Recall: A New American Revolution

America is awash in near-instant communications technology and 24-7 media. Yet many politicians count on their constituents having short-term memories. These profligate politicians spend tax dollars recklessly and increase the size of government regardless of the public's growing concern over what this unsustainable debt will do the economy and to the next generations. Just before elections, the big-spending incumbents present themselves as budget hawks, with a compliant media fostering amnesia among the plucked taxpayers.

At the beginning of the 20th century, a progressive movement began to use recall to hold office holders more accountable. The impetus at that time was concern over the

political influence of monopolies of industrialists and banks. In our time, government and public employee unions have become major sources of corruption, creating bureaucracies insulated from the people who are paying for it all.

Recall can provide more accountability in between elections and put office holders on notice that they are being watched. Recall is now available to constituents in 18 states. Another 13 states have initiative procedures whereby petitioners could put recall measures on the ballot. provides each state's relevant laws, plus updated news and commentary on recall efforts around the nation.

Welcome to the new American Revolution.

Latest Recall News

FPPC Attorney Recommends Lawmakers Face Contribution Limits in California Recall Fight

(07/18/17) — “(Los Angeles Times) -- The top attorney for the state's campaign watchdog agency recommended on July 17 that it deny a request to boost the limit for contributions to a highly charged recall election. Democrats had asked the Fair Political Practices Commission to allow elected officials to donate more than $4,400 each to a committee defending Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) against a recall effort. The FPPC has said for years that the limit applies to recalls, but Richard R. Rios, an attorney for the Senate Democratic Caucus, argued there should not be one. The panel will meet July 27 to consider a recommendation by Jack Woodside, its general counsel, to deny the request for a new opinion lifting the limit. "The FPPC's interpretation ... is well - reasoned and legally sound," Woodside wrote in a memo. "Indeed, the FPPC's position is based on the plain language, legislative history, and policies of the relevant statutes. "More importantly, the transfer restriction has been in place and applied to every recall since 2003," he added. "And Mr. Rios provides no basis to suggest the FPPC's interpretation needs to be reversed."”
Read more.

Democratic Party Leaders Sue College Republican Recall Signature Gatherers Targeting Josh Newman (D-Orange County)

(07/11/17) — “By Michael F. Haverluck (July 10, 2017) Democratic Party leaders are suing three volunteer College Republican signature gatherers after verbally assaulting them for taking part in a recall effort to oust California state Sen. Josh Newman (D-Orange County) and his high taxes. The conservative college students managed to collect 85,000 signatures in support of a recall election, despite "goon squads" commissioned by Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) to intimidate voters - along with vicious threats waged by irate Democrats in the Golden State. Not liking their authority challenged in the predominantly blue state, Democrats have ramped up their intimidation tactics against conservative students through the court system. "Sensing Newman's vulnerability, legislators changed the recall rules ex post facto (which will assuredly be legally challenged by recall supporters), and now Democrats are stepping up their attacks on people who organize dissent in the state - college students - or, more specifically, three College Republicans who volunteered as signature gatherers," Townhall reported. "The California Democratic Party is suing them, accusing them of lying to voters and saying that the recall would repeal the gas tax." Pot calling the kettle black ... The charges made by Democrats against the Republicans are considered to be the epitome of hypocrisy. "First of all, that any California Democratic Party official or candidate would accuse Republicans of lying to get votes - and say it with a straight face - is a massive insult," Townhall's Jennifer Van Larr reported. "These are the people whose confiscatory gun control scheme was called 'Safety for All' in ads. These are the people who claim that sanctuary cities are simply shielding hard-working, law-abiding, family-centered immigrants from being deported. These are the people who call taxpayers 'freeloaders' when they finally get sick of forking over the highest gas taxes in the nation." The motivation for the allegedly bogus claims against the red students trying to stay afloat in a predominantly blue state reportedly runs much deeper than what Democrats want most Americans to believe. Three College Republicans from California State University Fullerton (CSUF) - Ryan Hoskins, Amanda McGuire and Brooke Paz - and several other conservative activists are targeted in the lawsuit that was filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court ... a strategic court placement by Dems because the venue makes it extremely difficult for the students to defend themselves more than six hours away. "This is about the super majority the Democrats currently hold in Sacramento," Red State pointed out before divulging what is really at stake. "If Newman is successfully recalled, they lose their two-thirds majority and won't have the power to arbitrarily and spontaneously pass crushing taxes and fees."”
Read more.

