michigan's recall election law - citizens research council ... · pdf filejune 2012...

Michigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s Recall Elecall Elecall Elecall Elecall Election Ltion Ltion Ltion Ltion LaaaaawwwwwMichigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s Recall Elecall Elecall Elecall Elecall Election Ltion Ltion Ltion Ltion Laaaaawwwww

June 2012June 2012June 2012June 2012June 2012

RepRepRepRepRepororororort 379t 379t 379t 379t 379



CCCCCELEBRELEBRELEBRELEBRELEBRAAAAATINGTINGTINGTINGTING 96 Y 96 Y 96 Y 96 Y 96 YEARSEARSEARSEARSEARS OFOFOFOFOF I I I I INDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENT,,,,, N N N N NONPONPONPONPONPARARARARARTISANTISANTISANTISANTISAN

PPPPPUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLIC P P P P POLICOLICOLICOLICOLICYYYYY R R R R RESEARCHESEARCHESEARCHESEARCHESEARCH INININININ M M M M MICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Councilouncilouncilouncilouncilof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Councilouncilouncilouncilouncilof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Board of DirectorsChair Vice Chair Treasurer

Jeffrey D. Bergeron Terence M. Donnelly Aleksandra A. Miziolek

John J. GasparovicBorgWarner Inc.

Ingrid A. GreggEarhart Foundation

Marybeth S. HoweWells Fargo Bank

Nick A. KhouriDTE Energy Company

Daniel T. LisKelly Services, Inc.

Sarah L. McClellandJPMorgan Chase & Co.

Michael P. McGeeMiller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Aleksandra A. MiziolekDykema Gossett PLLC

Jim MurrayAT&T Michigan

Jeffrey D. BergeronErnst & Young LLP

Michael G. BickersPNC Financial Services Group

Beth ChappellDetroit Economic Club

Mark A. DavidoffDeloitte LLP

Terence M. DonnellyDickinson Wright PLLC

Randall W. EbertsW. E. Upjohn Institute

David O. EgnerHudson-Webber FoundationNew Economy Initiative

Laura FournierCompuware

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.Manoogian Foundation

Cathy NashCitizens Bank

Paul R. ObermeyerComerica Bank

Brian PetersMichigan Health & Hospital Association

Kevin ProkopRockbridge Growth Equity, LLC

Lynda RossiBlue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Jerry E. RushMeritor, Inc.

Michael A. SemancoHennessey Capital LLC

Terence A. Thomas, Sr.Thomas Group Consulting, Inc.

Kent J. VanaVarnum

Theodore J. VogelCMS Energy Corporation

Advisory DirectorLouis Betanzos

Board of TrusteesChair

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.

Terence E. AdderleyKelly Services, Inc.

Jeffrey D. BergeronErnst & Young LLP

Stephanie W. BergeronWalsh College

David P. BoylePNC

Beth ChappellDetroit Economic Club

Mary Sue ColemanUniversity of Michigan

Matthew P. CullenRock Ventures LLC

Tarik DaoudLong Family Service Center

Stephen R. D’ArcyDetroit Medical Center

John M. DunnWestern Michigan University

David O. EgnerHudson-Webber FoundationNew Economy Initiative

David L. EislerFerris State University

David G. FreyFrey Foundation

Mark T. GaffneyEugene A. Gargaro, Jr.Manoogian Foundation

Ralph J. GersonGuardian Industries Corporation

Eric R. GilbertsonSaginaw Valley State University

Allan D. GilmourWayne State University

Alfred R. Glancy IIIUnico Investment Group LLC

Thomas J. HaasGrand Valley State University

James S. HilboldtThe Connable Office, Inc.

Paul C. HillegondsDTE Energy Company

Daniel J. KellyDeloitte. Retired

David B. KennedyEarhart Foundation

Mary KramerCrain Communications, Inc.

Gordon KraterPlante & Moran PLLC

David LeitchFord Motor Company

Edward C. Levy, Jr.Edw. C. Levy Co.

Daniel LittleUniversity of Michigan-Dearborn

Alphonse S. LucarelliErnst & Young LLP, Retired

Sarah L. McClellandJPMorgan Chase & Co.

Paul W. McCrackenUniversity of Michigan, Emeritus

Patrick M. McQueenMcQueen Financial Advisors

Robert MilewskiBlue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Glenn D. MrozMichigan Technological University

Mark A. MurrayMeijer Inc.

Cathy H. NashCitizens Bank

James M. NicholsonPVS Chemicals

Donald R. ParfetApjohn Group LLC

Sandra E. PierceCharter One

Philip H. PowerThe Center for Michigan

Keith A. PrettyNorthwood University

John Rakolta Jr.Walbridge

Douglas B. RobertsIPPSR- Michigan State University

Milt RohwerFrey Foundation

Irving RoseEdward Rose & Sons

George E. RossCentral Michigan University

Gary D. RussiOakland University

Nancy M. SchlichtingHenry Ford Health System

John M. SchreuderFirst National Bank of Michigan

Lloyd A. SempleUniversity of Detroit Mercy School of LawLou Anna K. SimonMichigan State University

S. Martin TaylorAmanda Van DusenMiller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Kent J. VanaVarnum

Theodore J. VogelCMS Energy Corporation

Gail L. WardenHenry Ford Health System,Emeritus

Jeffrey K. WillemainDeloitte.

Leslie E. WongNorthern Michigan University

Citizens Research Council of Michigan is a tax deductible 501(c)(3) organization

C I T I Z E N S R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L O F M I C H I G A N

M A I N O F F I C E 38777 Six Mile Road, Suite 208 • Livonia, MI 48152-3974 • 734-542-8001 • Fax 734-542-8004L A N S I N G O F F I C E 124 West Allegan, Suite 620 • Lansing, MI 48933-1738 • 517-485-9444 • Fax 517-485-0423

CRCMICH.ORG

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Council ouncil ouncil ouncil ouncil of Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Michigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s RecMichigan’s Recall Elecall Elecall Elecall Elecall Election Ltion Ltion Ltion Ltion Laaaaawwwww



C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n i

MMMMMICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN’’’’’SSSSS R R R R RECECECECECALLALLALLALLALL E E E E ELECLECLECLECLECTIONTIONTIONTIONTION L L L L LAAAAAWWWWW

Contents

Summary .................................................................................................................... iiiIntroduction ................................................................................................................ 1Michigan Recall Activity from 2000 to 2011 ............................................................... 2

The Geography of Michigan Recalls ................................................................................ 5Financial Costs of Recall ................................................................................................ 5Costs to Democracy ...................................................................................................... 8

An Interstate Comparison of the Number of Recalls .................................................. 9Arguments against Recall ......................................................................................... 13

Special Interest Influence ............................................................................................ 13Unintended Consequences .......................................................................................... 14

Arguments for Recall ................................................................................................ 14A Comparison of Recall Models ................................................................................. 15

Michigan’s Recall Model ............................................................................................... 15Alternate Models for Recall .......................................................................................... 16

Grounds for Recall ................................................................................................. 16Petition Signature Requirements ............................................................................. 17Period for Petition Circulation ................................................................................. 18Officials Subject to Recall ....................................................................................... 19Recall Election Process ........................................................................................... 20Recall Immunity Periods......................................................................................... 22

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 23Appendices ................................................................................................................ 24

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a nii

Charts

Chart 1 Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall in Michigan, 2000 - 2011 ......................... 2

Chart 2 Number and Distribution of Recall-Eligible Elected Officials in Michigan,by Government Type ........................................................................................... 3

Chart 3 Distribution of Officials Facing Recall, By Government Type, 2000 - 2011 ................ 4

Chart 4 Number of Recall Elections in Michigan, 2000 - 2011 ............................................. 6

Chart 5 Comparing the Number of Elected Officials Facing Recallwith the Number of Recall Elections in Michigan, 2000 - 2011 ................................ 8

Chart 6 Number of Officials Facing Recall Vote, by Year, 2000 - 2011 .................................. 9

Chart 7 Average Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall Election Each Year,2000 - 2011 ..................................................................................................... 10

Chart 8 Average Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall per Yearas Percentage of Total Eligible Officials, 2000 - 2011 ........................................... 12

Tables

Table 1 Recall Totals Compared with Critical State Characteristics ....................................... 9

Table 2 Grounds for Recall by State ............................................................................... 16

Table 3 Signature Requirements by State ....................................................................... 17

Table 4 Local Government Petition Circulation Periods by State ........................................ 19

Table 5 Public Officials Eligible for Recall by State ........................................................... 19

Table 6 Recall Election Process by State ......................................................................... 20

Table 7 Recall Immunity Periods by State ....................................................................... 22

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n

MMMMMICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN’’’’’SSSSS R R R R RECECECECECALLALLALLALLALL E E E E ELECLECLECLECLECTIONTIONTIONTIONTION L L L L LAAAAAWWWWWSummary

Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove andreplace a public official before the end of a term of of-fice. It differs from other devices for removing publicofficials from office – impeachment and expulsion – inthat it is a political device while impeachment is a legalprocess for removing an elected executive official for vio-lating a law and expulsion is a legislative process forremoving an elected legislative official. All states thatemploy the recall device, except for Virginia, do so at theballot box.

An increase in the use of recall in Michigan in recent

years has drawn attention to this policy issue. This re-port assesses the recall process in a number of ways.First, how does the frequency and use of recalls in Michi-gan compare to earlier periods within the state and withother states that authorize recall? Second, what are thecosts of administering recall elections and from govern-mental work disruptions caused by campaign distractionsand fear of recall? Finally, in an effort to analyze whetherthe process for recalling elected officials in Michigan con-tributes to a more frequent use than is found in otherstates, the processes for recall are compared for eachstate that authorizes recall.

Michigan Recall Activity from 2000 to 2011

At least 457 state and local gov-ernment elected officials faced arecall election in Michigan be-tween 2000 and 2011 (see ChartA). According to this most re-cent 12-year sample, Michiganaverages 38 officials facing recallelection each year. With roughly18,129 elected officials eligible tobe recalled in Michigan, this is anaverage of only 0.2 percent of eli-gible elected officials facing a re-call election in an average yearin Michigan.

The trend line for this sampleshows that the number of offi-cials facing recall elections hasbeen increasing in Michigan since2000. The largest number ofelected officials faced recall in2006 (87 officials), followed by2011 (66 officials), 2010 (64 of-ficials), and 2002 (49 officials).

In Michigan, recalls have been overwhelmingly targetedat non-county general purpose government (cities, town-ships and villages) leadership (89 percent of all officialswho faced recall in the state) over the last 12 years (seeChart B). Local school district leadership is the next high-est target (9 percent), followed by county leadership (2percent). With just 2 (less than 0.5 percent) of the 457recall elections involving state officials (Speaker of theHouse Dillon in 2008 and Representative Scott in 2011).

