Interesting recall case in Ann Arbor

There's an interesting recall push down in Ann Arbor School District. I don't know anything about the issues causing the recall so I can't comment on that.

I've always been a supporter for recalls for political reasons. Politicians are our employees and if they are doing that bad of job, they should be recalled. That includes too many bad votes. Recalls are difficult, and should be difficult. If you get enough petitions for a recall, then let's have the election. They should stay a political question determined by voters and not judges.

The Washtenaw Clerk, Larry Kestenbaum (also an attorney), has some interesting statements about a recall petitions against some Ann Arbor School Board members.

From Ann Arbor.com

On the day that Washtenaw County Clerk Larry Kestenbaum is scheduled to determine the clarity and factuality of recall language filed against Ann Arbor school board trustees, he released a statement saying he will refuse to issue any ruling on the factuality of the recall language. 

The new law on recalls requires that the language be 'factual', but how does a County Clerk, County Treasurer, or Judge determine that? Kestenbaum's got some good points in his email which is in the link above at annarbor.com. This is the first case here, so there's little case law that applies here.

Kestenbaum said in an email Thursday he has come to the conclusion that the new requirement of factuality in recall language is "unconstitutional on its face."
A new law passed in December 2012 makes it so the petitioner has the burden of factuality when filing recall language.
Kestenbaum said: "The submission of reasons for recall is a procedural, and not a substantive matter. And the targeted official may not impose delay by contesting whether those reasons for recall are 'good enough'." He says that judgement is up to the people and is based in the petitioner's ability to collect the prerequisite number of signatures to force a recall election.
Prior to the 2012 law, the elections commission only had to make a determination on the clarity of the petition language.
"They ruled whether it was clear enough to allow the officer in question to rebut the claims," said county Director of Elections Ed Golembiewski earlier this week.

The board rejected 3-0 the recalls due to lack of clarity, so Kestenbaum's claim can't be tested.

The Washtenaw County Elections Commission Thursday rejected recall petition language that was filed against six Ann Arbor school board members.
The commission voted 3-0 to reject the language on the petition on the basis of clarity. The commission did not take up the issue of whether the language is factual.
The ruling stymied for now the recall effort of the Ann Arbor Public Schools Parents for Change. The parents, who are frustrated by what they say is general dysfunction on the school board, will have 10 days to appeal the decision in Circuit Court. The group also could submit a new petition with revised language.

The rejection was proper. How are these reasons clear? It's all opinions. It's not like it said "John Smith voted on 1-1-13 to raise income taxes 30%"

• Failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities.
• Failure to demonstrate transparency in decision making.
• Failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting.
• Failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.

Those are vague and don't say anything outside of one person's opinion which can't be measured. Since it didn't pass clarity, there wasn't a need to make a decision on its factuality so that won't be sent to court, at least in this case.

The lesson here for our legislators and those who sign them is this. Consider how these laws will be executed, if they are able to be executed, and who will be the ones executing them in a worst case scenario (Eric Holder or Janet Reno).

Do these board members deserve recall? That's for the voters there to decide if there's clear language and enough signatures. 

Don't change the recall law

With the Paul Scott recall election coming up and the recall attempts against Snyder and democrats during the last administration, this was bound to happen.

From the Argus

Recent efforts to recall Livingston County officials most likely wouldn't have made it to the ballot box under new proposals pending in Lansing.

Senate Bill 629 would raise the bar for recall language to be approved — most notably by requiring that language be stated "factually."

Current law only requires the reasons for recall as written on the petitions be stated clearly, and doesn't test the truthfulness of claims making the case for recall.

I don't have a problem with making the reason be "factual" however who decides what is supposedly factual? Judges?

Since the allegations contained on the petitions were never tested, except by election, much less considered proven, those recalls might not have proceeded had the Senate measure been in effect while they were in office.

"We have too many recalls. If you throw it out because it's not factual, that's good," said state Sen. John Gleason, D-Flushing, the bill's sponsor.

"I think there should be a higher threshold for recalling people," Gleason added.

Gleason said he sponsored the bill after witnessing what he called "M-57 fever," a series of recalls along the state corridor through Genesee County.

In one case, a local official in Genesee was recalled was based on petition language that read, "I don't like him," he said.

Gleason said a requirement that recall claims be factual would be difficult to meet but will eliminate frivolous recall efforts.

His bill also would amend current law to prohibit recalls in the official's first or last six months of a term of two years or less; and bar recalls in the official's first or last year of a term more than two years.

Reasons for recall would be limited to issues that can't be overturned by board votes, or for which no other political recourse is available.

That's my biggest problem. The last sentence of this article. Board votes and political recourse.

