RECALL, a device by which the voters may remove an official from office before the expiration of his regular term. It is based upon the principle that officials are properly mere agents of the popular will, and as such should be constantly subject to their control. Under the plan, if a specified percentage of the electorate are dissatisfied with an official's conduct and sign a petition for his removal, the officer must face a general election to determine the majority opinion.
Like the initiative and referendum the recall originated in Switzerland where it is applicable not only to individuals but to the entire legislature. In the United States where its widest use is now found, it first appeared in 1903 in the city charter of Los Angeles. It was soon adopted by many cities with the com mission form of government as the most effective way to control the commissioners into whose hands such large powers were put. It was first adopted with State-wide application in Oregon in 1908, followed by California in 1911, Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Nevada in 1912, Michigan in 1913, Louisiana, North Dakota and Kansas in 1914. Most of these were States with a large number of elective officers, who, since they were not sub ject to removal by the governor, were, in effect, beyond control during their term of office. In one State, Kansas, the recall extends to appointed as well as elected officials. In four of the eleven, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and Washington, it is not applicable to judges on the ground that the judiciary should be independent of popular passions and political issues.
Though the general principle of the recall is simple, there are many variations in its practical application, which considerably alter its effect. For instance under some plans the question of removal may be decided in one election, and the question of a successor in a subsequent election. For economy's sake the two
are often combined into one election in which the official whose conduct is under question may stand as a candidate if he desires. In the latter case the question of his record is evidently com plicated by the element of his comparative popularity. The vote required to remove an official may be a simple majority or a higher percentage. The percentage of signatures required to force an election ranges widely, the average being about 25%; and the methods by which it is permissible to secure signatures may vary sufficiently to affect the result. The recall has, in fact, been but seldom resorted to and then almost entirely for local officers. Only twice has it found State application, notably in North Dakota in 1921 when the governor, attorney-general and commissioner of agriculture were removed. Only a few instances of its being applied to judges are on record, all of them in minor courts. In its State-wide application it becomes too cumbersome to be frequently resorted to. Its chief value is perhaps not to be measured by the frequency with which it is applied, but by the restraining influence which its existence may exercise.
See W. E. Rappard, "Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Switzer land," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science (Sept. 1912) ; W. B. Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall (1912) ; J. D. Barnett, Operation of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Oregon (1915). The argument against the recall of judges is presented by W. H. Taft in his veto of the enabling act for the admission of Arizona, whose Constitution allowed such a recall (House Ex. Doc. No. sod, 62nd Cong. 1st Sess.).