Following Kenny Jones, the 22nd has been stuck in the battle between Boyd and Ozier. So I'd say it's more of a specific ward stuck in recall mode than spreading the mania to other new wards.

Brian-
Though this battle may be between Boyd and Ozier, I think Dave is referencing the recalls that are happening everywhere. There is several recalls in progress or just finishing (Tom Bauer) down in St. Louis Shitty (oops I mean city). Not to mention, the recall madness which has spread to St. Charles County, it's like the GOP out there stole the Dem playbook and is now using on themselves... It's madness....

But the 22nd already experienced such craze. Granted, the 3rd and 5th may be future targets, and certainly the 4th and 24th past victims. But the on-going battle of the 22nd is more of a broken record than the latest catch of recall fever.

Who is getting recalled in St. Charles County?Why?

Is it like if you don't like the primary results, recall them?

Brian is right. the recall effort is a symptom--a novel approach, certainly--of the underlying and existing political differences in these area, some personal and some political. The 3rd's attempt, which may not have legs, is over the use of eminent domain in a housing development project. It is unclear who is supporting recall efforts in the 5th. A post dispatch article recently mentioned controversy over a proposed shopping center proposal.

"St. Louis Shitty"

huh huh..

thanks, beavis (or is that butthead?)

With the increasing schism between El Amin and Troupe in the 1st, it looks like another northside ward is showing early symptoms.

Bauer's demise (though he did himself in) caught the attention of southside aldermen. Thus, why Florida decided to make the recall process harder than just the current drop of a hat.

There would be less recall efforts if a strong opposition political party existed in the city. I would much rather support a solid candidate against an existing Democratic incumbent than engage in the recall game, which becomes self-perpetuating and forges alliances among people who really don't share common values. (Most recall efforts in the city are dominated by people with personal grudges against the incumbent.) The eminent domain groups are similar, except they were started by people who genuinely oppose eminent domain but have become dominated by disgruntled property owners who set the agenda. Both the recall and the eminent domain activism seem to be symptoms of the lack of a strong opposition party or movement.

Brian-
I hear ya, there is definitely an underlying history there, but as Jim Ross said, it seems that every time you don't like the results, then you just go for a recall. That has happened other places in the city. (or shitty for Mr. Will Winter, lol) Jim, St. Chuck City just certified two recall petitions, however the city council is refusing to hold the election. That is one that even STL City hasn't tried yet. The petitioners in St. Chuck just filed suit to force the recall election to take place.
Oh, and Will, I am a proud County resident, I love to jab at the City/County rivalry. Hence why I called it the Shitty... Come drive through the North Side sometime, and you can see what I am talking about. BTW- I am not Butthead, that is Russ Carnahan, the resemblence is uncanny.

Michael-
I have to agree with you on the need for an opposition pary in the city. I am not saying that because I am a Republican, but when everyone is "one the same team" then where is the free flow of thought, discussion, dissention. When everyone is on the same team, much of that is kept behind closed doors. Look at the difference between white Dems in the city, and the African-American Dems, I wonder why they even consider themselves on the same team...

Though I don't disagree with the need for a second party in St. Louis City, I have to say that most of the recall efforts have been started by people who were already beaten by the sitting Alderman. Such as the 3rd ward and 22nd ward. Bauer's recall was different because there was a specific idea which his constituents believe he was misusing. In North St. Louis I don't believe a 2nd party would help I think it would just add someone else who would want to recall.

Does anyone know if the Board of Alderman have introduced any kind of anti recall legislature? I would imagine that that would have some sort of tie-in with the city charter. Seems like that would be a smart thing these days.

josh, 24th ward loud and proud baby

Going back to the 22nd, there's another drawback to not winning your ward as a Dem. Kenny Jones served more consecutive years on the BOA than Jim Shrewsbury, but since Jones didn't always win as a Dem, but also an Indy, party rules made Shrewsbury Acting Aldermanic Prez, following Slay's move to Room 200.

Besides, if you were to look entirely at seniority without consideration for party, Heitert would have been eligible for VP and then Acting Aldermanic Prez.

There doesn't seem to be much difference between the 24th ward recall movement and the 3rd ward recall. From what I understand, some 3rd ward residents were upset about eminent domain in a local project--the same concern that motivated 24th ward recall proponents. Even if the recall effort fails, I don't that it will do much to stop disagreements in the ward over development, Bosley's leadership, etc.

