Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:26:00.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Operation of the Recall in Oregon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

James D. Barnett
James D. Barnett
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The “final crowning act to complete the temple of popular government here” was the adoption of the “recall” by a constitutional amendment in June, 1908. This provision allows the recall of any elective public officer by the voters of the district from which he was elected. The recall is instituted by filing a petition demanding the recall, signed by twenty-five per cent of the number of electors who voted in the district at the preceding election for justice of the supreme court. The petition must set forth the reasons for the demand. The officer may avoid a recall election by resignation. If he does not resign within five days after the petition has been filed, a special election (in practice it may be called at the same time as the general election) is called to determine whether he shall continue in office. He is virtually a candidate for reëlection without nomination, since others may be nominated for the office, and the person receiving the highest number of votes cast at the election is declared elected, whether he is the person whose recall is demanded or another. No petition may be circulated against an officer until he has held office for six months except in the special case of a member of the legislature, where it may be filed within five days from the beginning of the first session after his election. After one recall election no additional recall petitions may be filed against the same officer during the same term unless the petitioners pay into the public treasury the amount of the expenses of the preceding recall election.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 1912 , pp. 41 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1912

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 One judge of the circuit court has held that the amendment is not operative without additional legislation, and another judge of that court has maintained the contrary view. The assistant attorney early held that the amendment is self-operative, but the attorney general later decided that additional legislation is required to allow its operation.

2 This was the result according to the actual returns. But the canvassers—the recalled officers—denied the legality of the election (they and their followers generally had therefore not participated in the election), and refused to canvass the returns. The decision of the court in mandamus proceedings brought to compel such canvass was delayed until it became useless by the intervention of the regular municipal election. At that time all the recalled officers stood for reëlection and were all defeated.

3 After the recall petition was filed the mayor resigned and was elected recorder by the council. One of the councilmen named in the recall petition resigned and was elected mayor by the council. The other two councilmen concerned resigned and were reëlected by the council. By this process a recall election at the time was avoided. And any further attack was prevented, because the date of the regular election came within the six months' exemption period which followed. “So you can see how easy it is to avoid the recall if the people interested will work together,” said one of those who worked together in this case. At the regular election the whole ticket which these officers represented—some of them stood for reëlection—was defeated on the recall issue.

4 County judges have been included with commissioners, but only in their administrative capacity.

5 A councilman reports that an agent of a corporation threatened to circulate recall petitions against him with the aid of the many employees of the company unless he dropped certain proposed legislation hostile to the interests of the company.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.