While Michigan’s economic troubles may be contributingto voter discontent, the majority of recall elections werenot for financial reasons. Roughly one-third of the elec-tions were for various kinds of alleged improper conductand one-third were for disagreements about policy mat-ters that were not financial in nature. Recalls for finan-cial reasons have been increasing suggesting that finan-cial stress relating to the housing market collapse in 2008may be increasing recalls related to financial concerns.

iii

Chart ANumber of Elected Officials Facing Recall in Michigan, 2000 - 2011

6664

2827

39

87

232426

49

17

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Nu

mbe

r of

Ele

cted

Off

icia

ls

Source: Michigan County Clerks, Ballotpedia.org, and newspaper articles.

Trend Line

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a niv

A Comparison of the Number of Recalls

Compared to four other states (Arizona, California, Loui-siana and Washington) with varying types of recall stat-utes and government sizes, Michigan hasattempted to recall the most elected offi-cials – sometimes by quite significant mar-gins – each year since 2002. It is suspectedthat Michigan’s high rate of recall is relatedto a combination of factors including a largenumber of elected officials, Michigan’s pooreconomic performance, and certain provi-sions of Michigan’s election law.

Because of the high frequency of recall elec-tions since 2002, Michigan’s average num-ber of elected officials facing recall each yearhas been more than double what it has beenin California or any other state in the sample.Michigan averages roughly 38 elected offi-cials facing recall each year. In contrast,California voters put up an average of 18elected officials for recall each year, Arizonavoters put up an average of 10 elected offi-cials, Washington voters only put up an av-erage of 0.60 officials, and Louisiana voters

only put up an average of 1.25 officials (see Chart C).Michigan has similar petition signature requirements toArizona, but its voters put up nearly quadruple the num-ber of officials for a recall vote each year.

Comparing the average number of elected officials fac-ing recall per year as a percentage of the number ofeligible officials in the state, Arizona puts up a largerpercentage of eligible officials on an annual basis thanMichigan. This finding suggests that even though Michi-gan puts up nearly quadruple the number of officials forrecall than Arizona each year, the disparity is largely be-cause Michigan has more than 5 times as many eligibleelected officials.

Arguments for and against Recall

Recalls can deter elected officials from making difficultdecisions by reducing their independence and strikingfear into the deliberative process. The recall may pro-vide an incentive for an elected official to avoid takingactions that may have negative short-term consequencesbut favorable long-term consequences. Many govern-ment programs and policies may need to function andbe evaluated over time before they are determined to besuccessful, but recall elections require voters to makesuch determinations much sooner. Recall may also callinto question the ideals of democracy if voter turnout forthe recall elections is significantly lower than the generalvote that elected those officials into power.

Chart BDistribution of Officials Facing Recall, ByGovernment Type, 2000 - 2011

State0.4%

County1.5%

School District8.6%

City and Village24.8%

Township64.6%

Source: Michigan County Clerks,Ballotpedia.org, and newspaper articles.

Chart cAverage Number of Elected Officials Facing RecallElection Each Year, 2000 - 2011

9.92

18.17

1.25

38.08

0.580

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Arizona California Louisiana Michigan Washington

Ave

rage

Nu

mb

er o

f O

ffic

ials

Source: County Clerks (via online records), Ballotpedia.org,and newspaper articles.

MICHIGAN’S RECALL ELECTION LAW


The counter argument is that recalls promote direct de-mocracy and make government more responsive and re-sponsible by giving citizens power over unresponsive,incompetent, corrupt or otherwise unacceptable electedofficials. The recall process helps keep elected officialsfrom losing respect for the power granted them and fromdisregarding the electorate in deference to their politicalparty or own conscience.

A Comparison of Recall Models

In Michigan, the right of recall is granted by the 1963Constitution in Article II, Section 8, which reads:

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall ofall elective officers except judges of courts ofrecord upon petition of electors equal in numberto 25 percent of the number of persons voting inthe last preceding election for the office of gov-ernor in the electoral district of the officer soughtto be recalled. The sufficiency of any statementof reasons or grounds procedurally required shallbe a political rather than a judicial question.

More in-depth and procedural recall provisions are codi-fied in the Michigan Election Law. State law providesthat every elective officer, except for judicial officers, issubject to recall by the voters of the electoral district inwhich the officer is elected. A recall petition cannot befiled against an elected officer until six months into theofficer’s term of office and must be filed before less thansix months remain in the officer’s term of office.

A recall petition must clearly state each reason for therecall, and each reason must be based on the electedofficer’s conduct during their current term in office. Be-fore being circulated for signatures, the petition must besubmitted to the county election commission of the countyin which the elected officer resides. Petitions for therecall of a state representative must be filed with theSecretary of State, while petitions for the recall of localrepresentatives must be filed with the county clerk ofthe county in which the largest portion of the registeredvotes in the electoral district reside. If the petition lan-guage is deemed clear, the petitioner has 90 days tocollect the required number of signatures. Signaturescollected outside of that 90 day window are invalid.

Thirty-eight states authorize at least one local jurisdic-tion to recall elected officials. The processes for recallvary among these states. Six main provisions affect theprobability of recall elections and the cost to local gov-ernments:

1. Whether grounds for recall must be specified2. The number of petition signatures required3. The period allotted for collecting petition signatures4. The type of public official who can be recalled5. The type of recall elections6. The portion of the term when recall is possible

Grounds for Recall. In Michigan, recall is a politicalquestion; grounds do not need to be specified for a re-call election. The laws in 12 states specify the eligiblegrounds for recall. In these states, the grounds are largelyjusticiable. Common grounds include malfeasance, mis-feasance, lack of fitness, incompetence, corruption, vio-lation of oath of office, and misconduct. By specifyingthe grounds for recall, these states have limited the op-portunities for citizens to submit successful petition lan-guage and begin the process of collecting signatures.These laws in 26 states, including Michigan, do not specifythe eligible grounds.

Petition Signature Requirements. States that allowrecall specify the number of petition signatures requiredto hold an election by mandating a certain percentage ofvoters or votes. States commonly use three bases intheir signature requirements: (1) the number of eligiblevoters or registered voters; (2) the number of votes castin the last gubernatorial election; and (3) the number ofvotes cast in the last election for office. Some statesalso include a requirement that petition signers must havevoted in the previous election or, in the case of statewideelections, that each county contribute a certain percent-age of signatures. Some states also create different re-quirements for different types of elected officers.

Existing signature requirements range from 33.3 percentof eligible voters for the office (Louisiana) to 10 percentof the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election(Maine). Michigan’s constitutional requirement for 25percent of the votes cast in the elected official’s districtin the previous gubernatorial election is a medium levelof difficulty when compared with the requirements in otherstates.

Period for Petition Circulation. Among the statesthat allow recall, each specifies the maximum amountof time for collecting the required number of petitionsignatures. The shorter the time period, the more dif-ficult it is for recall campaigns to collect the requirednumber of signatures to hold an election. In severalstates, different circulation periods are specified depend-ing on the office targeted for recall, with longer periodsallowed for statewide officials compared to local gov-ernment officers.

v

CRC Report


More restrictive circulation periods do not tend to pre-vent recall efforts from succeeding, but ensure that re-call campaigns are well-organized and well-financed.Among states that allow recall of local government offi-cials, circulation periods range from 30 days to an indefi-nite amount of time. Michigan’s 90 day circulation pe-riod is toward the middle in the range of the staterequirements.

Officials Subject to Recall. States also differ as towhich elected officials are eligible for recall. Restrictingthe number of officials who are eligible for recall shouldreduce the number of recall campaigns and elections.The Michigan constitutional provision exempting onlyjudicial officers from recall is among the more inclusiveof the states.

Recall Election Process. The number of recall elec-tions, their success rate and voter turnout can also beinfluenced by changing the characteristics of recall elec-tions. The recall election process varies among states.

In nine states, the recall election is held simultaneouslywith the election for a successor; however, this simulta-neous election is held in two different ways. In Califor-nia, Colorado, and Ohio, there are two questions on theballot: one asks whether the incumbent should be re-called and another asks who should replace the incum-bent if the recall is approved in the first question. If therecall is rejected in the first question, the second ques-tion is irrelevant and is ignored. The name of the re-called officer cannot be listed among the names in thesecond question to avoid simultaneously recalling andelecting the same official.

In Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wis-consin, and Wyoming, the simultaneous recall ballot con-sists of a single list of candidates, including the officeragainst whom the recall petition was filed. The candi-date that receives the most votes assumes office.

In 11 states, including Michigan, a binary-choice recallelection (Shall the official be recalled? Yes or No?) is fol-lowed by a separate special election for a successor.

Recall Immunity Periods. There is also diversityamong states as to the time period(s) during a term ofoffice when recall is possible. A number of states do nothave any requirements for when a recall can take place.Some states require that an official must serve in officefor a certain amount of time before a recall can be pur-sued, while others have requirements at both the startand end of a term of office. Of these states, 180 days or360 days are common recall-restricted time periods atthe beginning or end of a term.

The narrower the window to recall a public official thefewer recall efforts and elections should occur. Michigancurrently does not allow recalls within the first 180 daysof a term of office or the last 180 days of a term ofoffice, one of the strictest immunity periods. This pre-vents recall elections from being held close to generalelections, or at the very beginning of a term of officebefore the elected official has had time to perform im-properly or make controversial decisions.

Conclusion

The reasons why Michigan voters employ this tool morefrequently than other states is not readily apparent. Acomparison of Michigan’s recall provisions with those ofother states does not identify any provisions for whichMichigan is an outlier. Although some of Michigan’sprovisions are more lenient than other states, others arestricter. Two factors which may be contributing to thehigh level of recall in Michigan are the large number ofelected officials eligible for recall, and Michigan’s pooreconomic performance over the past ten years and theassociated pressures this has placed on governmentbudgets which may be leading to an increased level ofvoter discontent.

vi

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n 1

MMMMMICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN’’’’’SSSSS R R R R RECECECECECALLALLALLALLALL E E E E ELECLECLECLECLECTIONTIONTIONTIONTION L L L L LAAAAAWWWWW

Introduction

recalls are predominantly directed at local govern-ment officials in Michigan.

A seeming increase in the use of recall in recentyears has drawn attention to this policy issue. Thisreport assesses the recall process in a number ofways. First, how does the frequency of use of re-calls in Michigan compare to earlier periods withinthe state and with other states that authorize theuse of recalls? To answer those questions, CRC ag-gregated data provided by county clerks and othersources to identify the use of recalls in Michigan.That data was compared to similar data for otherstates.

The data show that the use of recall in Michigan hasincreased over the past dozen years. Nowhere hasthe data been aggregated to assess how the trendsof the past 12 years relate to periods prior to thistime. The data show that recalls have been used inMichigan more than in the other states that permittheir use and that most of the recall efforts havebeen aimed at township officials. Looking at thedata in context, however, reveals that Michigan hasmore units of local government than most of theother states that authorize recalls, and that town-ship officials are ready targets because 40 percentof the elected officials in Michigan govern townships.

Second, what are the costs of administering theserecall elections and from governmental work disrup-tion caused by campaign distractions and fear ofrecall? This report comments on the estimated coststo local jurisdictions in Michigan in 2011.

