2005 Senate Bill 532: Restrict elected official recalls

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom (R) on May 24, 2005, to prohibit the recall of an elected official, even if a majority of those voting in the recall election approve it, unless the number of votes in favor is greater than the votes received by the official when he or she was elected. The bill applies to elected local government and school officials only, not to state offices.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on May 24, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) What the... by MCP-001 on May 28, 2005
Just what is this man thinking?

I highly doubt that this is in any way tied to kk's (and family's) antics, due to the fact that:

1.) kk's got about six months left on this term, and...

2.) kk'll be stomped on like a narc at a biker rally during the upcoming election.

However this does reinforce a troubling trend.

Incumbent politicians are virtually impossible to get out of office as it is due to the rules that the republicrats have instituted to protect their own positions.

This is poor legislation and should die in committee.
Reply

Line

2) Create Your Own Totalarian State! by Anonymous Citizen on May 28, 2005
I agree. I say we recall him now, for the simple reason of putting something this repugnant in a bill.

Here are the bills features:
"even if a majority of those voting in the recall election approve it, unless the number of votes in favor is greater than the votes received by the official when he or she was elected".

Recall this guy A.S.A.P.!
Reply

Line

3) I"Kwame's Law". by Anonymous Citizen on May 28, 2005
Time to boot this guys ass out of office! I'm tired of ALL the ways these idiots try to spend figureing out better pensions, pay increases and longer terms for themselves, at taxpayer expense.

It's already nearly impossible to get rid of these clowns, so they have decided they will"take away" another of the methods reserved by the constitution to protect citizens from abusive "rulers". Why should we need to get more votes than some moron who got elected?

Maybe he/she ran unopposed and one of those ("can't resist pulling that lever") idiots decided they were going to do their "civic duty". How many vote for those they know nothing about or because someone told them to?

Sounds to me like the little brother of the congressional Incumbent Protection Act? (Do a search and see?) I say we rename the bill "Kwame's Law" and get rid of ANYONE who supports taking the voters rights!
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation