive.
- Recalls can be abused for partisan purposes.
- It shouldn’t be easy to overturn the result of a legitimate election.
Legislation I previously proposed addressed all three concerns.
First, don’t create expensive special elections.
A recall vote should occur during an already scheduled election. Illinois regularly holds primary, general, and consolidated elections. Put the recall question on one of those ballots. There is no reason to create an entirely separate election.
Second, don’t allow recall to become a tool for changing the partisan makeup of government.
We have seen recall efforts in other states driven less by corruption or misconduct than by attempts to reverse the political outcome of an election. The recall effort against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is perhaps the best-known example.
There is an easy safeguard against that kind of partisan gamesmanship: A recall should remove an official, not determine the replacement. If an official is recalled, use the same replacement process that already exists for when any officeholder in the state resigns, dies, or otherwise leaves office.
For example, if a Democratic state representative is recalled, the existing statutory appointment process would determine the replacement. Republicans couldn’t use recall as a backdoor method of taking a Democratic seat – and Democrats couldn’t do it to a Republican. Recall would therefore accomplish exactly what it is supposed to: Remove someone who has lost the confidence of voters without changing the political outcome of the previous election.
Finally, recall should be difficult.
Winning an election matters. Voters shouldn’t be able to remove someone simply because they disagree with one vote, one policy decision, or one controversial statement. Set a high signature requirement just to put a recall question on the ballot. Then require a supermajority of voters – perhaps 60% – to remove the official.
That creates a deliberately high bar. Recall would be reserved for extraordinary circumstances in which there is an overwhelming consensus among voters that an elected official is no longer fit to serve.
And if 60% or more of the people an official represents believe that person needs to go, why should Illinois law force those citizens to wait years before they can do anything about it?
Our system of government is supposed to work for the people, not protect politicians from the people. Illinois voters should have the right to recall any elected official in the state. If there is one state whose political history has demonstrated the need for that power, it is Illinois.