Same goes with

House Joint Resolution GG would prohibit recall proposals based on officials' voting records, and would limit reasons for recall to convictions of a felony or misdemeanor; court judgments finding the official guilty of libel, slander or misappropriation of money or taxpayer assets, or guilty of misusing public assets; or if the official's vote results in the misuse or misappropriation of public assets.

If someone's doing an atrocious job, sometimes the best thing to do is fire them in the middle of a contract. Those two state senators in Macomb County needed to be fired for their tax increases. Matt Millen, Bobby Williams, and John L Smith needed to be fired. Waiting 2 years or 4 years isn't enough. The threat of recall keeps politicians in check, and some of them don't like it.

Without recalls, the GOP would not have taken the state senate in 1984, and probably would not have had a shot until 1990 or 1994 to take it. Those two recalls that flipped the senate were for a damn good reason, a 38% income tax increase. Until these proposals, they can smugly tell you T.S. You'd have to wait until 1986, while they possibly enact more tax increases and hope your anger dies down. Most people aren't like me and have short memories. Politicians count on that.

This is about eliminating checks and balances because politicians don't like it. That is unacceptable.

August Update

Let's get back rolling here.

Several things in the news.

1. We will have a special election this November for a key state senate seat, the 19th. The primary was yesterday. Mike Nofs, a former state rep from Battle Creek won for the GOP and Marty Griffin, a state rep from Jackson city, won for the dems. They face off in November. This is an interest race, as two seats are in play here. The Griffin seat is winnable by either party, as is the state senate district.

2. Lansing Mayor race. I haven't followed this at all, but Virg Bernero, the incumbent, won with less than 50% in the primary against Carol Wood and two others. Wood and Bernero will be facing each other in November. If Wood wins, watch for Virg to take a possible run against Rogers. He's very ambitious as he was a State Rep and a State Senator before taking the Mayor gig.

3. Detroit. Dave Bing faces Tom Barrow, who lost twice to Coleman Young in the 80's. Most of the incumbents are back. TV anchor Charlie Pugh is the leader for the city council, and is a newcomer. Monica Conyers got sent home. Results there

4. Closer to home, the Howell School Board recall won't be on the November ballot. It does not look like this would pass. I have mixed views on this as there are a few shades of gray. I would not have voted for the firing after a year, but if contracts were in danger of being breached due to executive policies, then that's a major issue and something that needs to be considered. I do not often agree with union leadership outside of trade issues, but I am no fan at all of breaching existing contracts. Contracts are legal promises, and promises ought to be kept. Those that break a lot of promises are not trustworthy. To be fair to Gardella, the scores have improved in his tenure. I think a case can be made either way for the firing decision, and that is why I would not support a recall for that particular decision. If I still lived in the district, I would not vote for Literski or Pratt, but I'd wait till election time to do that. Recall elections cost money, and they should be saved for complete clusterbleeps.....like Granholm (and Stabenow, Levin, and Obama if the feds were not immune).

5. Hamburg Recalls - What a clusterbleep. That's all I have to say about that. My feelings are known. If the democrats take over there, which I expect WILL happen sooner than later, there are only a few individuals to blame, and that is the Hamburg Board and their cliques. It makes the entire county, township, and party look bad though.

One interesting sidenote. If the Hamburg Recalls for Skiba or Evon are successful, there's a different way of picking replacements. There will be a special election, but the COUNTY POLITICAL PARTIES will select the nominees in that special election. That means that the Livingston County Republicans and Democrats choose the nominees for the election. There is no primary. On a side note, those reading should not try and influence me on this. I'm not on this executive committee. I'm on the district committee instead. We aren't involved here.

Recall hearing shenanigans in Warren

While I don't support recalling state reps who are term limited (stick to senators and Granholm), this is shady.

The Macomb County Election Commission in Mount Clemens said the recall language was unclear and voted 2-1 to reject the petition prepared against Rep. Steve Bieda, D-Warren. Last month, Bieda was among the majority of lawmakers who supported increasing the state income tax from 3.9 to 4.35 percent and expanding the 6-percent sales tax to a number of previously exempt services. Together, the two levies are expected to generate about $1.4 billion annually when fully implemented.

Backers of the recall effort promised a quick appeal, saying the language clearly spelled out that the tax votes were the reason for the recall.

"The state of case law says the standard for clarity petitions is between lenient and very lenient. But sadly, politics trumped the rule of law here," said Greg Schmid, a Saginaw attorney who said he will file an appeal within the allotted 10 days.

"They don't want a recall to be conducted and their clear purpose is to delay. They can run, but they can't hide," he added.

2-1, Democrats vote to block the recall. Wonder why? Partisan politics, especially since a lot of emphasis is given to the clarity language to make sure it is legitimate.

This is going to appeal. We'll see what happens here. The good news no matter what happens is that Bieda is gone after the 08 elections anyway. That's good to see. He's one of the five worst reps in the legislature.