SENATE RESOLUTION: The Recall of Senators Amendment (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As currently worded, I think the bill is closest right now to option 2.

Maybe we could go with a compromise between 1 and 2? Where the federal government sets a minimum standard for Senate recalls and regions are allowed to make the recall requirements even harder?

Of course we would then need to decide which is the minimum federal level we want.

Yea, the bill is fairly close to number 2, I probably should have flipped the numbers around to emphasize that fact.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Disappointing that responses from the other members have trailed off. Especially so for an amendment considering the level of support that is required for passage.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will campaign against ratification if the Senate votes to pass the bill as written. The original version of this amendment (which I wrote) gave the regions the option of allowing senatorial recall elections in their Constitutions and left the methods for conducting such elections to the regions themselves. The current text, by contrast, would diminish regional autonomy by requiring the regions to conduct senatorial recall elections under certain circumstances and enumerating exactly how and when those elections are to take place. We worked very hard at the ConCon to avoid this kind of federal overreach, and it would be terribly ironic if the Senate—supposedly the house of the regions—were to begin the march of rolling back that progress.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will campaign against ratification if the Senate votes to pass the bill as written. The original version of this amendment (which I wrote) gave the regions the option of allowing senatorial recall elections in their Constitutions and left the methods for conducting such elections to the regions themselves. The current text, by contrast, would diminish regional autonomy by requiring the regions to conduct senatorial recall elections under certain circumstances and enumerating exactly how and when those elections are to take place. We worked very hard at the ConCon to avoid this kind of federal overreach, and it would be terribly ironic if the Senate—supposedly the house of the regions—were to begin the march of rolling back that progress.

Well the thing is I am not even certain what level of support the current text even has in this chamber, silence doesn't always mean support.

I would also draw a parallel to the 17th Amendment pre-reset, which delegated the manner of amendment ratification. Even after it was abused, the amendment was largely preserved for a good long while included my myself in spite of the role played by Rimjobbers in abusing it and such forth. Though there were attempts to attach strings and other means of preventing such a thing from happening again, I seem to recall them all being defeated, more so by a collective disunity on the preferred approach (basically what we know call, "Everyone wants reform, but no one wants your/this reform", as opposed to some doctrinaire embrace of regionalism.

Frankly if one were to put money on it, it could be said that the likely outcome for both this and the VP amendment is the same and likely for the same reason as well.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I do think this needs to be returned to how it was originally written. The regions should have the sole power to decide the constraints of recall for their Senators.
Someone just needs to introduce an amendment to return the wording to the text originally introduced:

Senate Resolution

To allow for recall of Senators by the Regions they represent.

Be it resolved by two-thirds of each chamber that the Constitution be amended, as follows, upon ratification by the regions.

Section I: Title
1. This Resolution shall be titled, "The Recall of Senators Amendment"

Section 2: Changes to the Constitution
Article III, Section II, Clause 1 is amended as follows.

1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall consist of two Senators from each Region, elected for a term of four months in the manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Senators shall be subject to recall according to such provisions as may be established in the constitutions of their respective Regions; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein.

[Former President tack50]

I will campaign against ratification if the Senate votes to pass the bill as written. The original version of this amendment (which I wrote) gave the regions the option of allowing senatorial recall elections in their Constitutions and left the methods for conducting such elections to the regions themselves. The current text, by contrast, would diminish regional autonomy by requiring the regions to conduct senatorial recall elections under certain circumstances and enumerating exactly how and when those elections are to take place. We worked very hard at the ConCon to avoid this kind of federal overreach, and it would be terribly ironic if the Senate—supposedly the house of the regions—were to begin the march of rolling back that progress.

Actually, the pro-regional autonomy argument is a very strong one and one I agree with. However, others have said that recalls being allowed with their requirements established by the regions can be dangerous and easily abused.

To quote Yankee from previously:

I think we have a real problem here and it requires something of a judgement call. This is where we are at in my opinion:

1. We can go with complete regional discretion on how to structure their recalls, as that is in line with the constitutions delegation of administration of Senate elections and manner in which such is done. But this opens the risk to massive exploitation by Windjammer and his ilk.

2. We can go the opposite direction and dictate the exact manner of said recall, which erodes regional authority to determine their own procedures for elections while at the same time giving them the ability to recall their Senators.

3. We can do nothing and let the status quo remain.

According to your post, the current law seems to be option 1 (where the regions determine the requirements to recall a sitting Senator). In that case, this ammendment would be quite redundant other than actually specifying the requirements.

