SR 8902: Recall of Senators Amendment

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: North Carolina Yankee

[Sestak]

Sponsor has 24 hours to advocate.

[Sestak]

I offer the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

My first change ensures that the region actually holds a Yes or No vote on recall instead of jumping to an open election and then interpreting an incumbent failing to reach 50% on first preferences as a “majority for recall”.

My second change ensures that the bar for initiating a recall cannot be absurdly low compared to the bar for initiating recall for regional officials; in particular, regions can’t just say “A recall vote on Senators shall be held on the 3rd weekend of each month” or something.

[Sirius_]

I personally believe the threshold should be at least 60% of the vote in order to prevent abuse.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First off as a procedural note, the amendment as offered by Senator Sestak is in violation of Senate rules: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=290384.msg6175730#msg6175730.

All amendments to Resolutions seeking to amend the constitution must amend not only the body of the text, but also the last section explaining how the amendment changes the constitution and why.

This requirement was made in response to several complaints by citizens who have long found themselves voting on complex constitutional amendments without a clear understanding of what is being changed and why. We should not be ignoring existing Senate/House rules an federal statute when it comes to the transparency of one of the most critical processes for the functioning and preservation of our democracy and our liberties, that of amending the constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As to the underlying text, which I offered trying to balance the desire for reform with also the concerns about it being abused. I therefore opted for the text shown based largely on conversations I had with Senator Sestak and separately with Governor Tmthforu94. I will however note that since then Speaker Tim Turner has gotten back to me and wishes that the text include stricter standards than those present. His request being a majority of registered voters in the region being cast in favor.


I am open to alteration of this text, because I think that there are many acceptable ways to structure this and there are a few that will address everyone's concerns. While I certainly share the concerns about abuse having lived through Pacific Rimjob in 2013, I am very much familiar with how this could be abused.

On the other hand there are two countering points that come to mind in regards to this. One is that the regions should be a responsible player in this and at the same time we should minimize complexity in the constitution. Therefore spelling out more and more of the process here in the Constitution, I think eventually would be inappropriate Lastly, the other concern would be the effectiveness of the process as the more benchmarks and thresholds that are incorporated, the harder it will be to recall Senators even in legitimate circumstances.

I therefore encourage all of my colleagues to consider equally these concerns and render judgment and proposals in response to said judgment while keeping those clearly in mind.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The major objection I have to this would be that the Constitution currently allows the regions to determine the manner in which their senators will be elected—whereas this amendment mandates a popular vote for recall elections. While all three regions currently utilize a popular vote for senatorial elections, it is not inconceivable that one or more might choose to confer that power to the legislator, or to some sort of electoral college, in the future. Were that to happen, I think it would be unwise to have senators be elected by one body of electors but be subject to recall by another.

The solution that immediately jumps to mind would be to replace " a majority of registered voters" with "a majority of the persons eligible to vote in senatorial elections," but I'd be interested to hear others' views on the propriety of such, especially with regard to the potential for abuse.

[tmthforu94]

"Regions shall have the ability to recall its senators as prescribed by the legislature thereof."

[Sestak]

"Regions shall have the ability to recall its senators as prescribed by the legislature thereof."

This could allow a region to ad hoc decide it wants its Senators' terms to be one month long instead of four, even if the constitution says four. Are we okay with that?

[Sestak]

"Regions shall have the ability to recall its senators as prescribed by the legislature thereof."

This could allow a region to ad hoc decide it wants its Senators' terms to be one month long instead of four, even if the constitution says four. Are we okay with that?

[tmthforu94]

"Regions shall have the ability to recall its senators as prescribed by the legislature thereof."

This could allow a region to ad hoc decide it wants its Senators' terms to be one month long instead of four, even if the constitution says four. Are we okay with that?

Not sure how you're interpreting that, the first sentence of the clause says it is 4 month terms, so region's would still be stuck to that. Region's already have the ability to determine how to elect the senators. Heck the South could legislate that the Senator is the person who can sling a possum across the front yard the farthest. That doesn't mean it'll happen.