Finally, in an effort to analyze whether the processfor recalling elected officials in Michigan contributesto a more frequent use than is found in other states,the processes for recall are compared for each statethat authorizes recalls.

Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to removeand replace a public official before the end of a termof office. It differs from other devices for removingpublic officials from office – impeachment and ex-pulsion – in that it is a political device while impeach-ment is a legal process for removing an elected ex-ecutive official for violating a law and expulsion is alegislative process for removing an elected legisla-tive official. All states that employ the recall device,except for Virginia, do so at the ballot box.

Since the ancient Greek and Roman empires, therecall has been at the forefront of a fundamentalquestion about the role of elected officials: shouldan official act as a trustee and vote his or her ownopinion, or perform as a delegate and vote accord-ing to the wishes of his or her constituency?1

Fundamentally, recalls are at the surface of a deep,enduring ideological battle between direct and rep-resentative democracy. For people who favor directdemocracy over representative democracy, recallsprovide a process for angry and frustrated citizensto retain regular and close control over elected pub-lic officials who are not representing the best inter-ests of their constituents, or who are unresponsive,corrupt or incompetent.2

The ability of citizens to recall their elected officialsfrom office has gained much attention in recent years.Much of the national attention has focused on ef-forts to recall governors – such as the successfulrecall of California Governor Gray Davis or ongoingefforts to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.Likewise, statewide attention has focused on effortsdirected at state officials – such as the unsuccessfulrecall of Speaker of the House Representative AndyDillon and the successful recall of Representative PaulScott. Nevertheless, CRC’s aggregation and analy-sis of data tracking the use of recalls shows that

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n2

Michigan Recall Activity from 2000 to 2011

At least 457 state and local government elected of-ficials faced a recall election in Michigan between2000 and 2011 (see Chart 1).3 According to thismost recent 12-year sample, Michigan averages 38officials facing recall election eachyear. With roughly 18,129 electedofficials eligible to be recalled inMichigan (see Chart 2),4 this is anaverage of only 0.2 percent of eli-gible elected officials facing a re-call election in an average year inMichigan.

However, the trend line for thissample shows that the number of officials facingrecall elections has been increasing in Michigan since2000 (see Chart 1). The largest number of electedofficials faced recall in 2006 (87 officials), followedby 2011 (66 officials), 2010 (64 officials), and 2002

(49 officials). Michigan recalls spiked twice over thelast 12 years, in 2002 and 2006, and may have spikeda third time in 2011. These spikes are roughly thesame number of years apart with similar troughs.

This pattern shows that recalls in-crease during those years whenthe majority of public officials withfour-year terms are in the middleof their term of office (2002, 2003,2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011). Thisfinding is consistent with Michi-gan’s recall statute which includesa provision that prohibits recalls in

the first and last six months of a term of office.

The first spike in 2002 coincided with the beginningof Michigan’s recession. Economic challenges forcedelected officials to make difficult, and often unpopu-

Chart 1Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall in Michigan, 2000 - 2011

6664

2827

39

87

232426

49

17

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Nu

mbe

r of

Ele

cted

Off

icia

ls


Trend Line

The trend line for this sam-ple shows that the numberof officials facing recall elec-tions has been increasing inMichigan since 2000.



Chart 2Number and Distribution of Recall-Eligible Elected Officials inMichigan, by Government Type

State, 184, 1%

County, 1,296, 7%

School District,

3,990, 22%

City and Village, 4,743,

26%

Township, 7,348, 41%

Special District, 568, 3%

Source: 1992 Census of Governments and State Court Administrative Office.

overtly financial in nature.These reasons included hiringdecisions, constructionprojects, and service contractdecisions.

While the data show that thevast majority of recall reasonsbetween 2000 and 2011 werenot for fiscal concerns, econom-ic reasons appear to have atleast fueled the high recall to-tals in 2006, 2010 and 2011.In these years, the number ofofficials facing recall because ofeconomic reasons was at leasttwice the total in any other year.Local government fiscal healthwas negatively impacted by thecollapsing housing market be-ginning in late 2008, which mayexplain the spike in recalls be-cause of economic concerns atthe end of the decade.

In Michigan, recalls have beenoverwhelmingly targeted atnon-county general purposegovernment (cities, townshipsand villages) leadership (89percent of all officials who

faced recall in the state) over the last 12 years (seeChart 3). Local school district leadership is the

next highest target (9 percent),followed by county leadership (2percent) and state leadership (lessthan 0.5 percent).

There are 1,775 non-county gen-eral purpose governments in thestate employing 12,091 eligibleelected officials, compared to 549school districts5 employing 3,990eligible elected officials and 83counties employing 1,296 eligibleelected officials (see Chart 2).6

Therefore, it is not surprising that there are morenon-county general purpose government officialsfacing recall than any other type and more school

lar, decisions during this period. At the same time,financial distress among citizens led to greater dis-trust of government in general.These factors may explain the re-cent rise in the number of officialsfacing recall in Michigan.

However, the majority of recall at-tempts were not motivated by fi-nancial issues (as expressed in therecall ballot language). Roughlyone-third of the recall electionswere for various kinds of improperconduct, such as incivility, and il-legal conduct, including violationsof the Open Meetings Act and corruption. Roughlyone-third of the recall elections were because of dis-agreements about policy decisions that were not

While the data show thatthe vast majority of recallreasons between 2000 and2011 were not for fiscalconcerns, economic rea-sons appear to have at leastfueled the high recall totalsin 2006, 2010 and 2011.

CRC Report


district officials facing recall than county officials.However, city, township and village elected officialscomprise 67 percent of the totalelected officials in the state eligi-ble to be recalled, while their per-centage of total recalls (89 per-cent) is much higher.

Within non-county general purposegovernments, township officialsaccount for 72 percent of total re-call attempts between 2000 and2011, followed by city officials (16percent) and village officials (11 percent). Thereare 1,240 townships employing 7,348 elected offi-

cials, compared to 533municipalities (citiesand villages) employ-ing 4,743 elected offi-cials (see Chart 2),7

so it is not surprisingthat townships have anoverwhelming majori-ty of the officials fac-ing recall.

Township officialscomprise 41 percent oftotal eligible electedofficials in the state,but their percentage oftotal recalls (65 per-cent) is much higher.Cities and vi l lagescomprise 26 percent oftotal eligible electedofficials in the stateand their percentageof total recalls (25 per-cent) is very similar.These data show thattownship recalls inMichigan are dispro-portionately high.

In light of recent declarations in the media that 2011was the year of the recall, it is important to note

that the 2011 data alone do notsuggest that the state has a recallproblem. When high-profile, state-wide public officials face recall,such as Speaker of the House AndyDillon in 2008 and RepresentativePaul Scott in 2011, the device re-ceives a large amount of publicattention. However, these state-wide recalls are extremely rare, sothe increased frequency of local

recalls, particularly in townships, since 2002 deservesthe most attention.

Chart 3Distribution of Officials Facing Recall, By Government Type, 2000 - 2011

State0.4%

County1.5%

School District8.6%

City and Village24.8%

Township64.6%


Statewide recalls are ex-tremely rare, so the in-creased frequency of localrecalls, particularly in town-ships, since 2002 deservesthe most attention.



The Geography of Michigan Recalls

Twenty-four jurisdictions have held a recall electionin multiple years since 2000. Of these, AugustaTownship in Washtenaw County has held recall elec-tions in four separate years (2000, 2003, 2006, and2011), the City of Benton Harbor in Berrien Countyhas held elections in three separate years (2001,2005, and 2008), Billings Townshipin Gladwin County has held elec-tions in three separate years (2007,2008, and 2011), and FlushingTownship in Genesee County hasheld elections in three separateyears (2009, 2010, and 2011).

By county, jurisdictions in GeneseeCounty have put up the most elect-ed officials for recall over the last12 years (49 officials or roughly 4per year, even though 2000 and2001 data are missing), followedby jurisdictions in Berrien County(38 officials or roughly 3 per year), jurisdictions inGladwin County (20 officials) and jurisdictions in VanBuren County (20 officials).8

By jurisdiction, Billings Township in Gladwin Countyand the Village of New Haven in Macomb Countyhave put up the most elected officials for recall (10officials), followed by Oronoko Township in BerrienCounty (9 officials), Acme Township in Grand TraverseCounty (7 officials), Flushing Township in GeneseeCounty (7 officials), the Village of Northport inLeelanau County (7 officials), and Westwood HeightsSchool District in Genesee County (7 officials). Inthe cases of Acme Township and the Village ofNorthport, all 7 officials were targeted in a singleelection.

Recall elections in Michigan have been successful46 percent of the time since 2000. On an annualbasis, the success rate has fluctuated quite dramat-ically, with a low of 17 percent in 2000 to a high of78 percent in 2005. Recall elections in townshipshave been successful 42 percent of the time since2000, compared to 52 percent in cities, 61 percentin villages, 41 percent in school districts, 29 percent

in counties and 50 percent for stateofficials (again only two electionsduring this period).

In general, voter turnout has beendramatically lower in recall elec-tions than in the election that putthe elected official in their then-current term of office. Lower vot-er turnout is largely because mostofficials being elected in Novem-ber general elections, where morehigh-profile races, such as Presi-dent and Governor, attract a great-er percentage of eligible voters.

Financial Costs of Recall

Recall elections increase administration costs forschool, county and municipal jurisdictions. Fundingis required for clarity hearings and communicationsby county election commissions, ballot printing, tech-nology maintenance, and personnel costs (in spe-cial elections only). The cost of administering a re-call election varies dramatically depending on thetype of election and the size of the jurisdiction. Assuch, recalls of local officials, which constitute thevast majority of recall attempts in Michigan, costmuch less than those for county or state officials.

The number of recall elections, rather than the num-ber of officials facing recall, is the appropriate mea-sure for identifying the administration cost to local

Recall elections in town-ships have been successful42 percent of the time since2000, compared to 52 per-cent in cities, 61 percent invillages, 41 percent inschool districts, 29 percentin counties and 50 percentfor state officials.

CRC Report


jurisdictions, because the cost per election is thesame regardless of the number of names on theballot. As the number of recall elections in Michiganhas risen over the last 12 years (see Chart 4), sotoo has the aggregate cost of ad-ministration for the state.

No known estimates exist of thecost of recall elections in Michigan,so CRC looked to a neighboringstate with an organization of localgovernment similar to our own. According to a sur-vey conducted by the Wisconsin Government Ac-countability Board (GAB) to estimate the cost of apotential statewide recall election in 2012, townshiprecalls average $1,584 per election, city recalls av-erage $16,171, and village recalls average $2,669.

If these averages are transferable to Michigan, localjurisdictions in Michigan spent roughly $133,713 toadminister recall elections in 2011.

In 2011, there were 31 separaterecall elections in Michigan, most-ly in townships (26). Based on theWisconsin GAB survey, the aver-age administration cost per elec-tion in Michigan in 2011 was$4,457. This estimate does not

include the cost of administering clarity hearings.Successful recalls result in elections to fill the vacan-cies, which occur at the next regularly scheduledelection date: the cost of those elections is not in-cluded in this estimate. Overall, the direct financialcosts of recall elections are quite insignificant.

