Editor’s note, Part 1: Let’s peer into the future. It’s Election night in Nevada in 2018, and this is the story on your local news website. The recall efforts discussed here are real, but the rest is a hypothetical look at what could — and hopefully will — happen.
In a rebuke of Republicans who launched groundless but legal recall campaigns against Democratic Party lawmakers, voters today backed several candidates who vowed to reform the state law on recalls.
So-called “for cause” candidates — those who committed to changing the law to prevent officeholders from being targeted strictly for political reasons — performed well at the polls amid strong turnout among voters.
The issue became a talking point in this year’s campaign after Nevada Republicans targeted three state legislators in 2017: Democrats Nicole Cannizzaro and Joyce Woodhouse, and independent Patricia Farley. None of the three had committed any malfeasance or shown herself unfit for office. The recalls failed, but only after one led to a lawsuit over the legitimacy of the recall petition and elections were conducted at a taxpayer expense of more than $100,000.
Candidates and political experts said that in supporting the “for cause” movement, voters sent a message that they — not the parties or the courts — should decide who holds elected offices.
“During the campaign, what we heard loud and clear from voters was that they felt the GOP hijacked the political process, and they were concerned that it could lead to nonstop recall elections,” said Jim Green, a Democrat who campaigned successfully for the Nevada Assembly. “They acknowledged that the Republicans had every legal right to conduct their recalls, but totally violated the spirit of the law.”
Nevada is among several states that allow recalls without cause. But in changing the law, the state would join eight others that allow recalls only on certain grounds, such as a criminal conviction or official misconduct.
At her polling place in Las Vegas, 52-year-old accountant Jean Smith said the recall issue was important to her.
“Think about what could happen if we don’t change this law,” she said. “If parties can recall anybody they want for no reason at all, what difference does it make who the people elect? The parties will just try to recall whoever’s in the office so they can try to install their own person. It’s just political gamesmanship.”
Green said voters told him they strongly supported the right to recall elected officials, but felt the law needed parameters so it couldn’t be exploited solely for political gain.
“For cause” candidates were aided by a report from the League of Women Voters, which brought attention to the issue in hopes of energizing voters.
“The possible long-term ramifications of the situation in Nevada are bleak,” the report read. “It’s easy to see a scenario in which the parties initiate a series of back-and-forth recall drives that would either result in elections or lawsuits and would erode the influence of voters. It would also raise the possibility of creating voter fatigue through an endless series of recalls, and it threatens to deepen the cynicism and frustration that many voters feel about the political process.”
Speaking to supporters at his victory party, Green said he was confident the law could be addressed during the 2019 legislative session.
“This is a good day for Nevada, and for our democracy,” he said.
• • •
Editor’s note, Part II: Another potential outcome is that voters can refuse to sign petitions unless there is a legitimate cause for the recall, then send a message to the GOP by turning out for recall votes and defending the current officeholders. In the case of Farley, the recall effort already has failed because organizers did not collect enough signatures to move forward.
Either way, here’s hoping Nevada voters don’t let the party hijack the electoral process.