I thought recalls were completely illegal as of now?

If they are legal, considering that Senate recalls have never happened, I would probably either ammend the bill heavily so it's just a clarification ammendment or outright move to table and keep the status quo.

However, that might be dangerous precisely because region handled recalls can be abused, although they haven't been abused thus far. So I'd be tempted to keep the status quo, but it would open the door to abuse later.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

At current it is unclear constitutionally whether regions can recall Senators. The point of this amendment should simply to make it clear within the constitutional powers that regions do indeed possess the power to recall Senators.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I thank the Senator from Lincoln for his remarks, which I hold, as I do him, in the highest regard.

When it comes to potential abuse, I stand by what I said almost four years ago when I voted with a majority of the ConCon to give over control of Senatorial elections to the regions.

I should note that, as a matter of principle, I do not support empowering the Regional legislatures to elect the Senate. If we want the federal system to be at all meaningful, however, we must give the Regions real responsibilities, and that means creating the possibility that they will make mistakes. If our continual response to vesting more powers in the Regions is, "Oh, not that, that's too important," the Regions will continue to be powerless and people will continue to not give two cents about Regional elections.

I've argued for and against a circus of schemes for constitutional reform in the last four years, and after a while, you start to see the same lines and objections come up again and again. The Senator's argument, while made I am sure in good faith, is a bad one. Here's why:

(a) Reading his posts, I have no idea what "abuses" he imagines are imminent or why he thinks they are likely to occur. All constitutional systems are subject to abuse. This is true of the central government and of the Regions. When arranging our system of government, however, we should confine ourselves to facts and evidence backed up by careful observation of the way the politics of this country actually unfold—not on unfounded suspicions of unknown crimes anticipated in the vague future.

This non-specific fear of "CORRUPTION!" inevitably comes up as the motivation for various restrictive "reforms," most recently in debate over the  the Anti-pluralism Amendment, when it was argued we must abolish dual officeholding because an Attorney General who also serves in their regional government is one step short of dictatorship—despite no evidence that dual officeholding has harmed the country in any way whatsoever in the last three years (but I digress).

(b) "The Regions can't be trusted, centralize all power in Nyman" is a line almost as old as non-specific fears of corruption, and just as unfounded. There's really no reason to believe elections are more likely to be free and fair if regulated by Congress as opposed to the Regions. Alternatively, if the Regions cannot be trusted to administer recall elections fairly, how are other elections any different? Should all elections for regional office be administered by the DoFE, for fear of potential "abuse" by regional administrators?

This gets at a larger pattern, however, of trying to prevent non-existant corruption with layers of restrictive legislation and bureaucracy. No amount of legislation will eliminate the potential for corruption, because corruption is a failure of character and not of laws. We see this all the time in reform proposals which basically amount to attempts to ban Congress or the Regions from making bad laws. If you're worried that your Region will make a bad call when setting down the rules for Senatorial recall elections, then get involved in regional politics, contact your representatives, and find a solution. Ultimately, Congress cannot hold the Regions' hands and save them from their own stupidity while also preserving the Regions as relevant actors in national politics. Again, "If our continual response to vesting more powers in the Regions is, "Oh, not that, that's too important," the Regions will continue to be powerless and people will continue to not give two cents about Regional elections."

(c) Every Region currently allow for the recall of their executive and the members of their legislature. Are these rules "dangerous and easily abused?" If not, why do we think the Regions will suddenly go mad with power if allowed to make rules for Senatorial recall elections (which in all likelihood would be the same as the existing rules for the recall of regional officers) as well?


It comes down to whether Senatorial elections should be regulated by the federal government or by the Regions. I contend—with the majority of the ConCon in 2015—that if the Senate is supposed to speak for the Regions, the Regions ought to have the final say in how its members are elected. Giving Nyman control over Senatorial recall elections takes away that power by giving the federal government the final say on whether, and how, a Senator's mandate may be rescinded. That, not the phantom of non-existant abuse, is the real danger of this amendment—and why it must be defeated in its present form.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly, I agree that we should try to give more power to the regions wherever possible, and that includes Senate elections. I fully agree with the remarks made above.

The only reason why I am worried about the potential for abuse is because we have actually had a direct threat warning about that possibility, from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a very experienced player and politician no less. To quote directly:

I mean,
It appears I have to repeat myself but you cannot imagine how easily this kind of clause can be hijacked. "Hell is paved with good intentions".