Chart 4Number of Recall Elections in Michigan, 2000 - 2011

4 5

20

14

911

34

18

1311

30 31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Nu

mbe

r of

Rec

all E

lect

ion

s

Source: County Clerk (via online records), Ballotpedia.org, and newspaper articles.

Trend Line

Overall, the direct financialcosts of recall elections arequite insignificant.



In 2011, 22 officials, or 33 percent (in 9 separateelections), faced recall as part of a special election,which means that no other proposals or races wereon the ballot in that jurisdiction. Special electionsare the most expensive to administer.

Thirty-three officials, or 50 percent(in 16 separate elections), facedrecall as part of a consolidated elec-tion, which means that the electionwas not a regularly scheduled gen-eral, school, or primary election, butthere were other proposals or rac-es besides the recall(s) on the bal-lot in that jurisdiction.

Eleven officials, or 17 percent (in 5separate elections), faced recall aspart of a school election, which is a regularly sched-uled election for the local school district(s). Consol-

idated and school elections would be administeredby the jurisdiction regardless of a successful recallpetition, so the additional cost of a recall proposal islow compared with a stand-alone special election.The jurisdiction is only paying to add recall languageto the ballot in a consolidated or school election.

In 2010, 55 percent of all officialsfacing recall faced it as part of theNovember general election, theAugust primary election, or theMay election (in which school offi-cials are commonly chosen). Theremaining 45 percent faced recallas part of a more expensive spe-cial election. Michigan has fourregular election dates (in Febru-ary, May, August and November)

which improves the chances that recalls will appearon a ballot with other proposals or races.

Michigan has four regularelection dates (in February,May, August and Novem-ber) which improves thechances that recalls will ap-pear on a ballot with otherproposals or races.

CRC Report


Chart 5Comparing the Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall with the Number of Recall Elections inMichigan, 2000 - 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Officials

Elections

Source: County Clerks (via online records), Ballotpedia.org, and newspaper articles.

Trend Line

Trend Line

Costs to Democracy

Recalls may also cause government disruption andincrease inefficiency costs. Critics of the device saythat it can deter elected officials from making diffi-cult, but necessary decisions bystriking fear into the deliberativeprocess. This is particularly true instates where unpopularity is a suit-able reason for recall: there couldbe more pressure on elected offi-cials to maintain popularity. Notonly are the jurisdictions of the tar-geted officials affected, but officialsin other jurisdictions also couldchange their behavior to avoid be-ing recalled by their constituents.

Supporters of the device say that elected officialsshould pay close attention to the preferences of theirconstituents, so that what critics view as a distrac-tion is actually the path to good governance. Fromthis perspective, recalls help prevent public electedofficials from ignoring the electorate in deference to

If the costs associated withgovernment work disruptionare real, they are not easilyquantified, but could be con-siderably larger than admin-istration costs.

views held by their political party, special interestsor their own conscience.

If the costs associated with government work disrup-tion are real, they are not easily quantified, but could

be considerably larger than admin-istration costs. The number of of-ficials facing recall per year wouldbe the appropriate measure foridentifying the costs of governmentwork disruption caused by recallcampaigns. As the number of of-ficials facing recall has increasedover the last 12 years, so too wouldhave the government disruptioncosts in Michigan.

Chart 5 shows that the trend line for recall electionsin Michigan is not as steep as the trend line for thenumber of officials facing recall, which suggests thatthe number of officials per recall election has beenincreasing over this time period and that the costs ofgovernmental work disruption would be growing fasterthan the costs of election administration.



An Interstate Comparison of the Number of Recalls

frequency of recall efforts, and has arguably the leaststrict petition signature requirements in the nation.California voters put up more officials for recall thandid Michigan voters in 2000 and 2001 (see Chart 6)and California may have led the nation in officialsfacing recall for many years prior to 2002.10

Washington experienced the least number of offi-cials facing recall over this period (7), largely be-cause of its statutory mandate for justiciable rea-

Chart 6Number of Officials Facing Recall Vote, by Year, 2000 - 2011

18

31

4

87

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Nu

mbe

r of

Off

icia

ls

Arizona

California

Louisiana

Michigan

Washington


Table 1Recall Totals Compared with Critical State Characteristics

Eligible Elected Grounds Number of OfficialsState Officials Petition Signature Requirement (Y/N) Facing Recall (2000-11)Arizona 3,289 25% votes cast for office N 119California 18,925 25% votes cast for office N 218Louisiana 4,726 33.3% of eligible voters N 15Michigan 18,129 25% of votes cast for governor N 457Washington 7,494 35% of votes cast for office Y 7

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, County Clerks (via online records), National Conference of StateLegislatures, Ballotpedia.org, and newspaper articles.

Compared to four other states (Arizona, California,Louisiana and Washington)9 with varying types ofrecall statutes and government sizes, Michigan hasattempted to recall the most elected officials – some-times by quite significant margins – each year since2002 (see Table 1 and Chart 6).

California is widely regarded as the recall state be-cause the U.S. version of the device originated inLos Angeles in 1902. California experiences a high

CRC Report


sons (or grounds) for recall. In Washington, eligibleelected officials can only be recalled if they havecommitted an act of malfeasance (an unlawful act)or misfeasance (the improper execution of a lawfulact) while in office, or if they haveviolated the oath of office. Citi-zens cannot recall elected officialsfor political or policy reasons,which limits the circumstancesunder which the device can beused.

Louisiana also had few officialsfacing recall (15), but it largely lim-its recall elections by having thestrictest petition signature require-ments in the nation. By requiringrecall petition signatures from one-third of eligiblevoters in the electoral district, Louisiana ensures thata successful recall effort must be well-organized, well-funded, and representative of the views of a large

percentage of the voting population. These criteriaare not easily met.

Arizona and California do not require grounds forrecall and have more favorablepetition signature requirementsthan Louisiana – putting them onpar with Michigan’s recall model.

Because of the high frequency ofrecall elections since 2002, Michi-gan’s average number of electedofficials facing recall each year hasbeen more than double what it hasbeen in California or any other statein the sample. Michigan averagesroughly 38 elected officials facing

recall each year. In contrast, California voters putup an average of 18 elected officials for recall eachyear, Arizona voters put up an average of 10 electedofficials, Washington voters only put up an average

Chart 7Average Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall Election Each Year, 2000 - 2011

9.92

18.17

1.25

38.08

0.580

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Arizona California Louisiana Michigan Washington

Ave

rage

Nu

mbe

r of

Off

icia

ls


Because of the high fre-quency of recall electionssince 2002, Michigan’s aver-age number of elected offi-cials facing recall each yearhas been more than doublewhat it has been in any oth-er state in the sample.



of 0.60 officials, and Louisiana voters only put up anaverage of 1.25 officials (see Chart 7). Michiganhas similar petition signature requirements to Arizo-na, but its voters put up nearly quadruple the num-ber of officials for a recall vote each year.

While 33 other states also allow recall in at least onelocal jurisdiction but are not included in this com-parison, data available through election databasessuch as Ballotpedia.org and citedby recall election experts such asJoshua Spivak of Wagner Univer-sity suggest that no other statemay be close to matching thenumber of officials facing recall –both total and yearly – in Michi-gan since 2002.1112

Wisconsin, which held nine recallelections for state officials in 2011(which some observers declaredrecall fever), experienced onlymodest numbers of recall effortsprior to last year and was still farbelow Michigan’s total in 2011, despite employing acomparable 17,829 eligible elected officials.

A closer examination of the data shows that althoughMichigan has had significantly more recalls over thelast 12 years than the states in the sample, Michi-gan citizens appear to be using the recall device sim-ilarly to citizens in these states. First, although thereare no identical patterns between these states inrecalls held or number of officials facing recall, thereare important similarities.

California experienced two distinct spikes in 2001and 2010, similar to Michigan’s experience in theseyears. Arizona’s recent history is also similar to Mich-igan’s in that it experienced a spike in 2006 and high-er recall totals in the beginning and at the end ofthe 12-year period. These similarities in annual vari-ation suggest that similar economic factors (or po-litical factors) may be at play in other states.

Second, the number of eligible elected officials inMichigan may be distorting its relative standing.Michigan has roughly 18,129 state and local gov-ernment elected officials who are eligible for recall.In comparison, Arizona has roughly 3,289 electedofficials, California has 18,925 elected officials, Lou-isiana has 4,726 elected officials, and Washingtonhas 7,494 elected officials. The number of eligible

elected officials in these states ispositively correlated with the num-ber of recall elections and officialsfacing recall.13 The number of eli-gible elected officials may in partexplain why Michigan has had somany more recall elections thanArizona.

Comparing the average number ofelected officials facing recall peryear as a percentage of the num-ber of eligible officials in the state,Arizona puts up a larger percent-age of eligible officials on an annu-

al basis than Michigan (see Chart 8). This findingsuggests that even though Michigan puts up nearlyquadruple the number of officials for recall than Ar-izona each year, the disparity is largely because Mich-igan has more than 5 times as many eligible electedofficials.

Third, Michigan is similar to other states with similarrecall statutes in the average number of officials perrecall ballot. On average, Michigan voters have pe-titioned to recall multiple elected officials on a singleballot. Voters have been successful in putting up anaverage of 2.3 officials for recall on each ballot overthe last 12 years. By comparison, California votersaveraged 2 officials per ballot and Arizona votersaveraged 2.1 officials over this time period.

Multiple officials per recall ballot suggests that, onaverage, voters believe that policy decisions at thelocal level are group efforts and when a poor deci-

A closer examination of thedata shows that althoughMichigan has had signifi-cantly more recalls over thelast 12 years than the statesin the sample, Michigan cit-izens appear to be using therecall device similarly to cit-izens in these states.

CRC Report


sion is made, the blame should be spread around tomultiple members of the governing board. In Loui-siana and Washington, the vast majority of recallelections are for one official only, suggesting that itis more difficult to collect a larger number of peti-tion signatures for multiple officials(LA) and more difficult to showmalfeasance, misfeasance or vio-lation of oath of office on the partof multiple officials (WA).

At least 161 different jurisdictionsin Michigan have held recall elec-tions within the last 12 years.There are 2,722 state and localgovernments in Michigan,14 mean-ing that over the last 12 years, 5.9 percent of juris-dictions have held a recall election. On a yearly ba-sis, 17 jurisdictions, or 0.62 percent of alljurisdictions, on average hold a recall election inMichigan. In comparison, 9 jurisdictions on averagehold a recall election each year in California and 5on average in Arizona (over this same span of time).

It appears that Michigan is like other states in theaverage number of officials per recall ballot, but dis-similar from these same states in the number of dif-ferent jurisdictions that hold recall elections eachyear. It is clear that the higher number of officials

facing recall in Michigan is the re-sult of citizens in more jurisdictionssuccessfully triggering recall elec-tions (instead of citizens in fewerjurisdictions putting up more offi-cials per recall election).

