AG: Gov and Lt. Gov Must Be Recalled Separately
MADISON — Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a formal opinion today concluding that the Wisconsin Constitution’s recall provisions apply independently to the Office of Governor and the Office of Lieutenant Governor. If the constitutional requirements for a recall election are met with respect to one officer, only that office will appear on the ballot in a recall election. If both officers were to be recalled, recall elections would be held for each office and electors would vote for those offices independently.
In the general election, as opposed to a recall election, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor are jointly elected as a partisan ticket.
JB with another head scratcher here.
The offices are elected together as if on ONE ticket. It would make no sense for Walker to win a recall and Rebecca to lose one to say Babs Lawton. Or vice versa if Dave Obey beats Walker but Rebecca hangs on. Do we really want two opposing forces in the Gov./Lt. Gov. offices? I don’t.
But then again after what we’ve been through the past year, I’m thinking a Walker/Lena Taylor tandem is what we’ll end up with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2011 at 1950 hrs
I’m not sure of all of the reasoning either. I could argue it either way. Sure, they are elected as a single ticket, but the offices are seperately defined in the state constitution.
Posted by Owen on November 03, 2011 at 1952 hrs
Here is an interesting twist, if Walker is losing in polls leading up to a recall and resigns, I presume the Lt Gov would take over for the rest of the term, and NOT be subject to a recall. What happens if Walker LOSES a recall and resigns prior to the winner of the recall election being certified? This individual would not yet be the Gov-elect, and the Lt Gov, I presume would NOT be the individual recalled, and the R party would retain the office for the duration of the original term…..
Just some food for thought considering the strange things that have been happening
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2011 at 2056 hrs
You’re actually discussing the merits of the case and not just glossing it over for what it is: one more partisan move by one more member of the right wing cabal steering our state toward one more ALEC fueled hate-fest for Wisconsin. Let’s just try polarizing some more, it is so good for our state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2011 at 2058 hrs
edit to my post #3
...I presume the Lt Gov would take over and not be subject to the same recall, although would possibly be recallable after being in office for 1 year….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2011 at 2114 hrs
If someone is elected governor - they would become the governor when their term started. If Walker lost and resigned after the election - the Lt. Gov would only hold the office until the gov-elect took over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2011 at 2132 hrs
Mike-I fail to see the benefits to conservatives by splitting the recall into two parts.
Sure it means two elections and an additional set of signatures for the unionistas to deal with, but as noted, I’m not sure that benefits the GOP at all.
I could easily see Walker win his recall and Kleefisch lose hers should a popular and competent Dem run for Lt. Gov.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2011 at 2231 hrs
Steve,
The issue I am questioning is, if Walker resigns BEFORE the vote is certified. the the Lt Gov would be the Governor at that time, and the, yet undeclared and uncertified, Gov-elect would have been elected to recall someone who was no longer, in fact, the governor.
This is equivalent to a little known and thankfully avoided situation where JFK was nearly assassinated prior to the electoral college voting him President elect in 1960.A recall is to replace a certain individual as the governor, if that individual is no longer governor, prior to the election being certified, is it in fact valid? Can you replace someone who is legally the Governor with someone who was elected in a recall effort against anotherm different individual than the actual sitting Governor? Remember, an election is not valid until it is certified.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2011 at 2249 hrs
@elovrich
and to add an additional wrinkle - say both Walker and Kleefisch were either losing big in the polls (or had lost but not certified as you suggested)...Walker resigns, Kleefisch takes over. The recall against Walker fails because you can’t recall somebody who’s no longer holding the office. Recall against Kleefisch fails because she no longer holds the office she was recalled for. And the clock starts ticking on another year wait to be eligible to recall Kleefisch.
Not suggesting any of this would happen - certainly not that it should. Just curious because to be quite honest, I’m so sick of state politics that I might as well get some entertainment out of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 0018 hrs
And Kleefiisch is our governor?
I’m hopin’ those aren’t straight faces reflected in those monitors?
You boys need to get to bed earlier.
I think I’ll do some Christmas shopping here @ B&S.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 0545 hrs
Here is an interesting twist, if Walker is losing in polls leading up to a recall and resigns, I presume the Lt Gov would take over for the rest of the term, and NOT be subject to a recall. What happens if Walker LOSES a recall and resigns prior to the winner of the recall election being certified? This individual would not yet be the Gov-elect, and the Lt Gov, I presume would NOT be the individual recalled, and the R party would retain the office for the duration of the original term…..
Just some food for thought considering the strange things that have been happening
Posted by elovrich on November 03, 2011 at 2156 hrs
If the petitions are filed before resignation, the recall election would go on. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why Walker became Milwaukee County Executive - F. Thomas Ament resigned shortly after the petitions were filed (indeed, IIRC, before the signatures were deemed sufficient by the Milwaukee County Election Commission), and the resulting election was held under recall election rules rather than special election rules.
