Ends and Means: Should the Constitution be Amended to Account for Governor Who is Viewed Unfavorably

NPR Illinois | 91.9 UIS | By Charles N. Wheeler III

Published May 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM CDT

Take a deep breath and count to 10. Illinoisans would do well to keep that axiom in mind as they ponder whether the state Constitution should be changed to allow disgruntled voters to oust elected officials.

Sparked by widespread dissatisfaction with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a proposal to add recall powers to the Constitution is under consideration in the General Assembly.

Under its provisions, voters could fire a governor, other statewide elected officials or legislators after they've served six months in office. Triggering a recall election for a constitutional officer would require petition signatures equal to at least 12 percent of the total votes cast for the office the targeted official won. For legislators, signatures of at least 20 percent of votes cast would be needed. If a petition has enough valid signatures, voters would be asked whether the official should be removed — and if so, who should replace him or her — during a special election set by the State Board of Elections.

Those pushing for recall powers make no bones about their immediate motivation: dumping Blagojevich as soon as possible. If not for the governor's "dismal performance," said its sponsor, Rep. Jack D. Franks, a Democrat from Woodstock, "I would not have filed" the proposed amendment.

But — here comes the deep breath —should the Constitution be amended just because the current governor is seen in some quarters as incompetent at best, corrupt at worst? Once added to the basic charter, the recall power would outlast Blagojevich and could have undesirable consequences.

Consider, for example, a future governor who's considering confronting forthrightly the state's fiscal problems by proposing a general tax increase, or by making massive spending cuts. Either choice might be sound public policy but not politically popular. While 12 percent of the electorate — about 416,000 signatures based on the 2006 election — is a significant number, determined and well-funded opponents might have little trouble garnering enough support for a recall vote. Faced with that prospect, might the governor instead opt for more smoke-and-mirrors budgeting?

In the case of the General Assembly, a powerful special interest group could go after a lawmaker who opposes its agenda, using its member network and bankroll to gather the required signatures, which could be fewer than 2,500 in some House districts, based on 2006 results.

Clearly, one might argue, governors and legislators don't need any more incentive to avoid controversial stands or dodge courageous votes — doing what's right as opposed to what's politically expedient — than they already have.

Moreover, recall would offer a tempting second chance for losing candidates in close legislative races. A runner-up with 49 percent of the vote would need signatures from fewer than half of them to force a recall, adding a new meaning to "target district."

Of course a recall threat might be less intimidating if those seeking to oust an official needed to allege official misconduct, failure to perform required duties or some similar grounds, as is the case in seven of the 18 states that permit recall of executive and legislative officials. But the current proposal has no such requirement; a recall petition could be started if someone didn't like the way the governor blow-dries his hair or the cut of the attorney general's pantsuit, noted House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a Chicago Democrat.

And a recall vote would be an unwelcome expense for local election officials, who would have to cover its multimillion-dollar cost.

In addition to such policy questions, timing issues seem to undermine the effort to promote recall as a way to rid the state of Blagojevich. Were voters to add recall to the Constitution in November, those wanting to oust the governor would have to file notice with the elections board before starting to collect signatures, with a 160-day window to amass enough. Once the signatures are filed, the board has 105 days to certify the petition and schedule the recall election within the next 100 days. Given those deadlines, it's quite likely the filing period for the 2010 election would start before a recall election would be held. In fact, it's possible the recall election would be so late that the governor already might have lost the February primary, should he choose to seek a third term.

While adding recall to the Constitution might be too high a price to pay to bounce Blagojevich a few months early, Franks and others dissatisfied with the governor have a better option available, one already on the books.

Under Section 14 of the Legislative Article, the House may impeach a governor, or any other executive or judicial officer, by a majority vote of those elected, or 60 of the 118. The provision authorizes the House to investigate whether a cause for impeachment exists but does not spell out grounds. If an official is impeached by the House, the Senate tries the case and can remove the official by a two-thirds vote, or 40 of the 59 senators.

Impeachment proceedings are extremely rare in Illinois, according to the legislature's chief research agency. In fact, only one judge has been impeached, back in 1833, and the Senate acquitted. More recently, in 1997, a House investigative panel considered whether then-Supreme Court Chief Justice James D. Heiple should be impeached for misconduct relating to traffic violations but decided his transgressions didn't warrant ouster.

If Blagojevich's critics believe his performance merits dismissal, the better route than recall would be to initiate impeachment proceedings. A bipartisan House committee could investigate the allegations in a thorough, deliberate manner and present its findings without the circus atmosphere and political ads likely to accompany a recall campaign.

Should the House choose not to impeach, or the Senate not to convict, voters always can express their dissatisfaction the old-fashioned way: at the polls in the next election, the time-tested method to dump public officials who've lost favor.