Speaking of recalls, I think the RFT and its writer Chad Garrison did a crappy job of reporting on this topic last week. Sure, some of the people interviewed are good for head-shaking, "what are they talking about" quotes. The image of Bosley's grand plans in the context of the 3rd Ward's obvious problems is an easy target. However, the story too easily dismissed the drive for recall as a function of ward factionalism. It seems clear from most of the cases talked about--the 24th and 3rd, perhaps even the 21st a couple years ago--that what was promoted by recall opponents was not just personality conflicts but also policy issues. And isn't that what we want for local politics? You can love eminent domain and think it is the only was to do development in the old city, or hate it and see it as a give-away to developers that removes faithful residents. However, in the case of the 3rd ward, Bosely's silence on eminent domain in the Salisbury place project pissed off a lot of people that in the past have been willing to give him a pass.

Finally, Ken Warren's comments in the RFT article were wrong. The intent of the recall has not just been for personal malfeasance, but part of a broader attack of how policy interests have been represented in urban governments. Those who promoted the recall during the early 20th century Progressive Period saw it a way of returning local democracy to citizens--mostly educated and upper class--over the uneducated ethnic political bosses. While in St. Louis, as always, we have this strange combination of reform and unreformed political traditions, it should not be surprising that the regular folks will use recall when they think their interests are being violated.

Will

Not to be devil's advocate but...

all this recall crap you guys are talking about, that is what ELECTIONS are for!

Recalls are a waste of money and time. If your alderman sucks vote him or her out the next ELECTION. Seriously folks, these recalls are rediculous. Oh and by the way, these recalls are always started by some one with sour grapes that has the political savy (and cash) to manipulate folks in the off season. Tell these guys to save their skill (and money) for ELECTION time. These recalls are almost as dumb as term limits.

well, if one's right to live in one's house is being threatened, waiting for an election may be too long. this is not to endorse an inversion of the public good -- eminent domain is rarely used on just one nuisance property the way it should be.

I agree with Kevin. This may be hard to realize when it is used to knock off a truly bad official, but recall could be the most abusive tool in politics. It can be used to snuff out any foothold achieved by a minority, either political, racial or otherwise. A fact Kevin mentioned, that recall was a product of the very elistist reform movement, is telling. If an African American ever wins a seat in a white-majority ward, or a Republican, Green or Libertarian ever wins a seat in a divided election, you can count on the ward establishment to undo the election with a recall. The petitions will already be circulating on election night.

Also, the accumulated experience of recall campaigns (a diverse group of attacked city aldermen are now a collective 0-4) is that a recall feeds on voters' willingness to vote AGAINST someone when they don't have to vote FOR anyone to take her/his place. This tendency surfaces in polls in which larger numbers say that Incumbent X does not deserve re-election than say they plan to vote for Challenger Y (or even all challengers combined).

Oops. I still agree with Kevin, but the source of the elistist roots of recall was Will.

And one of these days I'll learn how to spell "elitist".

The hand-wringing besides, one person's crap is another person's political campaign. The point is to say there is nothing behind the recalls is to seriously miss the real story and to too casually dimiss what is happening in some of these wards. One may not like the fact that Bauer got done in, but as long as those are the rules voters have the right to use the means in front of them. The reality is that the current uses of recall have had nothing to do with any of the cases that Oracle talks about--the situation is conceivable, but doesn't apply in these cases.

Will

I think that its premature to fear a Green, Republican or Libertarian being elected only to be ousted through recall led by powerful Democrats. None of these parties is well organized enough to win a city election yet, which is a shame. (As a former Green committeeman, I am a strong advocate of building an opposition party in the city.) As Will points out, the recall is a useful tool to otherwise disenfranchised voters. In the absence of a strong opposition party, votes are right to seek other legitimate means of contesting powerful incumbents.

Would we be better off having a recall cum replacement election system similar to that in California, where Gray Davis's replacement was selected simultaneous with his recall?

At least that would prevent the recalled incumbent (i.e., Bauer) from running for the seat again. But maybe that's not necessarily a good thing.

Recalls were a product of the Progressive movement, but we've had 'em for almost 100 years now. They aren't going away.