Replies

Why couldn't a state pass a law that it can remove one of its congressmen if 60% of the people feel their views are not being properly represented? If a certain number of signatures are obtained the congressman's job would be put up for a statewide vote

Because any such law could not become effective UNTIL AFTER the NEXT election. You do recall part of the reason the Supreme Court agreed with candidate Bush in 2000, dont you?

Well, to dave and everyone else: 1) I am not a South Dakotan. 2) I think even if it will take more time for the process to actually remove him prior to 2004, the fact that the process is underway will help to curb the scumbag. 3) There are laws that say you can't change the rules of an election during the election process. I don't see how that has any relevence to a state deciding after the fact that their representative is no longer representing them, and they want someone who will. I see no conflict with such a state provision to keep its representatives actually representing its people and any existing law. Please feel free to advise me if this is not true.