[Sestak]

"Regions shall have the ability to recall its senators as prescribed by the legislature thereof."

This could allow a region to ad hoc decide it wants its Senators' terms to be one month long instead of four, even if the constitution says four. Are we okay with that?

Not sure how you're interpreting that, the first sentence of the clause says it is 4 month terms, so region's would still be stuck to that. Region's already have the ability to determine how to elect the senators. Heck the South could legislate that the Senator is the person who can sling a possum across the front yard the farthest. That doesn't mean it'll happen.

A region could pass something like "a recall election shall automatically be held each month" is my concern.

Then they could go straight to an election between candidates without a "Yes/No" for recall.

Also regarding the general point - whether or not the Senators are elected by the people or by some other method, the selection is for a term of four months. Regardless of how they were selected then, it is my opinion that the ability to cut that term short should only be given to the population.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Truman makes a critically important point. We cannot presume that that the current method of electing Senators will always be the one utilized or that at some point in the future a Region doesn't opt to make say their Governor a Senator.

[tmthforu94]

That's a valid concern - my point, however, is that we could spend WEEKS discussing all of the hypotheticals that regions could do. We've entrusted The Regions and The People to determine how to best elect their senators, I support entrusting The Regions the right to make the same decisions regarding recalls.

[Sestak]

We could perhaps go with "Regions shall have the ability to recall its senators as prescribed by the legislature thereof, provided that such recalls are not prescribed in a manner undermining or circumventing this constitution." or something.

Also I'm still skeptical that if, say, the legislature can elect a Senator with a majority then they should also be able remove them with a majority. If we do that, then regional legislative elections would effectively also be elections for both Senate seats, and for all practical purposes the terms of both Senators would just be the same as the regional legislative term, as the opposition would immediately remove both senators if they took control of the state legislature.

[Sestak]

The Senate's four month term has to mean something. Cutting this short, in my opinion, shouldn't be something that regions basically have unlimited ability to do. If that's the case, we might as well repeal the set term lengths and election dates from the constitution and allow the regions to set the terms etc for the Senate as well.

[tmthforu94]

The Senate's four month term has to mean something. Cutting this short, in my opinion, shouldn't be something that regions basically have unlimited ability to do. If that's the case, we might as well repeal the set term lengths and election dates from the constitution and allow the regions to set the terms etc for the Senate as well.

I think it is highly improbable any region would do this, the thought of doing this hadn't even crossed my mind before you suggested it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

By adding the recall process you are by definition creating an exception to the 4 month clause stipulated in the constitution. The question then becomes how you narrow or broad you want the exception to be.

One possibility is that you could say in a manner proscribed by the Regional Constitutions, that way it would be more difficult to abuse since you would have to amend a regional constitution to change it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Perhaps something like this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

The first clause of the passage in bold allows the regions to determine whether, and how, to recall their Senators; the second addresses Sestak's concern, by prohibiting the regions from scheduling regular elections for the Senate, except in February–June–October/April–August–December, as described in Article III§2(ii). Essentially, Senatorial terms would continue to last four months, but the regions would now have the option of replacing a senator mid-term if they so choose.

Thoughts?

[Sestak]

I'll withdraw my amendment and introduce Truman's instead.

Awaiting sponsor feedback.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Friendly, there is no one more experienced and qualified to thread this needle than the one who wrote large portions of the current Constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to the adoption of the above amendment.

[Pericles]

I'm reluctant with this amendment that it seems to give the regions unlimited discretion in deciding their recall process, and that this may have unintended negative consequences and potentially lead to outcomes that are not fully representative of the popular will.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm reluctant with this amendment that it seems to give the regions unlimited discretion in deciding their recall process, and that this may have unintended negative consequences and potentially lead to outcomes that are not fully representative of the popular will.

Is that an objection?

[Pericles]

I'm reluctant with this amendment that it seems to give the regions unlimited discretion in deciding their recall process, and that this may have unintended negative consequences and potentially lead to outcomes that are not fully representative of the popular will.

Is that an objection?

I was hoping someone would engage with this to try and reassure me, but since that hasn't happened it is an objection.