From the Sun-Times:

Giving voters recall power wouldn't help
Dissatisfaction with gov spurs idea, but we can only blame ourselves

November 4, 2007
BY MARK BROWN Sun-Times Columnist

As if Illinois politics hasn't grown poisonous enough, now there's momentum for a constitutional amendment to enable voters to remove state elected officials before the end of their term.

Let's nip this in the bud before it only adds to our dysfunctional state of affairs.

We don't need the electoral gimmick known as recall. We need to do a better job at election time.

The impetus for the current recall movement stems mainly from dissatisfaction with Gov. Blagojevich, the Democrat who was RE-ELECTED
just one year ago this month.

'He is who we thought he was'
Yes, I know, it seems like a century ago to me, too, but I emphasize re-elected because it's not as if the voters of Illinois were hoodwinked or tricked into electing some unknown commodity who suddenly
removed his mask the moment he stepped inside the Executive Mansion.

To paraphrase former Arizona Cardinals football coach Dennis Green (in
the wake of last year's stunning Bears' comeback): "He is who we thought he was."

We elected the guy, not just once but twice. We're stuck with him. We deserve to be stuck with him.

And likewise, he deserves the opportunity to do the job he thinks he was elected to do, even if you or I have strong views that he KEEPS SCREWING IT UP.

You can say we didn't have much in the way of a choice in the 2006 elections, and I might agree, but that's how it works. A recall wouldn't solve the problem of lousy candidates from which to choose.

If you like Arnold Schwarzenegger, the last governor to emerge from a successful recall movement, there's still room for you in California.

Open to abuse in era of attack politics
I don't care what the public opinion polls say about our governor's job
rating. If anything, Blagojevich is already too hung up on such poll findings. Most politicians are these days. They're more concerned about
staying in power than getting something accomplished. That applies to more than one of the central figures in the state's current political logjam. The last thing we need is another excuse for them to play it safe.

But that's just one of the potential drawbacks of a recall, a theoretically well-intentioned tool of democracy that is open to abuse
in today's attack politics.

Let's say we did have a recall in effect in Illinois right now, keeping
in mind we don't and that it's doubtful we could have a recall election
much before the next gubernatorial election, but let's say we did.

Blagojevich would have just finished winning the election, and the sore
losers start a campaign to recall him. Maybe it's successful. Maybe it's not. But in the meantime, the state is totally held hostage by the
process.

And while you may not like the guy, a whole bunch of people voted for him, and they're going to rightfully be angry, too. You finish one campaign and start another. Where does it end?

Maybe you elect a Republican at the next election. You think the Democratic interest groups aren't going to try to start a recall movement of their own as part of the tit-for-tat mentality. We already
saw that in Washington, when folks harboring a grudge over the Clinton
impeachment effort tried drumming up an impeach Bush movement.

Not to get sidetracked, but remember we do have impeachment in state government, too, for those instances when there really is an agreed need to get rid of a dangerously malfunctioning officeholder.

Buyer's remorse
Recall proponents say they have set the bar high enough -- requiring petition signatures equal to 12 percent of the vote from the prior election for the office in question -- that there would be no frivolous
recall efforts. In a state where the politics have traditionally been split almost 50-50, I don't think that would be a terribly difficult hurdle for a well-funded interest group, which would then have one more
weapon at its disposal to try to bully our elected officials in Springfield.

The constitutional amendment proposed by Rep. Dan Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican, and Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat, would apply not
just to the governor but to all state constitutional officers, as well
as legislators and judges.

Everybody knows, though, that the only reason this is getting any traction right now is because of Blagojevich.

We all understand buyer's remorse, but we had our chance for a trade-in. Get over it.

+++++++