I invaded once a region, transformed it from the most socon one to a labor stronghold by flipping the IRL DINOs by running on a socially moderate platform and by moving voters en masse to this.

If I were playing this game with that clause, Griffin and I would have easily targeted senators by moving voters en masse and then started a recall.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind this, inactive senators get expulsed by the senate. What the point of passing that?

That was with the unammended more pro-region version:

Section I: Title
1. This Resolution shall be titled, "The Recall of Senators Amendment"

Section 2: Changes to the Constitution
Article III, Section II, Clause 1 is amended as follows.

1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall consist of two Senators from each Region, elected for a term of four months in the manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Senators shall be subject to recall according to such provisions as may be established in the constitutions of their respective Regions; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein.

I imagine this wording would be better in your opinion? Originally the bill left the conditions for recall to the Regions themselves.

On the other hand, it's worth noting that without the extended barriers, the ammendment might not pass the House anyways, just like it happened last time. I actually personally prefer the original wording (and I think I mentioned that earlier), but the ammendment was apparently required to make House passage easier.

If the pro-region version is rejected by the House, and the more centralized version is rejected by the people, then I think there is no way for this amemndment to pass.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Might I suggest we solicit the opinions of the honourable members of the House before leaping to conclusions about its chances of passage in the House.
The fact is the current amended wording has no chance of passing referendum in all 3 regions. The clear solution is to attempt to ensure the positive appraisal of the House.
There is one possible solution. All 3 regions pre-emptively introduce constitutional amendments introducing the stringent requirements for recall as set out in the amended wording. That means that although the regions have the power to decide on procedure, the House can be assured that indeed the stringent requirements of the amended wording have already been adopted by the regions.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I imagine this wording would be better in your opinion?

Considering I wrote it, yes.

Windjammer makes a strong argument for why Senators should not be subject to recall at all—maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the point of his post is that Senatorial recall elections should be federally regulated so much as they just shouldn't be allowed, as the concerns he raises would still apply to the amendment as currently written. Unless the Senate intends to outlaw strategic registration altogether (and it would be very difficult to do that without passing a blanket ban on all regional moves, or requiring Congress approve each move individually), there's no way to prevent the kind of abuse the chief justice describes if we are going to allow Senatorial recall elections to proceed.

Personally, I would rather no amendment be passed than a bad amendment, considering we already have a mechanism for removing malperforming Senators (expulsion).

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I imagine this wording would be better in your opinion?

Considering I wrote it, yes.

Windjammer makes a strong argument for why Senators should not be subject to recall at all—maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the point of his post is that Senatorial recall elections should be federally regulated so much as they just shouldn't be allowed, as the concerns he raises would still apply to the amendment as currently written. Unless the Senate intends to outlaw strategic registration altogether (and it would be very difficult to do that without passing a blanket ban on all regional moves, or requiring Congress approve each move individually), there's no way to prevent the kind of abuse the chief justice describes if we are going to allow Senatorial recall elections to proceed.

Personally, I would rather no amendment be passed than a bad amendment, considering we already have a mechanism for removing malperforming Senators (expulsion).

Well we do need a amendment to sort this in some way, because at current it is unclear whether the regions hold the power of recall or not. There's been a legal case over this on the horizon for quite some time, and it does need to be resolved.
The constitution needs to be amended to make it plainly clear whether or not Senators may be recalled.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Well we do need a amendment to sort this in some way, because at current it is unclear whether the regions hold the power of recall or not.

Not really. We don't need to add a line to the Constitution every time someone is wrong.

Besides, giving the Courts something to do isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Well we do need a amendment to sort this in some way, because at current it is unclear whether the regions hold the power of recall or not.

Not really. We don't need to add a line to the Constitution every time someone is wrong.

Besides, giving the Courts something to do isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If we want to do it this way, then can someone soon launch a recall petition for a sitting senator, so we can get this legal question to the Supreme Court already.

[Former President tack50]

Well we do need a amendment to sort this in some way, because at current it is unclear whether the regions hold the power of recall or not.

Not really. We don't need to add a line to the Constitution every time someone is wrong.

Besides, giving the Courts something to do isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If we want to do it this way, then can someone soon launch a recall petition for a sitting senator, so we can get this legal question to the Supreme Court already.

Uh, I'd rather not have a recall against any of my fellow colleagues or against myself; as we are all active and capable legislators (though of course if the people want that they can still collect signatures for a petition).

