Updated: Council President Marco Sommerville says Council will be asked to vote tonight to hold the recall election on Tuesday, June 23, 2009.
- - -
Akron's charter provisions on a recall election leave a lot to be desired. While technically specific, even down to the language where a "yes" vote means the office holder is out, a "no" vote means the office holder remains.
Akron City Charter: Each ballot at such election shall have printed thereon the following question: "Shall (name of person) be removed from the office of (name of office) by recall?" Immediately following such question, there shall be printed on the ballot the following two propositions in following order:
"For the recall of (name of person)."
"Against the recall of (name of person)."
Immediately to the left of each of said propositions shall be a space in which the elector may vote for either of such propositions.
It even sets the benchmark dates for action by city council, how long the office holder has to resign if they choose to, and when the election will be held.
But it offers little else of guidance to voters, such as what exactly merits a recall. Expect to see a push, no matter what the outcome of the 2009 recall election, to make the charter language more specific. It would be an overdue improvement and keep the protections of a recall process in place while making the grounds more specific beyond the we-can-do-it-because-we-can school of political theater.
Council will vote tonight on setting a date, between June 20th and July 10th, for Akron voters to put this to rest. Mayor Plusquellic has until 4:30 this afternoon to let City Clerk Bob Keith know if there is a resignation coming -- fat chance, I think, but the mayor's office says there will be a letter to that effect.
Now this issue comes down to tactics; whether holding a vote with dates on either side of what is essentially two weeks of Independence Day holiday. Cruddy time to hold an election unless you hope for a really, really low turnout. On paper that should benefit the pro-recall folks, unless the anti-recall campaign is confident their campaign organization is stronger and better organized. The sooner the better, say the mayor's supporters.
The central question is whether or not you think Don Plusquellic should continue to be mayor for the remainder of his term. Period.
Critics of the mayor, led by longtime opponent Warner Mendenhall, did what the charter required in securing enough signatures to put the issue before the voters. Democracy by the rules, that's all they needed to do. Akron's charter made it easy because the number was based on the turnout of the last general election, which was very low because there was no contested race for the office. Nothing criminal or civil needed to be proven.
No case needed to be made on why Don Plusquellic should get the boot in mid-term, just that they could put the issue before voters. Those are the rules, and in systems of government where the rule of law is supreme these rules held fast. The arguments on whether a recall election should be held provided plenty of fodder for editorials and commentary but the basic truth is: with enough signatures, all recalls are possible.
That's actually a good thing, because the charter controls how democracy works in Akron. It's the document that keeps the people ultimately in charge. That critics of Plusquellic, unable to do in a primary or general election what they now try to do through recall, found an opening in the charter is the kind of political lawyering that makes most of us yawn but drives those involed in the process crazy. But it is the process, and both sides clearly know how to play this game.
Now it's up to voters to sift through the posturing and determine the real issue, which is has Plusquellic done so wrong that he should be removed now? That's the central issue voters should consider when casting their vote this summer -- and what exactly are the charges against Plusquellic to warrant this political death penalty?
Critics say their charges are substantive but Plusquellic's supporters argue they are driven more by personality conflict.
The strategy for the pro-recall will be to keep their campaign supporters invested enough in anti-Plusquellic emotion that they vote. Don't look for this in slick television or radio ads, because this emotion is best stoked under the radar. Keeping someone angry is far easier than appealing to a more noble concept of what's best for the community. This argument is made to the heart, misplaced or not. ChangeAkronNow already has their list of likely voters and a starting point. Strong emotion is a powerful motivator for action as simple as walking into a voting booth.
The strategy for the anti-re-call campaign is to get out their message that the mayor has done nothing to warrant getting the boot after more than two decades of being who he is and voters should turn aside the effort. In a nutshell: "he may be a tough old SOB, but he's our SOB." This will be a tougher campaign because the argument is one made to the brain, seeking to have reason provide enough of an emotional shove for voters to make the effort to get to the polls. Citizens For Akron also has a strong list of supporters but needs to make the case beyond individuals saying they support Plusquellic -- and turning that support into action.
Either way, this political schooling that started soon after Issue 8 at least comes to a close by mid-July...unless the political lawyering is already looking past the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment