Adopt recall amendment
Issue date: 4/27/09 Section: Opinion
After reading this editorial and forming your own opinion on the topic, think about one name: Blagojevich.
A large number of us would have loved to have him removed from office before he was impeached by the Illinois House and voted out of office by all 59 senators.
The new governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, who was brought into office after you know who was ousted, is pushing for a law that would allow citizens to recall officials if they are running wild in office. A recall amendment such as this one would not mean that a personal bias or simple dislike of official's policies would lend to their ousting. Only highly problematic things such as corruption and other serious offenses would allow citizens to take action.
There are 18 states that have this amendment in place. It doesn't seem like a bad idea for Illinois, a state known for harboring crooked officials such as former governor George Ryan, who was found guilty on all 18 counts of federal corruption charges.
Although there is a double-digit amount of states that follow this amendment, there have only been two cases where it was actually used, which goes to show that relieving officials of their duties is not used every time there is a disagreement or difference of opinion.
In 1921, North Dakota governor Lynn Frazier was the first governor successfully recalled for scandals in office. As recent as 2003, California governor Gray Davis Jr. was also recalled and replaced by current Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
As citizens who vote for elected officials, it is plausible to have Illinois jump on this particular amendment bandwagon. Just as we give officials the power and authority to serve and best represent individuals of this state, we should be able to take all that power back.
A recall does not mean those who helped put a particular individual in office has gone back on their decision and have regrets. It means that the authority figure elected has forced people to feel such negative feelings due to unprofessional or criminal acts, and in turn should step down.
It seems illogical that people can vote someone in to a position, but not share in that same type of power, respect and decency the official receives and have the opportunity to get rid of them. Two previous recalls is not a lot and may send the message that this amendment is not necessary, but considering the low, conniving and criminal acts that former governors have committed, this is enough to enforce it. The push for this recall amendment should continue.
A large number of us would have loved to have him removed from office before he was impeached by the Illinois House and voted out of office by all 59 senators.
The new governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, who was brought into office after you know who was ousted, is pushing for a law that would allow citizens to recall officials if they are running wild in office. A recall amendment such as this one would not mean that a personal bias or simple dislike of official's policies would lend to their ousting. Only highly problematic things such as corruption and other serious offenses would allow citizens to take action.
There are 18 states that have this amendment in place. It doesn't seem like a bad idea for Illinois, a state known for harboring crooked officials such as former governor George Ryan, who was found guilty on all 18 counts of federal corruption charges.
Although there is a double-digit amount of states that follow this amendment, there have only been two cases where it was actually used, which goes to show that relieving officials of their duties is not used every time there is a disagreement or difference of opinion.
In 1921, North Dakota governor Lynn Frazier was the first governor successfully recalled for scandals in office. As recent as 2003, California governor Gray Davis Jr. was also recalled and replaced by current Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
As citizens who vote for elected officials, it is plausible to have Illinois jump on this particular amendment bandwagon. Just as we give officials the power and authority to serve and best represent individuals of this state, we should be able to take all that power back.
A recall does not mean those who helped put a particular individual in office has gone back on their decision and have regrets. It means that the authority figure elected has forced people to feel such negative feelings due to unprofessional or criminal acts, and in turn should step down.
It seems illogical that people can vote someone in to a position, but not share in that same type of power, respect and decency the official receives and have the opportunity to get rid of them. Two previous recalls is not a lot and may send the message that this amendment is not necessary, but considering the low, conniving and criminal acts that former governors have committed, this is enough to enforce it. The push for this recall amendment should continue.
Be the first to comment on this story