Because Michigan’s petition signa-ture requirements are stricter thanCalifornia’s, other factors mustaccount for why an average of 8

additional recall elections take place in Michigan com-pared to California each year. California’s better eco-nomic performance over this period may be a factor,but additional research needs to be devoted to ex-plaining this discrepancy. Political, historical, or cul-tural factors may also be involved.

Chart 8Average Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall per Year as Percentage of Total EligibleOfficials, 2000 - 2011

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, County Clerks (via online records), Ballotpedia.org, andnewspaper articles.

The higher number of offi-cials facing recall in Michi-gan is the result of citizensin more jurisdictions suc-cessfully triggering recallelections.



The voter’s right of recall can be viewed as prob-lematic for a variety of reasons. As discussed previ-ously, recalls may interfere with the effectivenessand functioning of government. They can deter elect-ed officials from making difficult decisions by reduc-ing their independence and striking fear into thedeliberative process.

The recall may provide an incentive for an electedofficial to avoid taking actions that may have nega-tive short-term consequences butfavorable long-term consequences.Many government programs andpolicies may need to function andbe evaluated over time before theyare determined to be successful,but recall elections require votersto make such determinations muchsooner. Furthermore, in stateswhere unpopularity is a suitablereason for recall, there will be morepressure on elected officials tomaintain popularity, which is a dis-traction from their regular duties.This may lead to the politics ofperpetual campaigning.15

Recall weakens the principle of electing officials andletting them govern until the next election, whichundermines the importance of general elections.Regularly scheduled elections legitimize the powerof the government, while a proliferation of recallsweakens the impact of the electoral process.

Recalls can call into question the ideals of democra-cy if and when the recall vote is less than the gener-al vote that elected those officials into power. Typi-cally, voter turnout for recall elections is heavilydepressed. When State Representative Paul Scott(R-District 51) of Michigan was removed from officeby recall on November 8, 2011, a total of 24,485people voted, compared to 37,888 people in thegeneral election on November 2, 2010 when Scottwas elected.16 Thirty-five percent fewer people vot-

ed in the recall election.

Critics of the recent wave of recall elections arguethat recall elections should only occur when there ismalfeasance in office bordering on criminality, andthat recalls were not designed to replace the repre-sentative form of democracy, but to protect it.

Special Interest Influence

Recall has led to abuses by well-financed special interest groupswho can take advantage of mis-placed voter anger and use therecall process as a political tool totarget vulnerable officials.17 Thesespecial interest groups are able toemploy signature gatherers and toadvertise in the mass media. Crit-ics of recall elections argue thatthey allow anyone who is wealthyenough and angry enough with apublic official to front a recall cam-paign. They believe that directdemocracy is dominated by rich

people, celebrities and special interests and that re-call can create a system of single-issue politics.

The donations of wealthy citizens often determinewhich recall campaigns are successful and which fail.In 2003, the recall effort against Governor Gray Davisof California was dying when Southern Californiabusinessman Darrell Issa saved the campaign bydonating $2 million of his own money to the cause.Governor Davis was eventually recalled from office.

Recall can replace party-centered deliberation ingovernment with a constant responsiveness to spe-cial interest groups. For this reason, critics believethat recalls are adding to the divisive, polarizing po-litical climate in states like Michigan. Furthermore,the relatively high costs of managing recall campaignscan lead to better-funded national interest groupsexerting disproportionate influence in local elections.

Arguments against Recall

Recalls may interfere withthe effectiveness and func-tioning of government.They can deter elected of-ficials from making difficultdecisions by reducing theirindependence and strikingfear into the deliberativeprocess.

CRC Report


Unintended Consequences

Recall campaigns often result from unpopular policychoices by an elected official. Petitioners believethat removing the elected officialfrom office will lead to better policydecisions in the short term. If po-litical decisions are restricted by cir-cumstances beyond the control ofelected officials, then recalling offi-cials who make unpopular decisionsdoes not guarantee that their re-placements will be able to reversethem.

For example, in 1993, five membersof the city council of Covina, Califor-nia (an eastern suburb of Los Ange-les) were recalled because they voted an unpopular6 percent utility tax. The library and fire station cameunder threat of closure without revenues from theutility tax, so the council members elected as replace-ments introduced an 8.25 percent tax.

Arguments for Recall

In the United States, the authority to recall electedofficials was a Progressive Era (1890–1920) initiativedesigned to promote direct democracy and makegovernment more responsive and responsible by giv-ing citizens power over unresponsive, incompetent,corrupt or otherwise unacceptable elected officials.

The recall process has helped keep elected officials

from losing respect for the power granted them andfrom disregarding the electorate in deference to theirpolitical party or own conscience. The simple binarychoice between keeping and rejecting an official is

the very essence of an account-ability election and helps preventan official from pursuing an un-popular agenda.

Regardless of whether the replace-ment for a recalled official revers-es the unpopular policy that led tothe election, the voters are able topunish the offending official andsend a message that similar deci-sions will not be tolerated.

Without recall, voters would haveto wait until the next scheduled election to voicetheir opinions on an incumbent’s performance, whichcould harm the prosperity of the community. Thepossibility of recall may encourage elected officialsto meet minimum standards of conduct that other-wise would be ignored.

States set prohibitively high standards for removingpublic officials on the grounds of political disagree-ment, and most recall efforts fail for lack of organiza-tion and funding.18 As an example, in California since1913, only 9 of 155 attempted recalls of state electedofficials have qualified for the ballot (6 percent).19 Ingeneral, recall campaigns undertaken as political pow-er-plays rarely work, because voters typically requirea substantive reason to vote against a candidate.

The recall process hashelped keep elected officialsfrom losing respect for thepower granted them andfrom disregarding the elec-torate in deference to theirpolitical party or own con-science.



In an effort to determine whether provisions in theMichigan recall model lend themselves to easier avail-ability of recalls, the following compares Michigan’sprovisions with the other states that allow for recall.

Michigan’s Recall Model

In Michigan, the right of recall is granted by the 1963Constitution in Article II, Section 8, which reads:

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall ofall elective officers except judges of courts of recordupon petition of electors equal in number to 25percent of the number of persons voting in thelast preceding election for the office of governorin the electoral district20 of the officer sought to berecalled. The sufficiency of any statement ofreasons or grounds procedurally required shall bea political rather than a judicial question.21

Recall provisions were not included in Michigan’s1835 and 1850 Constitutions; nor were they includ-ed in the 1908 Constitution as originally adopted.An amendment, proposed by the legislature andapproved at the April, 1913, election, added the pro-vision relative to recall. The recall provision statingthat the sufficiency of reasons or grounds for a re-call shall be a political question was added with theadoption of the 1963 Constitution so that courts can-not set aside a recall on the grounds that the rea-sons for it are in some way inadequate.22

More in-depth and procedural recall provisions arecodified in the Michigan Election Law.23 State lawprovides that every elective officer, except for judi-cial officers, is subject to recall by the voters of theelectoral district in which the officer is elected. Arecall petition cannot be filed against an elected of-ficer until six months into the officer’s term of officeand must be filed before less than six months re-main in the officer’s term of office.

A recall petition must clearly state each reason forthe recall, and each reason must be based on theelected officer’s conduct during their current term inoffice. Before being circulated for signatures, thepetition must be submitted to the county electioncommission of the county in which the elected offic-er resides. The county election commission will de-

A Comparison of Recall Models

termine if the reasons for recall are sufficiently clear(i.e. a clarity hearing). If the petition language isdeemed clear, the petitioner has 90 days to collectthe required number of signatures. Signatures col-lected outside of that 90 day window are invalid.

A person who collects signatures must be a regis-tered voter of the electoral district of the electedofficial and attest to the accuracy and credibility ofthe petition signatures submitted. Petitions for therecall of a state representative must be filed withthe Secretary of State, while petitions for the recallof local representatives must be filed with the coun-ty clerk of the county in which the largest portion ofthe registered votes in the electoral district reside.These government entities will determine the valid-ity and number of signatures, and a verified petitionwill result in a recall election.

The reason for the recall must be printed on therecall ballot and a justification from the elected offi-cial may also be printed on the ballot. The recallballot must include the following question:

“Shall (name of the person against whom the recallpetition has been filed) be recalled from office of(title of office)?”

A choice for “yes” and a choice for “no” are listedunderneath the question.

Once the result of the election is certified to haveremoved an elected official, the office is vacated. Ifthe officer is recalled, another official must performthe duties of the office until the vacancy is filled(either by appointment or as empowered by law,depending on the office). A special election to fillthe vacancy is held on the next regular election date.Candidates from each party are nominated for thespecial election. The removed officer cannot benominated or appointed to fill a vacancy in the sameelectoral district. The candidate receiving the high-est number of votes at the special election will holdthe office for the remainder of the term.

If the elected officer was not removed from office, asecond recall petition cannot be filed against theofficer unless the election expenses for the previousrecall election are paid by the petitioner(s).

CRC Report


Table 2Grounds for Recall by State*

State Eligible Grounds for RecallAlaska Lack of fitness, incompetence, neglect of duties, or corruption

Florida Act of malfeasance or misfeasance, neglect of duties, drunkenness, incompetence, permanentinability to perform official duties, or conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude

Georgia Act of malfeasance or misconduct while in office; violation of oath of office; failure to performduties prescribed by law; willfully misused, converted or misappropriated, without authority, publicproperty or public funds entrusted to or associated with the elective office to which the official hasbeen elected or appointed

Kansas Conviction for a felony, misconduct in office, incompetence, or failure to perform duties prescribedby law

Minnesota Serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office in the performance of the duties ofthe office or conviction during the term of office of a serious crime

Missouri Misconduct while in office, incompetence, or failure to perform duties prescribed by law

Montana Physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct,conviction of certain felony offenses

New Mexico Act of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or violation of the oath of office

Rhode Island Authorized in the case of a general officer who has been indicted or informed against for a felony,convicted of a misdemeanor, or against whom a finding of probable cause of violation of the codeof ethics has been made by the ethics commission

South Dakota Misconduct, malfeasance, nonfeasance, crimes in office, drunkenness, gross incompetency,corruption, theft, oppression, or gross partiality

Virginia Neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglectof duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverseeffect upon the conduct of the office, or upon conviction of a drug-related misdemeanor or amisdemeanor involving a hate crime

Washington Commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violatedthe oath of office

* All other states that provide for the recall mechanism do not stipulate a specific reason to exercise a recall: Alabama,Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee,Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Alternate Models for Recall

Thirty-eight states authorize at least one local juris-diction to recall elected officials. The processes forrecall vary among these states. Six main provisionsaffect the probability of recall elections and the costto local governments. The six main provisions per-tain to (1) whether or not grounds for recall are spec-ified; (2) the number of petition signatures required;(3) the time period allotted for collecting petitionsignatures; (4) the type of public official who can be

recalled; (5) the type of recall election; and (6) theportion of the officer’s term when recall is possible.

