Recall election ordered for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

[CeeKay]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765564559/Recall-election-ordered-for-Wis-Gov-Scott-Walker.html

Embattled first-term Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker expressed confidence that he would prevail in a recall election ordered Friday following the collection of more than 900,000 signatures in the wake of his push against union bargaining rights.

The Government Accountability Board voted 5-0 to order the recall, only the third of a governor in U.S. history. The vote was largely a formality, since Walker did not challenge any of the signatures and the total collected were far above the 540,208 needed.

Assuming a Democratic primary is necessary, that election will be held in just 39 days on May 8. The actual recall vote then will be June 5, just 67 days away.

Walker, who is just 15 months into his tumultuous term, said hours after the election was ordered that he was ready to defend his record.

"My hope is just as we earned the trust of the majority of voters in November 2010 that we'll have a chance to earn that trust again this June," Walker said before touring a Milwaukee manufacturing plant. "So I look forward to the opportunity to share that message."

this could be interesting.  over 900,000 signatures for the recall means probably that many against him,  the results of 2010 show only 2,158,974 votes cast, so he may not be as safe as he thinks.

[CeeKay]

looks like Walker may win again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/wisconsin-polls-scott-walker-recall-tom-barrett_n_1556653.html?ref=politics&ref=politics

The latest independent poll in Wisconsin shows Republican Gov. Scott Walker maintaining his lead over his Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in the gubernatorial recall election set for June 5.

The new poll of 600 likely voters, conducted by Marquette University Law School from May 23 to 26, shows Walker leading Barrett by seven percentage points (52 to 45 percent). Two weeks earlier, another Marquette Law School poll had Walker leading by six points (50 to 44 percent).

"Very little has changed," said Marquette pollster Charles Franklin via Twitter. Given the four-point margin of sampling error associated with each poll, the gap between the candidates is statistically unchanged.

[leo8877]

"Poll of 600 likely voters"

[Eel Snave]

I'm actually in Wisconsin, and the ratio of signs on lawns in my town (which is, admittedly, a red city in a blue state) is about 70-30 for Walker. The "public union" thing isn't as big a deal anymore among voters, but it really doesn't look good for Barrett.

In recent weeks, the Walker administration has pointed out that Wisconsin gained jobs in 2011 instead of showing a loss (a key point that the Dems were hoping to exploit) that was just recently verified by the federal government. Barrett's come under fire because he didn't show up at a gathering for fallen police officers that's a traditional gathering because he was on the campaign trail, and the airwaves are SATURATED with pro-Walker ads. The most influential newspaper backed Walker because they said that he really hasn't done anything wrong that's worth recalling him (unlike our city's mayor who got hammered and started groping women).

The ironic thing is that Walker talks about out-of-state interests, when 60% of his PAC money comes from out-of-state.

That recent poll has a 4% margin of error, but yeah, it looks like the recall isn't going to have any effect.

[Fireball1244]

"Poll of 600 likely voters"

That's a very good sample size, meaning the poll likely has a great deal of statistical legitimacy. How many people would you expect to be surveyed in a poll like this?

[brettmcd]

I hope Walker wins, using the recall election process to remove an elected official over political disagreements is not the way recalls should be used.

[Isgrimnur]

Using the recall process when you feel that the elected official has breached the public's trust through rampant political maneuvering is exactly the way a recall should be used.  It's the best example of democracy in action. 

Take a look at the Gray Davis recall:

Before the successful recall of Gray Davis, no California statewide official had ever been recalled, though there had been 117 previous attempts. Only seven of those even made it onto the ballot, all for state legislators. Every governor since Ronald Reagan in 1968 has been subject to a recall effort, but Gray Davis was the first governor whose opponents gathered the necessary signatures to qualify for a special election. Gray Davis also faced a recall petition in 1999, but that effort failed to gain enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

And the precedent was set back in 1921:

The North Dakota recall election was a recall election of North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier in 1921. Frazier was the first American governor ever successfully recalled from office;
...
The recall stemmed from the conflict between the socialist-leaning Nonpartisan League, of which Governor Frazier was a member, and the Independent Voters Association, a conservative and pro-capitalist faction. Frazier and his party supported state ownership of industries, while the IVA opposed it. A dispute broke out specifically over government ownership of the Bank of North Dakota and State Mill and Elevator.

What is your opinion on the way they should be used?

[brettmcd]

They should be used if the person in office commits a criminal act.    Not because they do things you disagree with them politically on.   That is what regular elections are for.

[Isgrimnur]

They should be used if the person in office commits a criminal act.    

That would be what impeachment is for.  

For example, Evan Mecham was impeached before he could be recalled. 

[Teggy]

Why should you have to hold an election if someone commits a crime? They should just get arrested and lose their position.

Recall elections are specifically for when a candidate appears to have misrepresented themselves in the eyes of the voters and is acting against the best interests of the state.

It is no small effort to get someone recalled - you have to really screw up to get enough momentum to meet the requirements.

[brettmcd]

They should be used if the person in office commits a criminal act.    

That would be what impeachment is for.  

For example, Evan Mecham was impeached before he could be recalled. 

Yes and no, impeachment usually means nothing if the legislature is controlled by the party of the person being impeached.   Recall should be seen as the citizens way to impeach a public official.

[Isgrimnur]

Recalls are as politically motivated as impeachments.  You're off base in both the definitions and precedents of how recalls are supposed to work and have been used in the past. 

[corruptrelic]

The machine is behind on the news today.

First-term Republican Gov. Scott Walker will win the Wisconsin recall election, CBS News estimates, beating back a labor-backed effort to unseat him and again handing defeat to his Democratic challenger, 58-year-old Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

With 56 percent of the expected vote in, Walker led Barrett 57 percent to 42 percent.

"it's time to put our differences aside and find ways to work together to move Wisconsin forward," Walker told the Associated Press after his victory became clear. The 44-year-old added that the win "feels good."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57447954-503544/wisconsin-recall-walker-opens-slight-lead-as-votes-are-counted/

[corruptrelic]

And Barrett gets slapped!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hYPrcqQSsVg

[naednek]

Using the recall process when you feel that the elected official has breached the public's trust through rampant political maneuvering is exactly the way a recall should be used.  It's the best example of democracy in action. 

Take a look at the Gray Davis recall:

Before the successful recall of Gray Davis, no California statewide official had ever been recalled, though there had been 117 previous attempts. Only seven of those even made it onto the ballot, all for state legislators. Every governor since Ronald Reagan in 1968 has been subject to a recall effort, but Gray Davis was the first governor whose opponents gathered the necessary signatures to qualify for a special election. Gray Davis also faced a recall petition in 1999, but that effort failed to gain enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

And the precedent was set back in 1921:

The North Dakota recall election was a recall election of North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier in 1921. Frazier was the first American governor ever successfully recalled from office;
...
The recall stemmed from the conflict between the socialist-leaning Nonpartisan League, of which Governor Frazier was a member, and the Independent Voters Association, a conservative and pro-capitalist faction. Frazier and his party supported state ownership of industries, while the IVA opposed it. A dispute broke out specifically over government ownership of the Bank of North Dakota and State Mill and Elevator.

What is your opinion on the way they should be used?

And becareful what you wish for.  After recalling Davis we got Arnold, and holy shit he royally screwed up CA.