The Journal Sentinel recently ran an editorial (“The perpetual campaign”) decrying Wisconsin’s current recall elections. They’re on the wrong side of the issue: these recall elections are a legitimate response to wide-reaching legislation proposed only after the election, restricting freedom of association, on which Gov. Walker did not run, and for which he might have lost had he done so.
The JS editorial board states its case:
The Editorial Board will not recommend candidates in the recall elections. We believe policy arguments are best resolved on the floors of legislative bodies or at the ballot box during regular elections. Recalls should be used to punish gross malfeasance or corruption – something that cannot wait for the normal election cycle – not to overturn the results of an election or to dispute policy differences.
While the Board is right about the suitability of recalls to remove corrupt officials, they know well that the law does not limit recalls to those circumstances alone. On the contrary, neither the Journal Sentinel editorial board nor anyone else believes that these recalls are themselves unlawful (arguments about specific cases notwithstanding). The people of Wisconsin have the right under the law to recall state senators in the manner and for the reasons they are now offering (or for very different reasons entirely).
It’s false, too, to say these elections arose over a mere policy dispute. Not at all. There was no fair and reasonable opportunity before the election for voters to know that Gov. Walker might seek elimination of collective bargaining rights for public employees. One cannot dispute a position of which one has never heard. The GOP concealed these measures during the campaign, so that victory might be easier.
They are in no position, now, to contend that residents should be denied elections because of that concealment. To wait for a regular cycle would allow a candidate (now victorious) to dupe the voters, and profit by it by contending that those same duped voters should wait another year to seek their redress.
State senators were free to vote for these proposals; voters should now be free to remove (or retain) those who voted for them.