Grounds for Recall

The laws in 12 states specify the eligible grounds forrecall (see Table 2). In these states, the groundsare largely justiciable. Common grounds include mal-feasance, misfeasance, lack of fitness, incompetence,corruption, violation of oath of office, and miscon-duct. By specifying the grounds for recall, these states



have limited the opportunities for citizens to submitsuccessful petition language and begin the processof collecting signatures. As a result, states with thismodel, such as Washington, typically have fewer re-call elections compared to states that allow recalls forpolitical reasons, such as Michigan.

Limits on the grounds for recall mit-igate disruptions to the governmentwhile ensuring citizens have someinfluence over their elected officials.Whether citizens have the properamount of influence is open for de-bate and would be dependent on thegrounds specified in statute. In Michigan, the provi-sion for sufficiency of grounds is included in the stateConstitution, which would require a constitutionalamendment to change. This provision is more le-nient than a dozen states that spell out specificgrounds for recall and equal to 26 that do not spec-ify reasons or grounds for recalls.

Petition Signature Requirements

States that allow recall specify the number of peti-tion signatures required to hold an election by man-dating a certain percentage of voters or votes. Statescommonly use three bases in their signature require-

ments: (1) the number of eligi-ble voters or registered voters;(2) the number of votes cast inthe last gubernatorial election;and (3) the number of votes castin the last election for office.Some states also include a re-quirement that petition signers

must have voted in the previous election or, in thecase of statewide elections, that each county con-tribute a certain percentage of signatures. Somestates also create different requirements for differ-ent types of elected officers.

Existing signature requirements range from 33.3

Table 3Signature Requirements by State

Percentage of Eligible or Registered Voters in Official’s District

10% 15% 20% 25% 33.3%Montana South Dakota Idaho Missouri LouisianaCalifornia Georgia West Virginia New Jersey

Wyoming

Percentage of Votes Cast in Official’s District in Previous Gubernatorial Election

10% 15% 25%Maine Oregon Michigan

Illinois Wisconsin

Percentage of Votes Cast in Previous Election for Office

15% 25% 30% 33.3% 35% 40%Rhode Island Alaska Alabama New Mexico Arkansas Kansas

Ohio Arizona NebraskaColorado

MinnesotaNevada

North DakotaWashington

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures and RecallTheRogues.org

In Michigan, the provisionfor sufficiency of grounds isincluded in the stateConstitution.

CRC Report


percent of eligible voters for the office (Louisiana)to 10 percent of the votes cast in the previous gu-bernatorial election (Maine). Most states require25 percent of the votes cast for the office in theprevious election (see Table 3).

If the percentage is held constant, the registered vot-er base produces the largest signature requirement,followed by votes cast in the lastgubernatorial election, and votescast in the last election for office.Michigan’s constitutional require-ment for 25 percent of the votescast in the elected official’s districtin the previous gubernatorial elec-tion is a medium level of difficultywhen compared with the require-ments in other states. Again, a con-stitutional amendment would benecessary to alter this requirement.

Signature requirements affect thelegitimacy of general elections by determining whatconstitutes an actionable change in voter preference.Strengthening the legitimacy of general elections bymandating high signature requirements will lead tofewer recall elections, a less crowded election cal-endar, and cost-savings for local governments. It ismost desirable to uphold the legitimacy of generalelections through tougher standards that are alsoaccurate and attainable representations of a changein voter preference.

Period for Petition Circulation

Among the states that allow recall, each specifiesthe maximum amount of time for collecting the re-quired number of petition signatures. The shorterthe time period, the more difficult it is for recall cam-paigns to collect the required number of signaturesto hold an election. In several states, different cir-culation periods are specified depending on the of-fice targeted for recall, with longer periods allowedfor statewide officials compared to local governmentofficers.

Among states that allow recall of statewide officials,circulation periods range from 60 days (Colorado,Idaho, Nevada and Wisconsin) to an indefinite

amount of time (Alaska and North Dakota). Wis-consin, with the strictest circulation requirement, heldnine recall elections of state senators last year, whileColorado and Nevada have never held a recall elec-tion for a state legislator. Idaho held two successfulrecall elections of state legislators in 1971.

More restrictive circulation periods do not tend toprevent recall efforts from succeed-ing, but ensure that recall cam-paigns are well-organized and well-financed. Given the right climateof voter frustration and campaignorganization, even the shortest pe-tition circulation periods can pro-duce high numbers of recall elec-tions. As information technologyimproves, making it easier for re-call campaigns to collect more sig-natures faster, states may consid-er lowering the circulation period

to less than 60 days.

Washington balances its strict grounds for recall witha longer circulation period. It requires that signa-tures be collected within 270 days for statewide of-ficials. Louisiana strikes the same balance for itslarger signature requirement (33.3 percent of eligi-ble voters) by extending its collection period to 180days. These two examples illustrate the importanceof balancing provisions to create a recall model thatallows citizens to have influence over their electedofficials.

Among states that allow recall of local governmentofficials, circulation periods range from 30 days (Ne-braska and Florida) to an indefinite amount of time(multiple, see Table 4). Washington only allows180 days to collect petition signatures for local gov-ernment officials, while Louisiana only allows 90 days.Michigan’s circulation period is toward the middle inthe range of the state requirements. Michigan’s elec-tion law does not distinguish between statewide andlocal government circulation periods, but since itshigh recall totals are overwhelmingly fueled by town-ships, it may want to consider a shorter circulationperiod for smaller electoral districts (if it wants toreduce recalls). This provision could be altered stat-utorily.

Michigan’s constitutional re-quirement for 25 percent ofthe votes cast in the electedofficial’s district in the previ-ous gubernatorial election isa medium level of difficultywhen compared with the re-quirements in other states.



Officials Subject to Recall

States also differ as to which elected officials areeligible for recall (see Table 5). Restricting thenumber of officials who are eligible for recall shouldreduce the number of recall campaigns and elec-

tions. The Michigan constitutional provision exempt-ing only judicial officers from recall is among themore inclusive of the states. The probability of moreefforts and elections would increase if judicial offic-ers were made eligible for recall.

Table 4Local Government Petition Circulation Periods by State (in days)

30 45 60 90 120 150 160 180 IndefiniteNebraska Georgia Alaska Kansas Arizona Illinois California Washington AlabamaFlorida Colorado Louisiana New Jersey Arkansas

Idaho Michigan MaineMissouri Montana MinnesotaNevada Ohio New Mexico

South Dakota Oregon North DakotaWisconsin Rhode Island Tennessee

VirginiaWest Virginia

WyomingSource: National Conference of State Legislatures and RecallTheRogues.org

Table 5Public Officials Eligible for Recall by State

All except Governor Certain non- County and HighestAll elective judicial and local county local municipal State and County state

offices officers offices only offices only only county only only offices onlyArizona Alaska Illinois Alabama Florida Minnesota New Mexico Rhode Island

California Idaho Arkansas North DakotaColorado Kansas ConnecticutGeorgia Louisiana MaineMontana Michigan MassachusettsNebraska Washington MissouriNevada New Hampshire

New Jersey North CarolinaOregon OhioVirginia Oklahoma

Wisconsin South DakotaTennessee

TexasWest Virginia

Wyoming


CRC Report


Michigan’s high recall numbers are also likely aidedby its large number of eligible elected officials. OnlyCalifornia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota,New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas have moreelected officials than Michigan. However, Illinois canonly recall its Governor and certain local officers;Kansas has stricter petition requirements than Mich-igan and requires grounds for recall; Massachusettsand Texas only have a small num-ber of local jurisdictions that allowrecall; Minnesota requires groundsfor recall and can only recall stateand county officers; New York andPennsylvania do not have recall;and Ohio only allows recall at thelocal level.

Rhode Island only allows recallelections on the highest electedstate offices (i.e. Governor, Lt. Governor, etc.). Atradeoff is made between fewer eligible officials andlower petition signature requirements (only 15 per-cent of total votes cast in the general election).

Among states that allow recall of state officials, Alas-ka, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, and Wash-ington exempt judicial officers. Judicial officers areexempt from recall because there is concern over al-

lowing direct citizen influence over court rulings andbecause in some states judicial officers are appoint-ed, rather than elected, or within a state, certain ju-dicial officers are elected and others are appointed.

Recall Election Process

The number of recall elections, their success rateand voter turnout can also be in-fluenced by changing the charac-teristics of recall elections. Therecall election process variesamong states (see Table 6).

In nine states, the recall election isheld simultaneously with the elec-tion for a successor; however, thissimultaneous election is held in twodifferent ways. In California, Colo-

rado, and Ohio, there are two questions on the bal-lot: one asks whether the incumbent should be re-called and another asks who should replace theincumbent if the recall is approved in the first ques-tion. If the recall is rejected in the first question, thesecond question is irrelevant and is ignored. The nameof the recalled officer cannot be listed among thenames in the second question to avoid simultaneous-ly recalling and electing the same official.

Michigan’s high recall num-bers are also likely aided byits large number of eligibleelected officials. Only ninestates have more electedofficials than Michigan.

Table 6Recall Election Process by State

Binary SimultaneousAppointed Separate Election One Question Two Questions

Alaska Alabama Arizona CaliforniaArkansas Georgia Nevada Colorado

Idaho Illinois North Dakota OhioKansas Louisiana South DakotaMaine Michigan Wisconsin

Nebraska Minnesota WyomingTennessee MissouriWashington Montana

New JerseyOregon

Rhode Island

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures and State Statutes.



If the recall election combines the vote for the re-call and the vote for the successor on one ballot,there is a cost savings for the jurisdiction for run-ning a single election instead of two, and it maypromote an administratively efficient transfer be-tween the incumbent and the successor. This typeof election has its flaws, though, in that asking twoquestions on a single ballot may be confusing ifone question is dependent on theother, and it may prevent votersfrom focusing exclusively on thequestion of recall and the electedofficial’s conduct during the cur-rent term in office.

There may also be questions of le-gitimacy if the incumbent gaineda greater number of votes in the recall ballot thanthe winner of the vote for the successor.24 This lastproblem might be avoided by using voting systemssuch as the Alternative Vote25 or SupplementaryVote26, but these systems would also be complicat-ed for voters and are rare in the United States.

Another issue with the combined ballot is that it pre-sents a problem for the political party of the threat-ened officer. The party must simultaneously cam-paign against recall and for a replacement candidatewithin their party ranks, which may send a mixedmessage as to who is the better representative.

In Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota,Wisconsin, and Wyoming, the simultaneous recallballot consists of a single list of candidates, includ-ing the officer against whom the recall petition wasfiled. The candidate that receives the most votesassumes office. This model is just as cost effectiveas the alternative simultaneous election model, isless confusing to the voter, does not create ques-tions of legitimacy, does not pose a conflict of inter-est for the party of the recalled official, and providesfor an efficient transfer of power. It is essentiallyanother general election.

