In the first 36 years after the Illinois Constitution took effect in 1971, state lawmakers introduced 829 resolutions proposing amendments to the new document. Exactly one of those would have given voters the power to recall elected officials, and that 1979 effort died in committee.

In contrast, in the four years following former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s second inauguration in 2007, legislators offered 161 proposed amendments, including 14 to add recall to the charter.

The sudden interest in empowering voters to remove crooked and/or incompetent public officials was not coincidental, of course, but rather came in response to the clouds of corruption swirling around the former governor. Indeed, 10 of the 14 resolutions were offered after Blagojevich was impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate and removed from office in January 2009.

Next month, one of those resolutions will be on the ballot, asking voters whether the Constitution should be changed to allow citizens to recall a governor. By wide margins, the House and the Senate approved the proposed amendment last year, setting up the November vote that could see Illinois join the ranks of 18 other states whose constitutions permit voters to bounce officials with whom they’ve become disenchanted without waiting for the next election.

Perhaps fittingly, though, the recall process being considered for Illinois is unlike that in any of the other recall states. Here, the provision would apply only to governors, while all the other 18 states cover the entire executive branch, 17 also include legislators and 11 throw in the judiciary for good measure, according to information from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Moreover, the Illinois plan would require recall advocates to gather signatures of registered voters equal to 15 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the most recent election, a threshold lower than most other states, which typically require signatures equal to 25 percent or more of the vote for the office involved. Based on the 2006 gubernatorial returns, the difference is significant — roughly 350,000 fewer than would be needed under the yardstick used in most other states. 

In addition, the Illinois proposal would require the petitions to include at least 100 signatures from residents of at least 25 of the state’s 102 counties, a geographical mandate similar to ones found in only two of the recall states.

While seven of the 18 states require specific grounds for recall, typically incompetence or misconduct, the Illinois plan would allow a recall drive for any — or no particular — reason.

If a recall were successful, the proposal would call for a second, successor election within 60 days to finish out the removed chief executive’s term. Most states avoid that additional cost, either by holding the recall and successor elections at the same time, as occurred in California in 2003, or by filling the vacancy by appointment. The tab for a successful recall involving two statewide elections could exceed $100 million, according to estimates from state elections officials.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the proposed amendment, however, is the requirement that those planning a recall drive first must file an affidavit signed by at least 10 senators and 20 representatives, no more than half in either chamber from a single political party, before they can proceed.

Only in Illinois would the approval of political insiders be needed for folks to undertake something as quintessentially grass roots as a recall drive, which along with initiative and referendum, formed the cornerstones of the populist movement for direct democracy that was so in vogue in the early 20th century.

Contradictions aside, the proposed amendment does seem a little like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. The man who clearly motivated it will never be subject to its terms; besides booting Blagojevich out of office last year, the Senate also imposed a political death penalty, voting unanimously to bar him forever from holding any public office in Illinois.

Proponents argue that recall would provide voters with an additional check on a governor, a reminder that “the will of the people cannot be taken for granted,” according to the official materials. Shortly after the proposal cleared the legislature, Gov. Pat Quinn, a long-time supporter, labeled recall “the ultimate ethics measure for the people of Illinois.”

Such rhetoric notwithstanding, Illinois citizens already have the power to remove a governor or any public official with whom they are no longer satisfied. Indeed, Quinn himself may discover this in a very painful and personal way in a few short weeks, when voters go to the polls.

True, recall might appeal to people’s desire for instant gratification, but the proposal also carries significant risk. One inherent danger is recall’s capacity to undercut a governor’s resolve to follow an unpopular but fiscally or governmentally appropriate path. Whoever the next governor is, he’ll almost certainly have to find new revenues and make painful spending cuts. Should he be subject to recall just six months into his term, engineered by people outraged at those unpleasant but necessary steps?

Or more broadly, if a future chief executive has to worry about a possible recall drive every time he or she crosses a well-heeled special interest group, what impact might that have on policy decisions?

Perhaps a better approach might be for citizens to become better informed before the fact, rather than count on a quick fix when they experience buyers’ remorse. No one should have been surprised by Blagojevich’s fall from grace; the warning signs abounded during the 2006 campaign, from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s reference to “very serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud” to Auditor General William Holland’s regular reports documenting serious mismanagement throughout the administration.

Rather than adopting a problematic recall provision, voters should remember the Constitution already provides a suitable solution for those rare instances in which a governor is truly unfit to serve, as the whole sorry Blagojevich affair demonstrates.

Only in Illinois would the approval of political insiders be needed for folks to undertake something as quintessentially grass roots as a recall drive.

Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois Springfield.

Illinois Issues, October 2010