Republicans have never faired very well in my part of the city, 5th ward, but "their" candidates have not had much presence. They have mostly been disgruntled Democrats who weren't able to win the primary election.

Will

Hmmm, this thread may have stumbled on something here. In the two locales where recalls are most rampant (the City of St Louis and St. Chas County) we have essentially a one-party system, but with different parties dominating each. The real action in both locales is in the primary. Yet, the Democratic Party prides itself in substituting back-room brokered agreements for an actual contested primary election (see the praise heaped on such an arrangement in the current ACC issue).

If there's no meaningful election in either the general or the primary, maybe recall elections are the only place where democracy has a forum!

I've encountered some computerized censorship on this blog. The wording of my 9:10 PM comment is a little awkward (OK, more than usual) because a computerized screen apparetnly isn't allowing me to use a particular word. For more info, check out this blog entry:
http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2005/11/computerized-censorship-on-acc-blog.html

A number of people have suggested a recall to me in the 25th Ward but I'm not interested in playing the jilted candidate.

But the real problem is not that we have a one party system. It is that our one party is closed to outsiders unless you play the game.

The ward structure and money involved discourages participation. Lack of participation and discussion is the result.

The legislative committee of the Board of Alderman did indeed ok a charter change limiting recall of Alderman and all city-wide officials to 6 months for getting the required signatures. With the full vote of the board of Alderman it should be on the ballot in the next major election, November of 2006. I don't think the legislative committee understood the procedure of recall nor the reality of their actions. Limiting our ability to recall officials, is a victory for the current City wide office holders. It is not enough protection for an alderman who fails his community. I consider this a defeat for democratic goverment.
Don De Vivo

"...the real problem is not that we have a one party system. It is that our one party is closed to outsiders unless you play the game."

I think that the closed-off nature of the Democratic Party in the city is due to its being the only viable political party. The internal structure mirrors the external political reality. The only way to reform the Democratic Party is to challenge it simultaneously from oustide and inside. It won't change if the primary election is the only one that counts, because the primaries are stacked against oustiders. If the incumbents had both primary and general election challenges, their complacency would begin to erode. The need for recalls would diminish because challengers would have better chances for an upset victory.

Unfortunately, a second party in the city would have to be built anew. Neither the Republican nor the Green Party seems serious about challenging the Democrats, and both have major problems (the Republicans, although sometimes more liberal than the Democrats in the city, are part of a party that is hugely conservative and anti-urban at the state and federal levels; the Greens are locally dominated by a group of people who are fiercely sectarian and have no real grasp of city politics).

Perhaps the Progressive Party of Missouri will seek city ballot status.

The Green's carry 15% of the city wide vote in the general election. The Sectarian leadership is in reality University City Political operatives working to munitpulate The city politcal system. The goal is and has been to turn Missouri to a Red state and keep a third party from forming. Get the University City operatives out, and the Greens can become the party we all want them to be.
Don De Vivo
Green Party committeman Ward 17

For the Record, I am a member of the Coalition to prevent Eminent Domain abuse in the City of St. Louis. We have formed a recall committee that is active in Ward 3 and Ward 5. Both movements are related to St. Louis families and business people losing their property and opportunity because of the political agenda of the Alderperson. The poorly written coverage in the Riverfront Times a University City paper, the Post, and the Arch City shows collectively they do not have a grasp on the land reform movement in the City of St. Louis. It has been based on the use of Eminent Domain. I am available for setting the record straight at any time.
Don De Vivo

Oracle,

I believe the comment on your blog by Michael is the correct assessment of the situation. I have been writing on the blog for almost a year commenting on it longer. I haven't had an issue with it. We have had issues with spam in the past, and so I assume that it is an anti-spam filter.

I just tested two comments, one with a common four letter word, the second with the word d*als. The swear sailed through, though I couldn't post "d*als". (In fact I couldn't post this comment with the word properly spelled).

If you would like I will ask our web guy about it.

A filtering process is not exactly the same as censorship, especially considering you were able to get your idea across even though you were required to change a word. If we were to step in and edit your comment to change your intended meaning by including or removing elements, or simply deleting a comment we disagree with, that would be censorship.