From ABC-CLIO’s American History website
https://americanhistory2.abc-clio.com/

Recall Election

A recall election is an election in which voters decide whether to remove an elected o�cial from o�ce before his
or her term has expired. Nineteen states have recall provisions for state-elected o�cials. Twenty-nine states allow
local o�cials to be recalled. However, national o�cials, such as members of Congress and the president, cannot
be recalled.

History of the Recall

In the United States, recall provisions have been popular among voters but have also raised concerns about how
distant or protected government o�cials should be from public opinion. The Articles of Confederation included
recall provisions. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention also debated providing for the recall in the U.S.
Constitution.

Supporters argued that the recall was important to give the public a way of keeping representatives responsive
and accountable once elected. They argued that this was particularly important in the Senate. The long six-year
terms of the Senate meant that senators might ignore the public altogether for many years before being held
accountable in an election.

Opponents argued that elected representatives should be relatively free to enact legislation that re�ected not just
the narrow interests of their constituents but also the nation as a whole. Being subject to recall would constrain
representatives’ ability to cooperate in the national interest. This was particularly important in the Senate.
Senators’ long terms of o�ce were intended to provide protection from public pressure. This was meant to
enable senators to take a more considered, long-term view of both their states’ and the nation’s interests. In the
end, the arguments against the recall prevailed. No provision for recall was included in the U.S. Constitution.

Recall in the States

Similarly, no states included recall provisions in their early constitutions. Support for state recall provisions grew
during the Populist movement of the late 19th century. The nation faced multiple economic crises and the
upheaval of industrialization, immigration, and urbanization. Populists argued that many of these problems were
the result of corrupt government o�cials who ignored the public. They thought that the existing way of removing
elected o�cials from o�ce, impeachment, was insu�cient because it applied only to misconduct. Populists
pointed out that voters have many reasons for electing a given candidate beyond misconduct. Given this, they
argued that voters should be able to remove those candidates from o�ce for a broad variety of reasons.

The Populists succeeded in building popular support for the recall. However, the �rst state recall provisions were
not enacted until the Progressive Era of the early 20th century. Progressives were middle- and upper-middle-class
citizens. They wanted to break up what they saw as a corrupt relationship between elected representatives and
industrial and �nancial interests. Their �rst success came in 1903 in Los Angeles. Voters there considered their
local o�cials too close to the Southern Paci�c Railroad. So, they voted to enact the United States’ �rst recall law.
Other California cities soon followed suit, but no statewide recall came until 1908, in Oregon. By 1912,
momentum was building, and four western states had adopted statewide recall provisions.

Recall provisions did not spread to all 50 states and are largely con�ned to states west of the Mississippi River.
However, recall provisions have been added recently, as Illinois demonstrated in 2010.

Recalls in Action

Recalling a public o�cial includes several steps and can often be a di�cult process. The �rst step in recalling a
public o�cial is to submit a petition with a speci�ed number of voters demanding a recall election.

6/22/24, 10:13 PM Print Display – Recall Election – Reference Articles

https://americanhistory2-abc–clio-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Search/Display/2243807?terms=progressive+AND+POPULIST&sTypeId=2 1/3

States vary in petition requirements and in the acceptable grounds for attempting a recall. In most states, any
registered voter can initiate a recall campaign against an elected o�cial for any reason. However, eight states
restrict the grounds on which a recall election can be called, with di�erent requirements

Opponents of recalls argue that they are often groundless and politically motivated. Many recent recall attempts
have been in response to politically unpopular actions, rather than incompetence or unethical behavior. In these
recall attempts, support and opposition usually falls along partisan lines. For example, several Colorado state
senators faced recall elections in response to their support of increased gun control. These policy-oriented recalls
are legal in most recall states, but some voters may not feel that political motivation warrants a recall.

The Politics of Recalls

Another debate, present since the Progressive Era, centers on whether or not to recall judges. Opponents, then
and now, argue that judges should be impartial and rule based only on the law and the merits of the case. Recall
would force judges to incorporate public opinion into their rulings, perhaps to the point of violating their oaths of
o�ce. Worse, fear of a recall could cause judges to side with a majority in denying a minority its legal rights. This
could create a “tyranny of the majority,” something the founders greatly feared. Many states that allow the recall
speci�cally exclude elected judges. But supporters of judicial recall in the Progressive Era and today argue that
judges were already violating their duty by favoring business interests and should be at least somewhat
accountable to the public.

The debate over judicial recalls highlights one potential upside of these institutions: they make elected o�cials
more responsive to public preferences. So, does the recall make for more responsible elected o�cials, or o�cials
who are less corrupt and more responsive to public opinion, as proponents argue? Or, does the recall compel
elected o�cials to submit to majority opinion at the expense of minority rights? Research on these questions has
only produced mixed evidence. An early study found no di�erence in the amount of o�cial corruption in states
that do and do not have recall provisions, but a later study found that the recall makes legislators less likely to
pursue their own interests at the expense of the public’s interests. Still another study found that states with recall
provisions are more likely to legislate and implement policies that are harmful to minority interests.

Despite these issues, most Americans support state recall provisions, and many would like to see these provisions
adopted for national o�cials as well. However, such a provision would require a constitutional amendment, so
recalls face extremely di�cult odds at the national level.
Daniel C. Lewis
Robert Worth
Further Reading

Cronin, Thomas E. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1989; Persily, Nathaniel A. “The Peculiar Geography of Direct Democracy: Why the Initiative,
Referendum and Recall Developed in the American West.” Michigan Law & Policy Review 11 (1997); Schmidt, David
D. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989; Wilcox, Delos F.
Government by All the People (Or the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall As Instruments of Democracy).
New York: Macmillan, 1912.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ABC-CLIO, LLC

This content may be used for non-commercial, course and research purposes only.

APA Citation
Lewis, D. C. , & Worth, R. Ph.D. (2024). Recall Election. American History. Retrieved June 22, 2024, from
https://americanhistory2.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/2243807
 

6/22/24, 10:13 PM Print Display – Recall Election – Reference Articles

https://americanhistory2-abc–clio-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Search/Display/2243807?terms=progressive+AND+POPULIST&sTypeId=2 2/3