This week the effort to recall Gov. Scott Walker finally began. For months, anti-Walker Wisconsinites have been heartily preparing to kick their least favorite governor out of office. Now that the time has finally come, Wisconsin will be subjected to more annoying political ads, more out-of-state presence and more political divisiveness. To put it bluntly, I am not a fan of recalls.
I admit, Walker is not the perfect governor. I do not like the way he is dealing with the UW System. Some of his policies are more controversial, especially the way he and the state Legislature handled public union reforms. Even he admits he didn’t make enough of a “political case” for the need to limit collective bargaining and make some public employees contribute more of their salaries to pension and health care costs.
Undoubtedly, some people will think these are the worst policies ever—especially the hardworking employees who now see less take-home pay. Others may see these as necessary measures to help Wisconsin avoid budget deficits without raising taxes on everyone in the state, something Walker promised to do in order to get elected. Given that Wisconsin public opinion is still fairly split on the issue and the full, long-term effects have not been seen yet, are recalls really necessary?
The answer lies in what people feel is the purpose of the recall election. This year, Democrats used recall elections as a way to get rid of Republicans who voted to end collective bargaining on everything besides wages. Republicans led recalls against Democrats who left the state during the contentious debates in order to break quorum. Sheboygan residents are recalling Mayor Bob Ryan after he was found passed out drunk near a lake. It seems unpopularity and acting completely unfit to serve office is worthy of the same punishment.
In a perfect world, recalls wouldn’t be necessary. There would be laws guidelining when officials should be relieved of their duties, and the legislature or Justice Department would take care of the official. Along with anti-corruption laws, opposing parties and lobbyists, the traditional two or four- year election cycle is a sufficient check on public servants.
Elected officials should always be aware of what their constituents want. In a way, the threat of recall elections is one way for politicians to make sure they are in tune with whom they are meant to serve. By no means were the reforms Walker and the Republicans made minor or popular throughout the state. What they did was not found to be illegal or unconstitutional—only very unpopular.
Maybe I don’t sympathize with these recall efforts because growing up in Illinois gave me a different view of what makes a bad governor. Seeing two former governors, Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan, go to jail for federal corruption charges is good reason to lose faith in an office. Walker’s reforms just don’t seem as bad to me in light of what I’ve seen in my home state. Thanks to a late-night vote last year, this includes a 66 percent income-tax hike.
Should Illinois now recall Gov. Pat Quinn, who signed the unpopular tax-hike? It affects as many people and was done for the same reason as Walker’s reforms. No. What Quinn did is also very unpopular, but he was democratically elected and is allowed to govern as long as he doesn’t break any laws, like Blagojevich did. Quinn will have to answer in the next elections though, just like Walker should have to answer to his policies in 2014.
Feel free to call me anti-democratic, but I just don’t like recall elections. They cost a lot of money, an estimated $2.14 million, and we have elections to decide whether or not to re-elect governors every four years. Walker’s reforms may be controversial, but they were voted on and passed, appealed and allowed to stand.
So while Democrats and progressives are giddy over the prospect of another election, all I can think is: not one of these again.
Matt Beaty is a junior majoring in mathematics and computer science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
