While some enthusiastic critics of Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield have made a vigorous effort to force a vote to recall him from office in midterm, there are two very good reasons to reject such an effort.
One is strictly “legal.” The other is “practical.”
The “legal” point was settled Tuesday by a ruling from Circuit Court Judge Jeff Hollingsworth. He said the recall petitioners simply did not meet the legal requirements for a recall.
There are differing state and city laws concerning recalls. The state law would require about 15,000 valid signatures to force a recall vote on the mayor, while city law would require only about 9,000 valid signatures. In such a case, state law prevails, and the recall petitioners did not meet the number of signatures that state law required.
But in addition, for petition signatures to be valid, they had to be accompanied by the dates of signing — which many of the signatures did not have. (The recall petitioners said they had been given bad advice by the Hamilton County Election Commission.)
In any case, the petitions were legally insufficient. So approval has not been given for a recall vote on the Nov. 2 ballot.
But on the merely “practical” point, it is appropriate that the recall effort has failed.
The mayor was duly elected by the people for a stated term of office. Although many voters obviously now strongly disagree with the mayor’s leadership on several points — notably his support of a city property tax increase — seeking to oust the mayor, or any other official, in midterm should require an allegation of some legal or moral impropriety. No such charge has been made in this case.
It is proper to challenge — or support — the mayor or any official on his policies and his votes. But a midterm recall and removal from office should not be attempted only because of strong differences of opinion, even if the objections are valid.
If there is dissatisfaction with an official, the time for him to be rejected is the next election. But to maintain stability in government, it is inappropriate to seek to oust an official in midterm without substantial cause.
Hollingsworth has ruled correctly that the petitioners have not met the requirements to force a recall vote.
Littlefield cannot run again because of term limits. Voters will select a new mayor in the next election.
This is a very weak argument. Is it just me or is anyone else wondering why state law would apply in local matters when there seemed to be a local law that covered the concern. I think I heard last night that the state law would have required almost as many people to sign the recall petition as voted in the last mayoral election. Can someone verify this? How can an arbitrary state number be used in the local case? How is that number adjusted for the size of a city? Imagine recalling a mayor in a city of 10,000 under the 15,000 requirement, no matter how heinous the mayor had become. I am concerned that the judge's decision may have been influenced by thinking similar to that of the author.
On the second point, any time a mayor looses the confidence of the citizens the way that Littlefield did we should be able to fire them. Very few of us have the time to get to know a political candidate well enough to know if they will keep their promises or restrain themselves from irresponsible behavior that threatens the rights of individuals. When they go Jeckle and Hyde on us to the point that we do not feel we are being represented, and enough of us feel that way, we need to have recourse. This idea that we have to live with them for their term comes from, where? Just because some anonymous author declares it so does not make it so.
The lesson of this story we should be talking about is how the laws are so convoluted that a group of persons cannot know how to proceed with something like a recall. Apparently, even the Election Commissioner cannot find and clearly interpret the rules. We have so many poorly written and overlapping laws that we are left subject to the whim of a judge who none of us elected.
A citizen should be able to read and understand the laws he is subject too without investing their life in the study of the legal system!
Yeah, your statement here tells me you are woefully uninformed as to what's really in the law. You can complain about being able to read and understand the laws, but at least demonstrate an attempt to bother doing so.
If you read the actual state law, it is based on percentages, much like the city charter provision was. The difference is that one(the city's) was based on election turnout, the other (the state's) on the number of people eligible to vote. Which is the more fair standard? Well, I prefer the latter myself over the former. Not enough people actually bother to vote for me to be convinced that's a fair way to use that as your benchmark number. If anything, I think 15% of the electorate is better than 50% of the people who voted in the last election, because it gives you a reasonable amount of the populace, without being excessive. And imagine if the turnout were much higher (yeah, pipe dream I know). Then you'd need more people than if it were the state system.
As for why state law trumps city law, it's because of the concept of judicial supremacy, basically the city receives a charter from the state, not the other way around. Check the state constitution, and the city charter. And in the case of this law, when they passed the recall bill, they did authorize municipalities to adopt different provisions, but for some reason the city didn't do it properly.
Your issues with a recall and losing confidence are not relevant, that the state has a recall system is your provision for that. Your arguments would more properly apply to one of the many states which don't have any system at all. Or even the Federal government. Here? You have an avenue, but please at least show you're familiar with them before you start complaining.
Your point that the legal ruling has been made and closes that issue is valid. It is a disgrace that the city council that Littlefield was a member of failed to properly process and make legal the local recall provision. It is disgraceful that no one on the election commission or other sources could provide the correct guidance.
Your "opinion" that recall should be for an illegal act is not credible. The city charter and law enforcement would be the proper avenue for handling those issues.
There should be a law against the mayor and council being able to make an unauthorized withdrawal from citizens bank accounts. That is essentially what they did with increases in property tax rates at 19%, sewer fees at 5.5%, storm water run off fees plus various other increases.
The TFP opinion insist on calling these modest even though annual tax bills have increased, emission testing has been added to city residents annual cost, the storm water run off fees were added a few years ago and increased. These can by no stretch be viewed as modest, especially by those on meager or modest fixed incomes.
You do rightfully place your editorial as "opinion". It gets attention and influences some but is not necessarily correct. Have you noticed all the non-essential spending, improper staffing and general lack of business acumen of the leaders. These increases were not necessary to continue city progress.
Um, they described their support for a recall based on "substantial cause" which while it would include an illegal act, would not necessarily be limited to those. Or even to those provable in a court of law.
I could accept asking for clarification of ambiguity, but it's a bit much to say that their opinion is not credible when it doesn't seem you accurately understand what they said.
And the Emissions Controls? They apply to all county residents, not just those in the city, and from I learned, were instituted by the state, based on Federal requirements for clean air.
Complain about them if you wish, but don't hold the mayor or city council responsible.
Or login with:
New Account