(Rep. Tim) Walberg Recall Language Approved

The Lenawee County Elections Commission today approved the wording of a recall campaign against U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg.

Jackson resident James Carr has 90 days to gather more than 50,000 valid signatures across the 7th District, said Lenawee County clerk LouAnn Bluntschly.

An attorney for Walberg, R-Tipton, has said the recall effort violates the U.S. Constitution, which has no provision for recalling presidents, senators of representatives.

If Carr can get the signatures and the Secretary of State approves the petitions, a recall election against Walberg would held in either February or May 2008.

"Congressman Walberg has voted for the continuation and funding of the current conflict in Iraq without providing sufficient funds, thereby necessitating the borrowing of money by the federal treasury, thus increasing the federal debt on the current and future taxpayers of this country."

Actually, the attorney for the Representative is correct. There is only one constitutional way for a Representative to lose his seat mid-term. That is for the House itself to kick him out.

With that said, there is an alternative, which pool players would call a two-rail shot. Some states, like Arizona, do have recall provisions for Members of Congress. It works like this: when someone runs for House or Senate from that state, they are officially asked to "consent" to a recall, meaning that if they are recalled under state law, they agree that they will resign their federal office.

Other than pathetic embarrassment, it is unclear what the enforcement mechanism is. Still, a few states have this, and it is gradually spreading to other states.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "It Bleeds, It Leads, It Deceives"

There are 18 states that have recall provisions in their Constitutions. Most of these recall provisions are for State Officals although a couple of states do include U.S. Officials (Sen. & Rep.) in their state recall provisions.

Congressman Billybob is right and here is why:

The United States Constitution expressly establishes the exclusive qualifications for congressional office, sets the specific length of terms for Members of the House and for Senators, and places the authority within each House of Congress to judge the elections and qualifications of, and to discipline and remove, its own Members. These provisions of the United States Constitution, with respect to federal officials, have supremacy over State laws and provisions, and State laws in conflict with such constitutional provisions have been found by the courts in the past to be invalid. Although the language of some State recall laws might be broad enough to include Members of Congress, or might even explicitly include such federal officers, such statutes would not appear to be effective in overriding the provisions of the United States Constitution with regard to terms of office, elections and removal of Members.

As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution.

Alaska - Const. Art. 11, §8; AS §14.08.081, 15.45.47 et seq., 15.60.010, 29.26.240 et seq.
Arizona - Const. Art. 8, §1-6; Ariz. Rev. Stat. §19-201 - 19-234
California - Const. Art. 2, §13-19; CA Election Code §11000-11386
Colorado - Const. Art. 21, §1; Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-12-101 - 1-12-122, 23-17-120.5, 31-4-501 - 31-4-505
Georgia - Const. Art. 2, §2.4; Ga. Code §21-4-1 et seq.
Idaho - Const. Art. 6, §6; Idaho Code §34-1701 - 34-1715
Kansas - Const. Art. 4, §3; KSA §25-4301 - 25-4331
Louisiana - Const. Art. 10, §26; La. Stats. Ann. §18:1300 - 18:1300.17
Michigan - Const. Art. 2, §8; Mich. Election Law §168.951 - 168.975
Minnesota - Const. Art. 8, §6; Minn. Stat. Ann. §211C.01 et seq.
Montana - no const. provision; Mont. Code § 2-16-601 - 2-16-635
Nevada - Const. Art. 2, §9; Nev. Rev. Stat. §294A.006, Ch. 306, 539.163 - 539.183
New Jersey - Const. Art. 1, §2; NJ Rev. Stat. Ann. § 19:27A-1 - 19:27A-18
North Dakota - Const. Art. 3, §1 and 10; ND Century Code Ann. §16.1-01-09.1, 44-08-21
Oregon - Const. Art. 2, §18; Or. Rev. Stat. §249.865 - 249.880
Rhode Island - Const. Art. 4, §1
Virginia -
Washington - Const. Art. 1,§ 33-34; Wash. Rev. Code §29.82.010 - 29.82.220
Wisconsin - Const. Art. 13, §12; Wis. Stat. Ann. §9.10

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456/

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995

Facts of the Case

On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The “Term Limitation Amendment,” in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.

Question

Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Conclusion

No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and “has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly.” Furthermore, “...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a ‘more perfect Union.’”

So, if a state constitution can’t impose term limits, then how could they impose a recall provision? I’m betting that this ends up in SCOTUS land, and this will be the precedent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.