The Independence Standard
Home
Archive
Subscribe
Search
Log In
The Independence Standard
Sep 1, 2026
When is Disagreement Enough for Recall_ Episode 2604 090126
00:00
00:00
Transcript
0:00
[gentle music] Hi, my name is Lee. My last name is Phillips, and I am the editor of The Independence Standard. You can find us at independencestandard.com.
0:10
Please be sure to subscribe to keep updated on all our stories and anything else exciting that we have to offer you. Thanks for joining me. This is another special edition, an audio edition.
0:22
This one's called When Is Disagreement Enough to Recall an Elected Official? I've been thinking about recall differently since Independence actually went through one.
0:33
Council member John Perkins made an interesting point during the recall fight.
0:37
Under a system that doesn't require specific legal misconduct, he argued, people could try to recall him because they didn't like his votes, his attitude, his choices, even the color of the shoes he was wearing.
0:48
I understood his point. If there's no defined legal cause required, where is the line? But the more I've thought about his example, the more I wonder whether it actually makes the opposite argument.
0:59
If the voters put someone into office, shouldn't the voters ultimately have the ability to take him out?
1:06
There could be a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with committing a crime or violating a specific legal duty. Voters might believe an official, uh, repeatedly voted contrary to what he told them he would do.
1:18
They might believe he no longer represents their interests or listens to them, that he hasn't been transparent or supported... that he has supported decisions they believe seriously harm their district or city.
1:30
They might simply conclude that the person they elected isn't the representative they thought they were electing. Those aren't necessarily crimes.
1:38
They aren't necessarily misconduct, and the elected official may sincerely believe he made exactly the right decisions.
1:44
But aren't those political judgments exactly what voters make when they elect someone in the first place? Of course, one angry voter can't remove anybody.
1:53
Independence's charter requires petitioners to state their grounds. Done. Gather the required number of valid signatures. Done. Survive examination and certifications. Done. And get the question onto a ballot. Done.
2:09
But even after all of that, the official hasn't been recalled. The petition earns an election. The voters decide the rest. Maybe that's the safeguard.
2:19
There is, however, a serious legal question underneath all of this, and it was part of the lawsuit challenging John's recall. Independence is a constitutional home rule charter city.
2:31
Our charter contains our recall process, but home rule doesn't put Independence above the Missouri Constitution.
2:38
Article Seven, Section Four of the Missouri Constitution says, officers not subject to impeachment are subject to removal, quote, in the manner and for the causes provided by law, end quote.
2:52
Our charter clearly provides the manner. The manner is petition, sufficient valid signatures, examination and certification, and ultimately an election.
3:03
It also requires petitioners to provide a general statement of their grounds. But does, quote, causes provided by law, end quote, require something more?
3:14
Does the law itself have to establish a specific list of acceptable reasons for removing an elected official?
3:21
Or can our charter require citizens to state their grounds and leave the voters to decide whether those grounds are sufficient?
3:28
That's essentially the constitutional argument raised in the lawsuit John eventually joined, and Missouri has been here before. In two thousand and six, St.
3:38
Louis Alderman Thomas Bauer challenged his recall under the same provision of the Missouri Constitution. He argued that St.
3:45
Louis's charter was unconstitutional because it permitted recall without requiring a legally specified reason or cause. The Missouri Court of Appeals never answered the question.
3:55
Bauer had failed to include the city of St. Louis as an indispensable party, so the case ended on that procedural issue rather than with a decision about what causes provided by law actually means.
4:07
But there is another case, and this one came straight out of Independence. Thirty years before Bauer, Owen v. City of Independence involved the removal of Independence's police chief.
4:18
It was not a recall case, so it doesn't settle this question. But the court did consider the same constitutional language and had to determine what constituted the applicable law governing removal in a home rule city.
4:32
In that case, the court concluded that Independence's charter itself was the applicable law rather than simply importing state statutory law.
4:42
That doesn't prove our current recall provision is constitutional, but it gives us an important piece of the argument.
4:48
If the charter itself can constitute the applicable law, then perhaps the absence of a list of specific recall offenses isn't automatically a constitutional defect.
4:58
Perhaps our charter can establish the process, require petitioners to tell the public why they are seeking removal, and leave the ultimate judgment to, of those grounds to the electorate.
5:10
Until the Missouri appellate court squarely answers what causes provided by law requires in this situation, I don't think we should pretend the constitutional answer is obvious in either direction.
5:22
But there is also a democratic question here that doesn't require a law degree. If we trust the people to vote someone in, shouldn't we trust them to vote that person out?
5:34
Not every legitimate reason for losing confidence in an elected official fits neatly under misconduct, incompetence, or failure to perform a legal duty.
5:43
Voters can lose confidence because of what a, an official votes, their judgment, priorities, broken promises, lack of responsiveness, or simply because they believe he is no longer representing them.
5:55
We allow the voters to consider every one of those things when deciding whether to elect someone.
6:00
Why should those same considerations suddenly become illegitimate when deciding whether they still want that person representing them? That doesn't mean recall should be easy. There should be meaningful hurdles.
6:13
The grounds should be stated publicly. Enough voters should have to sign their names to the effort. The signatures should be verified, and the elected official should receive every protection the charter provides.
6:24
But those protections should protect the process, not protect an elected official from the political judgment of the people who elected him. That is an important distinction.
6:35
And remember what a successful recall pred- petition actually accomplishes. It doesn't overturn an election. It creates another one. The official gets his argument, the petitioners get theirs, and then the people speak.
6:50
John's shoes may make for a funny example, but even that demonstrates the protection built into the process.
6:57
If citizens somehow become so outraged over a council member's shoes that they organize a recall, gather the required signatures, satisfy every charter requirement, and put the question on the ballot, the rest of us would still be perfectly free to say, "That's ridiculous," and vote no,
7:15
or yes. That's democracy doing its job. The constitutional question still deserves a serious answer.
7:23
Bauer left it unresolved, while Owen gives us an important argument that Independence's own charter may constitute the applicable law. We should know exactly where that constitutional boundary lies.
7:37
But within whatever boundary the Missouri Constitution establishes, we should be extremely careful about replacing the judgment of the electorate with the judgment of the government.
7:47
The people gave an elected official the authority to represent them.
7:51
If our charter gives those same people the lawful process to reconsider that decision, then once they have followed that process, their voice should stand. That's ultimately what recall is about.
8:04
Thank you for joining me. Again, please be sure to subscribe at independencestandard.com. Have a very blessed day. Until next time.
8:17
[outro music]
Perspective - Independence Standard
Listen on
Spotify
Spotify
Recent episodes
No results found
When is Disagreement Enough for Recall_ Episode 2604 090126
00:00
08:30
