> From: "Tom & Elsa Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I say go ahead and try. The 1959 MN Supreme Court decision says that for it > to be valid, even if they expend all the energy to get the 12,000 or so > signatures, Kelly had to do something drastically wrong, or not do something > he necessarily should have. Endorsing a candidate of the opposite party > does not meet the threshold of the this decision. Vote him out at the next > election if you wish/can. But he can't be recalled for this under the MN > Supreme Court ruling, in my opinion. > > Tom Thompson Como Park
I'm not sure what case that refers to, but I'd be willing to bet it grew out of a challenge to recall in a statutory city, not a Home Rule charter city like St. Paul. Without too much detail, statutory cities operate under state municipal laws and are/were overseen by a State Municipal Board or some such. In any event, statutory cities are beholden to a broad range of state-imposed requirements. But Home Rule cities - cities that pass their own charters, drafted and submitted to voters by a charter commission appointed by the Chief Judge of their jurisdiction (in our case, the Ramsey District Court) - are given much more autonomy, freedom to decide the parameters for everything from how and in what form the City will be governed (we started with a commission form in 1916 and became a strong-mayor form in 1972) to what duties each other offices will carry to the way citizens may affect the city's laws and electoral procedures, including initiative, referendum and recall (IR&R). State recall processes differ significantly from St. Paul's. Again, I don't know at the moment what the 1959 case says, but it was likely seen in violation of a state statute governing recall in statutory cities. Besides, much municipal law has changed, some of it quite dramatically, in the last 54 years. Unlikely it would serve as precedent here. There seems to be quite a lot of confusion over what "recall" means as defined in the process. If sufficient numbers of signatures are gathered to meet the requirements for a recall election, then only an election, a special one, if necessary, can replace an elected official with a new winning challenger, in this case, the present mayor. The mayor is *not* removed automatically by the petition's sufficiency all by itself. The petition only establishes a new election for the office and it is held either concurrently with the next major election, or in a special election if the valid petition would place an election more than six months to a year away from the next general election. The election is like any other: All comers may file for the office, the mayor being one of several candidates standing for election, if he (or she) actually cares to hold the office. The recall is only successful if voters elect one of the other candidates. As with our general election, more than two filers means a primary to winnow the field to two. The mayor could lose that election and be considered recalled and the remaining candidates would vie for the soon-to-be-vacant office in the general election a few weeks later. (Our offices are nonpartisan, so it makes no difference if there are two or three DFLers going after the mayor; everyone has a chance to come through the primary. No court is going to throw out the results of a legitimate recall in a Home Rule City of the First Class like St. Paul. The St. Paul Charter puts no parameter on the reason for the recall, so legally, you could recall Randy Kelly for blowing his nose at a concert. But like this current attempt, voters will see through such patently stupid ideas as recalling a politician for blowing their noses in a concert or changing parties or not mowing their lawns for weeks at a crack. As with any citizen, Randy Kelly has the option of voting for and announcing his support for the candidate of his choice for any election held anywhere. It is not a breach of the public trust to endorse candidates we would not. While we might wish he had not, and wonder why he has, given this president's contempt for urban centers and their residents, the right to do so is sacrosanct under the Constitution. Now, friends, it's no secret that I am not fond of Randy Kelly's politics, modus operandi, treatment of subordinates - and colleagues and citizens, as well - and his disingenuous treading on both side of the political line. But that line is very thin and often blurry and he's not the first, nor will he be the last to straddle it for opportunistic self-service. Coleman did it and won re-election (even though he lost by a wide margin St. Paul's votes for governor and senator since then). Lots of dynamics there not now present with this mayor, including the quality of his opponent's campaign. In Minnesota, you can be of any party you say you are, but the reality of being sympatico with one or the other lies in your record - your issue positions, your votes in office, your behavior as an executive. Randy Kelly, remember, ran against his party's candidate for mayor three years ago. That and his previous record legislating against many of the platform planks of his party while a state senator should have been clues enough to keep him from ethically claiming DFL party membership and being considered by anyone else as anything but a Republican in DFL clothing. Had Randy joined the party of his preference at any other time (and by endorsing Bush, he's doing it now, his protests to the contrary notwithstanding), his political career on the East Side of St. Paul would have ground to a halt long ago. He knew this and walked that same line throughout his legislative career. What he has done for the upcoming election is but one thing: shown his true colors at last and is coming out of the closet. His endorsement of Bush will have one effect: to put him in a position to run as a Republican for mayor next year or for another office as a GOP challenger to a DFL Congressional candidate or as a GOP successor to Tim Pawlenty or to a job in Washington DC. This has nothing to do with his concern for stability in the federal executive (no President in history has caused more instability than has Bush) or for the plight of St. Paul in the federal money pool. This has everything to do with Randy Kelly's personal future and where he'll be happier and richer and rid of all of us pests in his backyard. But none of it warrants a recall election. He'll be gone next year anyway. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 ------ _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