In 11 states, including Michigan, a binary-choice re-call election is followed by a separate special elec-tion for a successor. This model potentially requiresadditional funding to administer two elections, in-stead of only one, and can disrupt the workings of

government if the official is recalled and no one as-sumes the position until the second election takesplace or if a successor is appointed for the interimperiod. Citizens can develop a sense of being notrepresented in the public affairs arena in which therecalled official served.

Because the Michigan Election Law specifies four datesfor the conduct of elections, thereplacement election may not oc-cur for months after the recall elec-tion. State Representative PaulScott was recalled on November 8,2011 and the replacement electiondid not take place until February 28,2012, a span of 112 days or rough-ly one-third of the calendar year.

Alteration of the recall election process in Michigancould be done by statutory change.

In a binary-choice election, the voter must choosebetween the incumbent and an unknown replace-ment. In a simultaneous election, the voter has tochoose between the incumbent and a finite list ofreal people as replacements.

By not comparing the incumbent with real alterna-tives, the binary-choice election can mask the po-tentially negative consequences of replacement. Forthis reason, binary-choice ballots are likely to be moresuccessful than other types of recall elections. Re-call elections that offer a binary choice may result inmore recall efforts because it is easier to campaignfor such a simple choice on the basis that the in-cumbent is doing a poor job.

In Michigan and Louisiana, the recall election is re-quired to be held on the next scheduled election date,which prevents additional crowding of the electionschedule but potentially requires longer interim peri-ods. Some states, such as California, Georgia andNebraska, require that the election be held within afixed period of time after the recall petition is certi-fied, which can lead to more elections within a calen-dar year but shorter interim periods. Oregon adopt-ed a procedure in which the recall election is heldcompletely by postal votes, rather than at pollingbooths, which reduces costs and interim periods.

In 11 states, including Mich-igan, a binary-choice recallelection is followed by aseparate special election fora successor.

CRC Report


Table 7Recall Immunity Periods by State (in days; beginning of term/end of term)

540 360 320 - 190 180 120 90 60 None Rhode Island Florida California Arizona Alaska Idaho Montana A labama (180/360) (360/0) (90/180) (180/0) (120/0) (90/0) (60/0)

Georgia Kansas Arkansas Maine Colorado(180/180) (120/200) (180/0) (120/0)Michigan Ohio Louisiana I l l i n o i s(180/180) (0/190) (0/180)Nebraska Minnesota North Dakota(180/180) (0/180)

New Jersey Missouri South Dakota(360/0) (180/0)

Wisconsin Nevada V i r g i n i a(360/0) (180/0)

New Mexico West Virginia(0/180)Oregon Wyoming(180/0)

Tennessee(90/90)

Washington(0/180)


In eight states, a recall election is followed by the ap-pointment of a successor. The appointment of a re-placement after a binary recall election prevents pop-ularity-contest elections from taking place and leadingto further political chaos and dysfunction. However,appointments reduce the influence of the citizenry.

Recall Immunity Periods

There is also diversity among states as to the timeperiod(s) during a term of office when recall is pos-sible. A number of states do not have any require-ments for when a recall can take place. Some statesrequire that an official must serve in office for a cer-tain amount of time before a recall can be pursued,while others have requirements at both the start andend of a term of office. Of these states, 180 days or360 days are common recall-restricted time periodsat the beginning or end of a term (see Table 7).

In Michigan, members of the House of Representa-tives serve 2-year terms, and members of the Sen-ate and executive officers serve 4-year terms. Offi-

cials elected to the State Board of Education, Uni-versity of Michigan Board of Regents, Michigan StateUniversity Board of Trustees, and Wayne State Uni-versity Board of Governors serve 8-year terms. Atthe local level, elected officials have various terms.Township, school board, and county elective branchofficers serve 4-year terms. County commissionersserve 2-year terms. City and village elected officialstypically serve either 2- or 4-year terms. In general,shorter terms make it more difficult to mount a suc-cessful recall effort against the incumbent and alsomake recall efforts superfluous.

The narrower the window to recall a public officialthe fewer recall efforts and elections should occur.Michigan currently does not allow recalls within thefirst 180 days of a term of office or the last 180 daysof a term of office, one of the strictest immunityperiods. This prevents recall elections from beingheld close to general elections, or at the very begin-ning of a term of office before the elected officialhas had time to perform improperly or make contro-versial decisions.



Michigan voters employ recall for their elected offi-cials more frequently than most other states. Overthe past 12 years, Michigan has led the nation in thenumber of officials subject to recall votes. Whileattempts to recall state officials – in Michigan and inother states – have garnered the most attention,the recall tool is primarily employed against localgovernment officials.

The reasons why Michigan votersemploy this tool more frequentlythan other states is not readily ap-parent. A comparison of Michi-gan’s recall provisions with thoseof other states does not identifyany provisions for which Michiganis an outlier. Although some ofMichigan’s provisions are more le-nient than those of other states,such as the number of elected of-ficials at all levels of governmenteligible to be recalled, this is coun-tered by other provisions that arerelatively strict, such as the immunity periods dur-ing each official’s term of office.

Michigan voters attempt to recall a small number ofeligible elected officials each year as a percent oftotal eligible officials (roughly 0.2 percent), but com-pared to other states with recall statutes, Michigan’stotal is high. The direct monetary cost of adminis-tering these recalls is quite low, but there may belarge, unquantifiable costs associated with govern-ment disruption and inefficiency. If real, these inef-ficiency costs have been growing over the last 12years.

The increasing number of Michigan recall efforts overthe past 12 years may be a concern, but annualvariation and other measures of recall behavior overthis time period are similar to recalls in other states(Arizona and California).

These various restrictions place Michigan on equalfooting only with California, and asstated earlier, minus its poor eco-nomic performance over the lastdecade, Michigan’s recall numbersmight be quite similar to Califor-nia’s (as recently as 2009, Califor-nia had more recall elections thanMichigan).

Much has been written about thedisruption of government in Cali-fornia and Michigan as a result ofrecall efforts. These two statescertainly represent the high-end ofthe recall distribution across theUnited States. If the cost of gov-

ernment disruption were deemed too high in thesestates, there are changes that could be made to theirrecall process to reduce the frequency of these ef-forts. There is diversity in recall models throughoutthe nation and Michigan can borrow from other statesto affect recall frequency. Since Michigan’s high re-call totals are largely driven by townships, stricterprovisions for these electoral districts, such as shorterpetition circulation periods, could be explored.

Recalls should be monitored over the next few yearsfor their response to changes in the economy andthe election cycle.

Conclusion

The reasons why Michiganvoters employ this toolmore frequently than otherstates is not readily appar-ent. A comparison of Mich-igan’s recall provisions withthose of other states doesnot identify any provisionsfor which Michigan is anoutlier.

CRC Report


Appendix ARecall Elections in Michigan (in chronological order), 2000-2011

District or Date of Number ofCounty or ISD Jurisdiction Recall Election Officials

Antrim Central Lake Village November 8, 2011 1Benzie Joyfield Township November 8, 2011 3Genesee Flushing Township November 8, 2011 2Genesee Genesee Township November 8, 2011 4Genesee State of Michigan - District 51 November 8, 2011 1Houghton Elm River Township November 8, 2011 2Ingham Onondaga Township November 8, 2011 2Montcalm Montcalm Township November 8, 2011 1Wayne Taylor City November 8, 2011 1Eaton Potterville City August 2, 2011 3Lake Elk Township August 2, 2011 3Lenawee Ogden Township August 2, 2011 2Lenawee Riga Township August 2, 2011 1Mecosta Grant Township August 2, 2011 1Montmorency Briley Township August 2, 2011 3Newaygo Lilley Township August 2, 2011 2Osceola Sherman Township August 2, 2011 3Tuscola Vassar Township August 2, 2011 1Van Buren Keeler Township August 2, 2011 5Washtenaw Sharon Township August 2, 2011 2Berrien Bertrand Township May 3, 2011 4Genesee Goodrich Village May 3, 2011 1Gladwin Billings Township May 3, 2011 1Saginaw Bridgeport Township May 3, 2011 4Sanilac Worth Township May 3, 2011 1Benzie Inland Township February 22, 2011 1Berrien Hagar Township February 22, 2011 3Calhoun Emmett Charter Township February 22, 2011 3Gladwin Billings Township February 22, 2011 3Macomb Armada Township February 22, 2011 1Washtenaw Augusta Township February 22, 2011 1Genesee Davison City November 2, 2010 5Lapeer ISD North Branch Area School District November 2, 2010 1Montcalm Montcalm Township November 2, 2010 1Ogemaw Hill Township November 2, 2010 1Presque Isle Presque Isle Township November 2, 2010 1Van Buren Bloomingdale Township November 2, 2010 1Washtenaw Salem Township November 2, 2010 5Barry Prairieville Township August 3, 2010 2Cass Milton Township August 3, 2010 1Eaton Vermontville Township August 3, 2010 1Presque Isle Bearinger Township August 3, 2010 1Alpena-Montmorency-Alcona ESD Hillman Community Schools August 3, 2010 1Saginaw Bridgeport Township August 3, 2010 1Schoolcraft Schoolcraft County August 3, 2010 1



District or Date of Number ofCounty or ISD Jurisdiction Recall Election OfficialsAllegan Dorr Township May 4, 2010 7Bay-Arenac ISD Standish Sterling Schools May 4, 2010 3Charlevoix Norwood Township May 4, 2010 4Van Buren ISD Covert School District May 4, 2010 2Wayne Grosse Pointe Shores City May 4, 2010 3Berrien ISD Benton Harbor Area School District February 23, 2010 3Genesee Flushing Township February 23, 2010 1Jackson Parma Township February 23, 2010 1Lenawee Seneca Township February 23, 2010 2Menominee County District 4 February 23, 2010 1Menominee County District 5 February 23, 2010 1Van Buren Bloomingdale Village February 23, 2010 5Wayne Van Buren Township February 23, 2010 4Allegan Monterey Township 2010 2Lake 2010 1Marquette Republic Township 2010 1Genesee Clayton Township November 3, 2009 3Genesee Flushing Township November 3, 2009 4Gogebic Ironwood Township November 3, 2009 1Ingham ISD Leslie Public Schools November 3, 2009 2Kalamazoo Alamo Township November 3, 2009 1Manistee Norman Township November 3, 2009 3Mecosta Big Rapids Township November 3, 2009 3Monroe ISD Mason Consolidated School District August 4, 2009 3Genesee ISD Westwood Heights Schools February 24, 2009 3Livingston Hamburg Township 2009 1Marquette Marquette Township 2009 4Berrien Benton Harbor City November 4, 2008 1Mecosta-Osceola ISD Reed City Public School District November 4, 2008 4Wayne State of Michigan November 4, 2008 1Kalamazoo Comstock Township August 5, 2008 1Macomb New Haven Village August 5, 2008 6Gladwin Billings Township May 6, 2008 2Mecosta Morley Village May 6, 2008 1Menominee Lake Township May 6, 2008 2Midland Edenville Township May 6, 2008 5Saginaw Kochville Township May 6, 2008 1Jackson Norvell Township January 15, 2008 1Oceana Shelby Village January 15, 2008 1Lake Elk Township 2008 1Cass Cassopolis Village November 6, 2007 1Eaton Potterville City November 6, 2007 3Oceana Shelby Village November 6, 2007 1Saginaw Brady Township November 6, 2007 1Wexford Cedar Creek Township November 6, 2007 2Iosco Tawas City August 7, 2007 4Lenawee Fairfield Township August 7, 2007 1Oceana Ferry Township August 7, 2007 1Tuscola Vassar Township August 7, 2007 3

