RE: Citizen initiatives and accountability

[Denise Hood <hoosx3@aol.com>]

I believe that the Recall process would go a long way toward making elected officials more accountable. Currently,there's this feeling of "entrenched power" and "entrenched corruption," in the face of which, the average citizen feels helpless. We feel that we have no real way of fighting against the corruption. It's been a self-perpetuating system. As we already explored in Choice 1, the incumbents MOST OFTEN win (with very few exceptions). A good percentage of incumbents seats go unchallenged. And with longevity, I think it is felt, comes corruption. The longer a politician stays in Washington, the more "influenced" and corrupt they get (with few exceptions, on EITHER side of the aisle!) For this reason, many have urged Term Limits, and I also support the idea of term-limits. But I think that Recall could serve the same purpose as term-limits. Recall the corrupt ones, those who have lost touch with their constituents, and are not responsive to their needs, and allow the good public servants to stay on.

I think that if the voter is given the right to Recall a public official they have lost faith in, and who is not serving them, then this will ALSO increase voter participation, because it empowers voters, and makes them feel that they have more of a voice, and are NOT helpless to prevent corruption of their public officials. 

The question is, of course, HOW do we recall? By what process? Who initiates it? I have no experience with the idea of Recall. What percentage of the voters have to vote to recall, a simple majority? A "super-majority"? And how to we safeguard against a group of "special interest" citizens getting together and getting up a petition to recall, because they have some "hidden political agenda" and the power and influence and money to run a campaign to Recall the individual? What if the group of citizens attempting to recall the elected official, rather than the official himself, is corrupt?