By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 8:08 AM
The effort to recall 3rd Ward Ald. Freeman Bosley, Sr. is on hold as the recallers and election officials wait for a judge to decide the legality of an Election Board practice of allowing aldermen to get signatures removed from a recall petition by way of signed affidavits. Labels: Aldermen, Election_Board
On June 30, Citizens to Recall Aldermen Bosley turned in approximately 1,100 signatures to the Board. Bosley was subsequently successful in getting 339 people who had originally signed the recall petition to then sign an affidavit asking for their names to be removed.
The recallers claim that since such an allowance for removal is nowhere in the City's charter -- which outlines the recall procedure -- that the Election Board "exceeded the scope of power delegated to it" by allowing it and therefore violated the civil rights of the recallers.
A lawsuit has been filed seeking to have those signatures put back onto the petition -- without which the petition will fall short of the required number of signatures. A temporary restraining order was issued last week preventing the St. Louis Board of Elections from certifying or removing any more signatures from the petition to recall Bosley.
A hearing in this matter has been set for August 21.
Related Stories:
Bosley Recall Petition Turned In
Is Today the Day
14 Comments:
Interesting development! If the judge determines these signatures must remain on the petition that creates a whole new ballgame in the recall process.
It is one thing for someone to sign a recall petition and then a week later decide they changed their mind. It is quite another to be confrunted by the person you are attempting to recall.
8/10/2006 9:06 AM
Steve:
I can see what you mean in that when faced with the person against whom you signed the petition, you might falter and agree to have your signature removed, but look at the slippery slope that would be created if the judge were to disallow the removal of those signatures. Next, no group would be allowed to submit affidavits of signatories who changed their minds, which would lead to the signatories themselves not being able to have their signatures removed from such petitions. So, in the interest of protecting the signatories, the current process of signatories being able to submit via affidavit their request to have their signatures removed from petitions needs to be left intact.
8/10/2006 10:01 AM
Not only doe it create a slippery slope, but if the strength of your conviction in signing a recall petition is not strong enough to withstand confrontation by the one you are seeking to recall, well then how strong is the movement really.
8/10/2006 10:32 AM
Not to mention that the BOE is finally cleaning massively bloated voter rolls. Will be interesting to see how many registered voters do come off the rolls thus reducing the number of signatures to recall a politician.
8/10/2006 11:16 AM
Removing your name for changing your mind before the recall is submitted is a good thing. Allowing aldermen to strong-arm people after the names are submitted is wrong.
It would be like after we had an election and the defeated candidate was able to convince voters to change their mind. We vote in secrecy to protect ourselves against retribution from elected officials.
The time for an alderman to make his/her case to voters is before the signatures are submitted.
8/10/2006 11:35 AM
Recalls are based on the number of registered voters as of the last Mayorial election -- April 2005. So removing inactive voters from the rolls actually makes it harder to recall an alderman because the poll of currently registered voters is less than before.
8/10/2006 11:37 AM
Urban Review, though you don't like the Alderman being able to "strong arm" a person who signed the recall petition, I know that not all recall signiture gatherers are telling the truth at the door, in essence strong arming the people then to. Some people remove their names because they feel they were lied to by the signiture gatherer. I think that the alderman should have a right to talk to the people who signed the petition. And after that conversation if the people want to remove their name that is there right.
8/10/2006 11:55 AM
Steve:
You are assuming that there are strong-arm tactics involved. I've heard of no such reports from those that changed their minds. The danger with petitions is that those collecting signatures are not always forthright with the signatories as to what the petition is for. So, some people do not know or understand what the true intent of the petition is.
So, I am in accord with the comments of the first anonymous poster in that the removal affidavits give those signatories a fair chance to demonstrate their true will. Remember, this is not a vote, but rather a petition, where signatories can later decide to remove their support.
8/10/2006 12:00 PM
OK, fair enough. Those collecting signatures may be potentially as equally dishonest as the alderman may be when it comes to arguing both sides to be on the petition or not.
But how far do we take this? Someone signs the petition and is then talked out of it by the alderman, for whatever reason. Do the petitioners then go back and talk to those that removed their signature and get them to resign again?
The alderman has time in office to communicate with their constituents. If 20% of those registered, no small number, come together on a petition to get a recall on the ballot let the vote happen. Both sides will have time to present their case before the voters. If those colllecting signatures were selling the voters a false bill of goods this will come out and the alderman can easily defeat the recall vote.
Furthermore, all aldermen should be communicating with all the constituents, not just those signing the petition. With this they can dispute any claims (true or false) being presented by those doing the petition. Jennifer Florida is doing this by sending out a newsletter to her constituents. This may well prompt some that have signed the petition to contact those in charge and ask for their names to be removed.
If the signatures are valid (legit registered voters) the issue should not be decided by backroom pushing of voters to remove their names. At that point it should be decided by the voters.
8/10/2006 12:15 PM
It is a little naive to believe that Aldermen are not going to use such strategies. Bosley, for example, has been in power about as long as Travis has been alive, and before I was a Zygote. When their power is challenged, one can expect the hammer of state power to fall with a furious anger. If someone wanted to take your job, wouldn't you protect it? Now the real question is will petition signer succumb or overcome?
Regarding the signature gatherers, they do not have state power, nor do they have access. So if you disagree, most likely they are not going to issue threats. Probably, they will leave a business card if you change your mind, and wish you a good day. Now, if an elected official comes to your door, and you feel pressured or threatened, is this someone you want as a representative? You are paying their salary. Don't let them scare you. After all, you could help them out of office instead of listening to their threats.
8/10/2006 1:23 PM
God, I love this country. Urban Review is always huffing and puffing about secret deals and lack of transparency in government, and enclourages a popular uprising to challenge every incumbent in the city.
Yet he wishes to deny those incumbents the opportunity to challenge recall petitions, or to request that individuals rescind their signatures.
Look at the record of most (not all but most) recent recalls....large numbers of documented fraudulent sigatures; misrepresentation of the purpose of the petitions...and on and on.
I may not like Bosely or Florida or Bauer or any of them, but when we encourage people to stay in the closet and not allow their positions on recalls or issues or anything else to become public or subject to legitmate challenge, we become what we dislike about politics.
The law under which we live gives defendants the right to confront their accusers. We should extend no lesser rights to those who represent us.
You want to throw stones, Urban Review, you ought to be man enough to catch a few too. If I sign a petition to recall my alderman, or to support same sex marriages, I would be happy to tell any challengers why.
8/10/2006 3:44 PM
God, I love this country. Urban Review is always huffing and puffing about secret deals and lack of transparency in government, and enclourages a popular uprising to challenge every incumbent in the city.
Yet he wishes to deny those incumbents the opportunity to challenge recall petitions, or to request that individuals rescind their signatures.
Look at the record of most (not all but most) recent recalls....large numbers of documented fraudulent sigatures; misrepresentation of the purpose of the petitions...and on and on.
I may not like Bosely or Florida or Bauer or any of them, but when we encourage people to stay in the closet and not allow their positions on recalls or issues or anything else to become public or subject to legitmate challenge, we become what we dislike about politics.
The law under which we live gives defendants the right to confront their accusers. We should extend no lesser rights to those who represent us.
You want to throw stones, Urban Review, you ought to be man enough to catch a few too. If I sign a petition to recall my alderman, or to support same sex marriages, I would be happy to tell any challengers why.
8/10/2006 3:45 PM
I'd like to announce that I have begun a recall campaign of my own.
8/11/2006 3:25 PM
Get this man out of office and his son off the radio. Maybe they can both become house slaves for Slay.
8/12/2006 10:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home