Polygon, the Dancing Bear

Occasional notes on politics, history, technology, architecture,
and the life of a county clerk

2002:
May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2003:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2004:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2005:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2006:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2007:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2008:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July

Current entries

Sunday, June 25, 2006, 6:33 pm

From the Clerk-Register. Last Monday's message to my staff.

A lot of recall elections are in the works right now. Recalls are inherently tense and divisive situations, but dealing with the various contending parties is our job.

On May 2, we certified that sufficient signatures were presented to force an August 8 recall election against three officials of Pittsfield Township. The officials sued, and we were in court last Wednesday, June 7, on the plaintiffs' motion for a restraining order to stop the recall election. Less than 48 hours later, Judge Shelton issued a written opinion denying the motion, and praising the work of this office.

Today [Monday, June 19] at 12:30, the county Election Commission (myself as County Clerk; County Treasurer Catherine McClary; and Circuit Judge David Swartz) will meet to consider the clarity of reasons for recalling officials in three different units of government: Northfield Township, Lincoln Consolidated Schools, and Willow Run Schools.

It was unusual in the past to have two different sets of recalls come up for clarity hearings at the same meeting. Three is surely unprecedented.

In 1908, Michigan was one of the first states to provide a constitutional right to recall public officials from office. The recall power was significantly broadened in the 1963 state constitution, which provided that the reasons for recall "shall be a political rather than a judicial question."

It is frequently stated at clarity hearings that the role of the election commission is not to judge the truth or falsity of the reasons given by petitioners — only their clarity.

The legal guidelines for clarity give the commission a lot of room for subjective judgment about what is "clear" or "not clear".

I don't feel that the clarity process should be a roadblock preventing exercise of a constitutional right. Hence, if I can make sense of all the reasons proposed, regardless of arguable grammar or word choice, I vote to find it "clear". The other members of the Election Commission often disagree with me.

That being said, recalls, intended as an extraordinary last resort for voters, are now being wildly overused. During the almost eighteen months I have been Clerk, we have seen recall efforts against a dozen local officials.

I recently read about a survey of Michigan local officials who had been targets in recall campaigns. Their collective experience is summarized as "embarrassing, disappointing, painful, humiliating, devastating, hurtful, emotionally and financially draining." Most lost enthusiasm for public service, and saw emotional and financial effects on their families.

Elected officials gain office through an adversarial process. It is often their lot to decide controversial issues; we expect them to have thick enough skin to endure criticism from constituents who disagree. Still, it is already difficult to persuade capable individuals to put themselves forward for these posts. It certainly doesn't help when officials regularly get put through personal hell over political disagreements.

Let's have a great week!