The question is what would happen if Walker resigned while the DPW was gathering signatures. Before the Dead Hand of Doyle (aka Government “Accountability” Board), I would have said that Kleefisch serves out the remainder of the term and the Recall Walker effort was moot. However, given the GAB (and especially the staff) absolutely, positively needs another ‘Rat as governor to save their jobs, they will rule that the recall would go on, and further that Kleefisch would not enjoy the automatic placement on the ballot the recall target enjoys regardless of whether a simultaneous effort were pending against her as lieutenant governor.
Posted by steveegg on November 04, 2011 at 0554 hrs
A tip of the hat for the maid:)
Do you guys get that blizzard of spam every night?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 0716 hrs
It’s usually not that bad, but yes. There’s a place in hell for spammers.
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2011 at 0742 hrs
Regardless of the Governor and Lt Governor being elected together, if the purpose of a recall is to remove someone who has committed malfeasance, then they should be recalled individually.
If the Governor has committed malfeasance, then the lefties can make their arguments, collect their signatures, and perhaps get their recall election for the office of Governor.
And if the Lt. Governor has also committed malfeasance, then the lefties can make their arguments, collect their signatures, and perhaps get their recall election for the office of the Lt. Governor as well.
The fact that they want a two-for, recalling them both with one recall election, tells you all you need to know - this isn’t about malfeasance, they just want to undo an election result they don’t like.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 0753 hrs
Upon further review…...
It looks like my scenario was foreseen by the drafters of the Wisconsin Constitution (is that scary, that they would have had the foresight to short-circuit something as Machiavellian as this?
Art XIII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Recall of elective officers. SECTION 12. [As created Nov.
1926 and amended April 1981].The qualified electors of the
state, of any congressional, judicial or legislative district or of
any county may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective
officer after the first year of the term for which the incumbent
was elected, by filing a petition with the filing officer with whom
the nomination petition to the office in the primary is filed,
demanding the recall of the incumbent.
(1) The recall petition shall be signed by electors equalling
at least twenty−five percent of the vote cast for the office of governor
at the last preceding election, in the state, county or district
which the incumbent represents.
(2) The filing officer with whom the recall petition is filed
shall call a recall election for the Tuesday of the 6th week after
the date of filing the petition or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday,
on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
(3) The incumbent shall continue to perform the duties of the
office until the recall election results are officially declared….
(italics and bolding added for emphasis of relevant passage)The opnly questoin that remains is do the subsections run consecutively or concurrrently, in other words would Walked be proscribed from resigning at the time the recall petition is deemed correct and sufficient, or only once the date of the recall election has been set? since sub-sections 1 and 2, and the following subsection, which deals with filing to appear on the ballot, seem to rum consecutively, my gut feeling is that 3 would have to be that way as well, so Walker would have until the point when the date of the recall election has been announced to resign, if that is a tactic the Republicans would want to take to preserve the Governorship.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 0758 hrs
Locke starts down another path that would prove interesting (can you tell I have a long weekend without any classes? My brain has all sorts of time to devise outlandish scenarios to debate)
One question to preface this, the answer to which I do know: If a Governor resigns, does the Lt Gov (now Governor) appoint a replacement for the office or Lt Gov?
If the answer is yes, try this scenario: Walker resigns when it is reported that enough signatures have been collected (which seems quite likely that it WOULD be reported ahead of the document actually being filed for validation); Kleefisch becomes the Governor and is no subject to the recall which is now voided as moot; She appoints a new LtGov (if that is the answer to my previous question) WALKER; Kleefisch now resigns and Walker becomes the Governor to complete the original term he held.
Are you starting to see why Wisconsin should align its constitution with her neighbor to the west in regards to requiring a recall petition include a reason or reasons based on mis- or malfeasance? You could, in theory, play this game for the entire term, resigning and unresigning as needed (and what could the Dems say about it, wouldn’t it be thee same as retiring and unretiring?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 0815 hrs
edit: One question to preface this, the answer to which I do not know:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 0816 hrs
I voted for Walker, but if he were to be recalled and any of this Machiavellian horseplay was attempted, I would call it unethical and improper and I would oppose it. At least I would have up until I saw what the Flee Baggers did in response to the budget vote. As far as I’m concerned, when they did that, they declared that the gloves are off and it doesn’t matter a rat’s patoot to them what happened in an election. Conservatives are litterally having to fight for their political lives against an opposition in this state who don’t know the meaning of the words “unethical” or “improper.” Now I say, give it back to ‘em in spades.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2011 at 1259 hrs
Total Entries: 19703
Total Comments: 130368
Most Recent Entry: 02/22/2012 10:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/22/2012 10:41 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 94
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/23/2012 04:37 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).