ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

of his course in office. He shall continue to perform the duties of his office until the result of said special election shall be officially declared. Other candidates for the office may be nominated to be voted for at said special election. The candidate who shall receive the highest number of votes shall be deemed elected for the remainder of the term, whether it be the person against whom the recall petition was filed, or another. The recall petition shall be filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination to such office should be filed, and the same officer shall order the special election when it is required. No such petition shall be circulated against any officer until he has actually held his office six months, save and except that it may be filed against a Senator or Representative in the legislative assembly at any time after five days from the beginning of the first session after his election. After one such petition and special election, no further recall petition shall be filed against the same officer during the term for which he was elected unless such further petitioners shall first pay into the public treasury which has paid such special election expenses, the whole amount of its expenses for the preceding special election. Such additional legislation as may aid the operation of this section shall be provided by the legislative assembly, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer. But the words, "the legislative assembly shall provide," or any similar or equivalent words in this constitution or any amendment thereto, shall not be construed to grant to the legislative assembly any exclusive power of law-making nor in any way to limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people.

The Recall in the Courts.-The recall has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. One case was appealed to that tribunal from Wasco County but it was

dismissed before final hearing.1 The county clerk of Wasco County refused to issue a call for a special election for the purpose of voting on the recall of the county judge and the two county commissioners of Wasco County, Oregon. During the court proceedings, the terms of those against whom the recall was directed expired. The principal point raised in this case was whether or not the amendment is self-executing, i. e., complete within itself. If it were determined to be self-executing, then elections under the law might be called; if held to be not self-executing, then additional legislation would be necessary to provide a method for using and exercising the powers conferred by the recall amendment.

The Recall in the City of Portland.-The recall was early used in the city of Portland. This is the largest city in the State of Oregon and its population at the time of the recall election was about a quarter of a million. Mr. J. T. Ellis was elected councilman from the Tenth Ward in the city of Portland at the regular city election. Many believed he stood no show to be elected and his qualifications for office were not the subject of general discussion. These people, many of whom were active in the political affairs of the city, were greatly shocked and surprised to learn from the returns that Mr. Ellis had been elected. From the start of his career as a councilman, these people were opposed to him. After the council was duly organized, it acted for a time with practical unanimity. As time went on, factional differences arose and the council split in two. Mr. Ellis sometimes voted with one faction and sometimes with the other. Being of a radical turn of mind, many ordinances proposed by him caused dissatisfaction and further incensed those who claimed he was there by accident and was unfit for the position.

1 The title of this case is: The State of Oregon on the relation of Geo. A. Harth, Respondent, v. Frank R. Angle, County Clerk of Wasco County, Oregon, Appellant.

Sometimes irritating one faction and sometimes offending the other, after a time Mr. Ellis incurred the ill will of both. Some of these men desired to encompass his defeat. The recall was the means employed to retire Mr. Ellis to private life.

It must be noted in this connection that the recall was used purely as a political weapon. The people who worked up sentiment against Mr. Ellis were not the great body of his constituents. On the contrary, the politicians started the movement and carried the campaign to the voters of the Tenth Ward.

Petitions for the recall were circulated and signatures obtained by the use of any argument which might serve to obtain the required names. Mr. Ellis' private acts, as well as his public acts as a councilman, were urged against him to secure signatures to the petition. On May 13, 1911, the petition, with the requisite number of names signed thereto, was filed. The charges against Mr. Ellis, as set forth in the petition, are general. Failure to represent faithfully and efficiently the people of the Tenth Ward of the city of Portland was the reason given for demanding his recall.

The election was called for June 5, 1911. Candidates against Mr. Ellis were legion. The following named gentlemen ran for councilman against Mr. Ellis at the election: Clinton A. Ambrose, Frank B. Harrington, James Maguire, Will G. Steel and D. G. Stephens. Three votes were cast for another citizen of the Tenth Ward whose name did not appear upon the ballot.

The campaign created some excitement, but it was confined mostly to the two groups of men who were directly interested. On the one side was the group who desired to defeat Mr. Ellis; on the other side were Mr. Ellis and his faithful friends, who were striving to stay the recall movement. The election was held June 5, 1911, and resulted as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Ellis was thus recalled by a very small plurality.

The Recall in Klamath County. The recall was invoked against William S. Worden, county judge of Klamath County. The petitions containing the required number of names were regularly filed and the county clerk called the election for June 2, 1913. Two candidates were placed in the field against the judge. One of these polled few votes and his part in the campaign was negligible. The principal reason for resorting to the recall was the court's decision to build a new court house upon a site some distance from the old building in the town of Klamath Falls, the county seat. Some of the older residents who were opposed to the change were instrumental in instituting and promoting the recall. Other charges were made and the campaign against the recall was conducted by Judge Worden with vigor and energy. He stumped the county and everywhere awakened the people to a full realization of the meaning of the election. The charges brought against the judge as set forth in the petition and on the sample ballot are as follows:

Unlawful, unwise and inefficient management of county finances; the incurring of a large amount of unlawful indebtedness; unnecessarily increased taxation; waste of money in county expenses; favoritism in contracting with and employing relatives of members of the county court and certain firms and corporations at a financial loss to the county; unlawful issuing and selling warrants of the county at a discount; carelessness and inefficiency in auditing bills against the county; accepting

[blocks in formation]

employment from corporations whose interests are opposed to the public interests and at far greater salaries than that paid. by the county; inefficient and unsatisfactory service as a county judge; failure to get value received for money spent for roads, though petitioners are not opposed to good roads; lack of ability, as shown in the past, to expend future levies for roads; inability to construct a new courthouse with economy and a due regard for cost, though petitioners are not opposed to the new courthouse and are indifferent as to its location, but only insist that it shall be built economically and that the cost shall not be excessive, which the past actions of said officer indicate that he will not be able to do.

To these charges, the judge replied on the sample ballot as follows:

This is not a regular election. It is an attempt to remove me from office in the middle of my term.

Two years ago you elected me on a basis of Good Roads and the building of a new courthouse on the Hot Springs site. I have kept my promises. The work has been done well and as cheaply as consistent with permanency. What has been done will not have to be done over again.

The new courthouse has been built economically and well. We have saved money for you in our plan.

I deny the accusations of the opposition on the ground that they are gross misrepresentations and intended to cloud the issue and fool the voter. No other county in the state has accomplished so much in the way of good roads. The men who are behind this recall have threatened me ever since my term of office began unless I would submit to their dictation.

The Grand Jury report was not correct and has been so proven relative to culvert, harness and other matters. If wrong in some, wrong in others. All I want is a square deal. The opposition will not give it.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »