The news that a group of disgruntled citizens were attempting to recall Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz triggered and tested a lesson from my childhood. I grew up under the impression that I enjoyed golf, until the day my dad no longer allowed me to take a mulligan to ignore the consequences of a 78-yard tee shot. Even though I had to face the fact that when my shots mattered I was not the next Tiger Woods, the lesson learned on the links that day was mulligans inhibit maturity. They should not be abused.
Don't be fooled when citizens or politicians implore you to support a recall in the name of the people's sovereignty. Most of the time, they are really just asking for a mulligan'an electoral re-do. Short of a player being bludgeoned with an opponent's putter, mulligans are not allowed. Only extreme cases merit a mulligan. It used to be the same with recall elections in that they were used only in extreme circumstances when arbitrary or incompetent officials have angered the public.
A local example of a justified recall took place in 1977 when state judge Archie Simonson drew the ire of irate citizens over comments he made in a rape case. He suggested the 16-year-old girl in question had been dressed in a way to invite sexual assault, and therefore gave the rapist probation. Not surprisingly, this did not sit well with Madison voters and he was recalled.
However, in recent years the criteria of extreme cases has been wildly abandoned, as recall elections have been incorporated into the toolboxes of the state's political parties and special interest groups. For example, in 1996, Wisconsin Democrats used a recall to regain control of the state senate when they booted Sen. George Petak, R-Racine, from office after he voted in favor of building Miller Park. He was the first Wisconsin legislator to ever be recalled, and since then the recall process has been further taken from its moorings.
The recall election has actually become a danger to democracy because it allows a minority of voters who are too impatient to wait until the next election to annul the decision of the majority. Also, because recalls and other special elections tend to have a lower turnout than regular elections, recalls have become a way for organized interests to attempt to install their own candidate in office.
The recall idea is based on the political theory that voters should retain the right of control over their elected officials. However, if Wisconsin's recall fever becomes an epidemic, disgruntled voters will be able to exercise too much power over the political process. This is because, as Carleton College professor Steven Schier and Jeff Mayer of WisPolitics note, 'Political stability and deliberation can suffer through the use of recall election by striking fear into lawmakers who are already running scared.'
If recall elections become any more frequent, lawmakers may be afraid of doing anything at all. In an era of such entrenched interests, hardly any political decision can be reached without angering some set of special interests. By relying on recalls, special interests ensure that standard elections become little more than practice until their side gets it right. If we really want to make sure an elected official is following the dictates of the public, why don't we amend term limits to make sure a politician is sent home after their approval rating drops below 50 percent?
Recognizing that Wisconsin's latest string of recalls has tarnished our electoral system, Rep. Al Ott, R-Forest Junction, has authored a bill that deserves support. His bill would permit recall elections only after a circuit court ruled that a recall petition fell under one of the following: inefficiency, neglect of duty, misconduct or malfeasance. This would insure that recall elections were not the result of ideological disagreement.
The fate of the mayor should not be determined by a mulligan, but will most likely follow another golf analogy. Will Mayor Cieslewicz be recalled for pursuing an agenda too far left? No way'this is Madison, after all. That one's a gimmie.