CRC Report


District or Date of Number ofCounty or ISD Jurisdiction Recall Election OfficialsGenesee Clio City May 8, 2007 1Genesee Flint City May 8, 2007 1Genesee Flint City February 27, 2007 1Gladwin Billings Township February 27, 2007 4Grand Traverse Acme Township February 27, 2007 7Hillsdale Camden Village February 27, 2007 1Leelanau Bingham Township February 27, 2007 1Menominee Menominee Township February 27, 2007 1Van Buren Gobles City February 27, 2007 5Wexford Cedar Creek Township November 13, 2006 4Berrien New Buffalo Township November 7, 2006 5Grand Traverse Blair Township November 7, 2006 2Kent Byron Township November 7, 2006 1Lapeer Burnside Township November 7, 2006 2Newaygo Merrill Township November 7, 2006 1Ottawa Blendon Township November 7, 2006 4Wexford Cadillac City August 10, 2006 1Allegan Lee Township August 8, 2006 5Lapeer Burnside Township August 8, 2006 2Macomb New Haven Village August 8, 2006 4Saginaw Carrollton Township August 8, 2006 2Saginaw Kochville Township August 8, 2006 4Saint Joseph Fabius Township August 8, 2006 1Washtenaw Pittsfield Township August 8, 2006 3Wayne Livonia City August 8, 2006 5Hillsdale Pittsford Township May 2, 2006 5Leelanau Elmwood Township May 2, 2006 1Leelanau Northport Village May 2, 2006 7Marquette Ishpeming City May 2, 2006 2Monroe Erie Township May 2, 2006 2Monroe London Township May 2, 2006 2Saginaw Brady Township May 2, 2006 1Van Buren Pine Grove Township May 2, 2006 1Wayne RESA Westwood School District May 2, 2006 1Alger AuTrain Township February 28, 2006 3Antrim Elk Rapids Village February 28, 2006 5Genesee Flint Township February 28, 2006 1Hillsdale ISD Litchfield Community Schools February 28, 2006 2Menominee Menominee Township February 28, 2006 1Shiawassee Owosso Township February 28, 2006 2Wayne Brownstown Township February 28, 2006 2Washtenaw Augusta Township February 26, 2006 2Marquette Powell Township 2006 1Gladwin Sherman Township November 8, 2005 1Otsego Bagley Township November 8, 2005 3Cass Cassopolis Village August 2, 2005 3Hillsdale Waldron Village August 2, 2005 2Houghton Torch Lake Township August 2, 2005 1Marquette Marquette City August 2, 2005 4



District or Date of Number ofCounty or ISD Jurisdiction Recall Election OfficialsBerrien Benton Harbor City February 22, 2005 1Genesee Goodrich Village February 22, 2005 5Lake Pinora Township 2005 1Schoolcraft Manistique City 2005 1Wexford 2005 1Genesee ISD Kearsley Schools December 14, 2004 3Genesee ISD Westwood Heights Schools November 9, 2004 4Kent Solon Township August 3, 2004 2Kalamazoo Galesburg City June 8, 2004 5Hillsdale County District 6 March 8, 2004 1Gladwin Bourret Township January 20, 2004 5Hillsdale County District 5 January 6, 2004 1Hillsdale Litchfield City January 6, 2004 1Allegan Wayland City 2004 2Lake Lake County September 16, 2003 1Berrien Berrien Township September 4, 2003 1Menominee Cedarville Township September 4, 2003 5Marquette Chocolay Township August 5, 2003 1Mecosta July 29, 2003 1Washtenaw Augusta Township June 24, 2003 2Charlevoix Eveline Township May 5, 2003 2Hillsdale Waldron Village May 5, 2003 1Gladwin Clement Township April 8, 2003 4Hillsdale Waldron Village March 10, 2003 1Bay Bay City March 4, 2003 3Emmet Resort Township 2003 2Oakland Pontiac City 2003 1Schoolcraft County District 4 2003 1Genesee Vienna Township December 3, 2002 2Antrim Star Township November 5, 2002 2Berrien Lake Township October 22, 2002 3Berrien Oronoko Township October 22, 2002 4Traverse Bay Area ISD Mancelona School District October 14, 2002 4Berrien Hagar Township October 8, 2002 1Gogebic Bessemer Township October 8, 2002 1Antrim Star Township October 7, 2002 1Genesee Thetford Township September 24, 2002 3Berrien Coloma Township August 9, 2002 5Van Buren Pine Grove Township August 1, 2002 1Missaukee Lake City July 15, 2002 2Gogebic Watersmeet Township July 1, 2002 3Genesee Gaines Township April 2, 2002 2Genesee Flint City March 5, 2002 1Iosco Oscoda Township March 4, 2002 4

CRC Report


District or Date of Number ofCounty or ISD Jurisdiction Recall Election OfficialsEmmet Resort Township 2002 2Livingston Hartland Township 2002 1Marquette Republic Township 2002 2Montcalm Crystal Township 2002 5Berrien Oronoko Township August 21, 2001 5Chippewa July 10, 2001 2Berrien Benton Harbor City February 13, 2001 2Arenac 2001 4Oakland Keego Harbor City 2001 4Kent Oakfield Township August 8, 2000 1Grand Traverse Whitewater Township June 13, 2000 4Washtenaw Augusta Township February 1, 2000 1Tuscola 2000 1

Appendix B

To access the full Michigan recall election dataset(2000–2011), go to: www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2010s/2012/rpt379.html.

This dataset can be amended in the future and it isour hope that this report will encourage clerk’s offic-

es and other sources of election information to con-tribute more recall data. In the future, the Secre-tary of State may want to endeavor tracking andmaintaining a statewide recall database as well toimprove Michigan’s ability to evaluate its recall elec-tion law.



Endnotes

1 Joshua Spivak, What is the History of Recall Elections? (George Ma-son University’s History News Network, http://hnn.us/articles/1660.html, August 2003).

2 National Conference of State Legislatures, Recall of State Officials(November 9, 2011).

3 A dataset of recall elections in Michigan did not exist and needed tobe created. A new dataset was created from a combination of surveyresponses from county clerks, online records from county clerk offices,data from Ballotpedia.org, and online newspaper articles. Data re-flecting total recalls in Michigan should be considered a lower-boundestimate since 15 counties (out of 83) did not give a comprehensiveresponse to the survey; however, at least one county clerk in a non-responding county commented that recall elections had occurred withintheir county in the last 12 years. These elections were not discoveredthrough other research methods and were subsequently excluded fromthe total. This dataset can be amended in the future and it is our hopethat this report will encourage clerk’s offices to contribute more recalldata. In the future, the Secretary of State may want to endeavortracking and maintaining a statewide recall database as well.

4 U.S. Census Bureau, 1992 Census of Governments. The U.S. CensusBureau supplied the total number of elected officials in the state –18,704 - from which we subtracted the number of elected judges inthe state (as supplied by the State Court Administrative Office) toarrive at the total eligible for recall. Number of judges taken fromMichigan State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Judicial SystemSummary.

5 Michigan Department of Education, Number of Public Schools in Mich-igan (2011-2012).

6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 and 1992 Census of Governments.

7 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 and 1992 Census of Governments.

8 Survey responses were not received from, nor comprehensive onlineelection records found for, Baraga, Clare, Dickinson, Genesee (missing2000 and 2001 only), Huron, Kalkaska, Lake, Lapeer, Leelanau (miss-ing 2000 through 2003 only), Manistee, Monroe, Montmorency, Osceola,Roscommon, and St. Clair counties.

9 All quantitative data are a combination of online records from countyclerk offices, data from Ballotpedia.org, and online newspaper arti-cles. In addition, both California and Louisiana have a dedicated sourcefor tracking and recording recall elections within the state, the Califor-nia Elections Data Archive (CEDA) in California and the Secretary ofState in Louisiana; this data should be considered accurate. The datafor Arizona and Washington should be considered a close approxima-tion of the actual recall totals in those states since 2000.

10 The California Elections Data Archive (CEDA) of the Institute forSocial Research at California State University, Sacramento keeps de-tailed recall election data for California dating back to 1995. However,most of the rest of the country (Louisiana is one exception) does notkeep detailed records of recall elections held at the local level, so quan-titative comparisons are next to impossible. Anecdotal evidence sug-gests that California has long been the leader in recall elections priorto 2002.

11 Ballotpedia.org, Recall Campaigns By State.

12 Joshua Spivak, The Recall Elections Blog (recallelections.blogspot.com,2012).

13 Using total number of elected officials facing recall over the last 12years and total number of elected officials as reported by the 1992Census of Governments, the correlation coefficient is 0.78. Using thetotal number of recall elections over the last 12 years and total num-ber of elected officials, the correlation coefficient is 0.79.

14 1992 Census of Governments.

15 The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Reasons for Recall Elec-tions (July 12, 2011).

16 Genesee County Clerk’s Office, Election Division, Election ResultsArchive.

17 National Conference of State Legislatures, Recall of State Officials(November 9, 2011).

18 Corey Dade, Why Recall Elections Are So Difficult to Pull Off (Nation-al Public Radio, December 2011).

19 California Secretary of State, Recall History in California(www.sos.ca.gov/elections/california-recall-history.htm, 2012).

20 An electoral district is a distinct geographic subdivision for holding aseparate election for one or more seats in a legislative body. Examplesof electoral districts are state representative districts, townships, cit-ies, villages, counties and school districts. Within these districts arestate and local offices, such as township supervisors, clerks, treasur-ers, and trustees, city mayors and council members, state representa-tives, village presidents and trustees, county commissioners, and schoolboard presidents and board members.

21 Michigan Legislature, State Constitution (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-II-8, 2009).

22 State of Michigan Constitutional Convention 1961, Official Record(Volume 2).

23 Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 36, Sections 168.951 – 168.976.To read the entire recall provision, see Chapter 36 of the MichiganElection Code.

24 Charley Coleman and Oonagh Gay, Recall Elections (House of Com-mons Library, Standard Note SN/PC/05089, January 2012).

25 The alternative vote is also known as instant-runoff voting, prefer-ential voting, or ranked choice voting, and it consists of ranking candi-dates in order of preference to arrive at one winner.

26 The supplementary vote consists of voting for a first and secondchoice of candidate only and if no candidate receives a majority of firstchoice votes, all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and thevotes of those eliminated are redistributed according to the secondchoice votes to determine the winner.

michigan's recall election law - citizens research council ... · pdf filejune 2012...

Documents