This is something that should happen whenever it is appropiate. A good example could have been, say, Lechasseur's expulsion (which was very much non-controversial and took quite a while to be effective).

As for the bill itself, I hope someone from the House will come here and tell their opinion, as I'd rather not pass it here only to fail later in the other chamber. Given the current situation, I would propose an ammendment to restore the original wording. If that version has enough support, I would move for a final vote. If it seems passage in the House will be impossible, or other Senators have concerns about the original wording, then I would motion to table the resolution.

Overall I think the most likely scenario is tabling this but others are not unthinkable or particularly unlikely.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Seriously can a Senator please sponsor an amendment to revert this Amendment back to its originally introduced wording.

Senate Resolution

To allow for recall of Senators by the Regions they represent.

Be it resolved by two-thirds of each chamber that the Constitution be amended, as follows, upon ratification by the regions.

Section I: Title
1. This Resolution shall be titled, "The Recall of Senators Amendment"

Section 2: Changes to the Constitution
Article III, Section II, Clause 1 is amended as follows.

1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall consist of two Senators from each Region, elected for a term of four months in the manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Senators shall be subject to recall according to such provisions as may be established in the constitutions of their respective Regions; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein.

[Former President tack50]

Seriously can a Senator please sponsor an amendment to revert this Amendment back to its originally introduced wording.

Senate Resolution

To allow for recall of Senators by the Regions they represent.

Be it resolved by two-thirds of each chamber that the Constitution be amended, as follows, upon ratification by the regions.

Section I: Title
1. This Resolution shall be titled, "The Recall of Senators Amendment"

Section 2: Changes to the Constitution
Article III, Section II, Clause 1 is amended as follows.

1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall consist of two Senators from each Region, elected for a term of four months in the manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Senators shall be subject to recall according to such provisions as may be established in the constitutions of their respective Regions; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein.

I will sponsor this

I guess if it passes it can be the House who can deal with the issue

[Peanut]

I will offer my two cents now. Better late than never.

The concerns Windjammer raised are very valid and I do think should be held as a slight deterrent against Senatorial recalls. However, if this Congress sees fit to pass a measure regulating such a process, and does indeed give specifics on the issue, I will, in the strongest possible terms, defend the rights of the regions to regulate their own proceedings around recall elections. How is it possible that the federal constitution does not clarify how Senators are elected, just how they are removed? It is part of the regions' prerrogative to establish our own proceedings in what pertains to Senatorial recall. If we are given the right to recall Senators we believe do not serve us correctly, then the right to do so is ours, not the federal government's. I would rather address concerns like Windjammer's first, but if this Senate sees fit to pass this Amendment, I will not support it unless it has specifications in what pertains to the regions' rights. Let's not underestimate the regional governments: we can handle our restrictions and safeguards. Rest assured that I will do so in Lincoln. I will be discussing this further with the Councillors.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senate Resolution

To allow for recall of Senators by the Regions they represent.

Be it resolved by two-thirds of each chamber that the Constitution be amended, as follows, upon ratification by the regions.

Section I: Title
1. This Resolution shall be titled, "The Recall of Senators Amendment"

Section 2: Changes to the Constitution
Article III, Section II, Clause 1 is amended as follows.

1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall consist of two Senators from each Region, elected for a term of four months in the manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Senators shall be subject to recall according to such provisions as may be established in the constitutions of their respective Regions; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours object.

[YE]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

[YE]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Regions already probably have the power to recall their senators, though it would need an SC decision to make it clear. This is just codifying it so we don't eventually have a long dragged out SC case over whether or not regions have the power to recall senators under the constitution as currently worded.

[YE]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Regions already probably have the power to recall their senators, though it would need an SC decision to make it clear. This is just codifying it so we don't eventually have a long dragged out SC case over whether or not regions have the power to recall senators under the constitution as currently worded.

No they do not.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Regions already probably have the power to recall their senators, though it would need an SC decision to make it clear. This is just codifying it so we don't eventually have a long dragged out SC case over whether or not regions have the power to recall senators under the constitution as currently worded.

No they do not.

I said probably. It is a disputed point of law, and quite frankly it's a shame Lech's recall didn't go to the SC so it could be sorted. The constitution isn't clear whether or not the regions can recall senators, and different people have different opinions on whether or not it is currently constitutional.
At current it is up to the Supreme Court to at some point decide once and for all whether senatorial recalls are constitutional under the current wording.