Petition Approved for Recall of Montana Sheriff

(07/18/17) — “GREAT FALLS -- A petition to recall Pondera County Sheriff Carl Suta has been approved by the Pondera County Clerk & Recorder. The petition is now ready to be circulated. Petitioners will hold a meeting soon to have the circulators notarized and informed. Petitioners cite incompetence as their reason for recall. Among the allegations are that Suta: "left the county unprotected by having only one officer on duty for the entire county countless times" "openly created dating profiles while married and cited sex as a hobby" "has spoken openly about cases with multiple people in his presence" "has created a hostile work environment" is "not someone who takes responsibility for his actions" "has abused his power by protecting his kids when they've committed offenses" The petition needs 530 signatures, or 15% of eligible voters from the last election in the county. Petitioners have 90 days to collect the signatures. The sheriff declined to comment.”
Read more.

California Democrats Out to Reverse another Election Rule to Help One of Their Own

(07/05/17) — “By Taryn Luna Sacramento Bee (July 5, 2017) First, Democrats hoping to protect one of their own passed a law changing the rules for a recall. Now they are pressuring the state's campaign watchdog to reverse a longstanding stance on contribution limits to once again benefit Sen. Josh Newman, who Republicans are seeking to punish for casting a vote to raise state gas taxes. In 2002, the California Fair Political Practices Commission adopted a regulation that said state candidates are subject to contribution limits when they give money to a recall committee controlled by another state candidate. The FPPC interprets the law to mean that state politicians can't give the Fullerton Democrat more than $4,400 each to fight his recall. Roughly 15 years and two recall elections after the agency took the position, Senate Democrats are arguing the FPPC got it wrong. They say candidate committees should be able to give unlimited sums to a candidate-controlled recall committee, which would allow Newman to rely on fundraising by colleagues to help fend off the Republicans gunning for him. Democrats had the Legislature's government lawyers study the issue, and on June 27 Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine issued an opinion predicting that courts would uphold a reversal of the FPPC's longstanding interpretation. A lawyer working for the caucus appeared at the agency's monthly meeting last week to request that commissioners reverse the interpretation. "Unlike the perpetrators of this fraudulent recall attempt, Senate Democrats are committed to properly interpreting and adhering to the law..." said Jason Kinney, a spokesman for Senate Democrats. "Given the exigency of the issue, it seems logical and appropriate that the bipartisan FPPC would want to consider the matter quickly." The position reappeared on an FPPC fact sheet in 2003 during the successful recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, according to a letter written by the commission's executive director Erin Perth earlier this month. The agency reiterated its position again in an advice letter to lawyers during an unsuccessful recall campaign against then-state Sen. Jeff Denham, a Republican, in 2008. During the Denham recall, the firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, working on behalf of Republicans, similarly disagreed with the FPPC position. Thomas Hiltachk, whose firm was hired this year by the GOP proponents of the Newman recall, said the agency's interpretation has been on the books for more than a decade and there's no reason to change it now. He said Democrats should take the issue to a judge or pass a law in the California Legislature if they think the agency is wrong. "Based on what we've seen over the course of the last two weeks, Newman should have no problem getting the Legislature to do whatever it takes to protect him from the voters in the 29th Senatorial District," Hiltachk said. Last week Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law to change the rules governing recall elections. The new law effectively adds months to the existing timeline to certify a recall election for the ballot and ensures that the recall election would be held during the June primary next year, when more Democrats are likely to cast votes.”
Read more.