Can the Waycross Circuit DA Recall Succeed?
There is a reason Georgia has barely used the recall, and it is not due to a better class of politicians than other states.
July 16, 2020 at 10:54 AM
5 minute read
While recalls have become a popular political weapon across the Unied States in recent years, including threats against six governors this year alone, Georgia has mainly stayed on the sidelines. Despite being one of 19 states that allow the recall against governors and other state level officials, Georgia has rarely seen the recall deployed.
Now, after the delayed investigation and his failure to prosecute three individuals in the shooting death of jogger Ahmaud Arbery, Waycross Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill is facing a recall effort. Due to the particulars of Georgia law, getting a recall on the ballot is a challenge. But as history shows, once an election is called, there is an excellent chance at success.
Over the last nine years, Georgia has seen very few recalls get to the ballot—the only one that I've tracked was against Meigs Mayor Linda Eason-Harris in 2016, who was kicked out after being indicted on charges of theft and misusing public funds. Prior to that, you have to go back to Lithonia Mayor Joyce McKibben, who was removed in a 2008 recall. There have been plenty of attempts. Last year, following racially provocative comments and discriminatory hiring policies, Hoschton Mayor Theresa Kenerly and City Councilman Jim Cleveland resigned rather than face the voters.
There is a reason Georgia has barely used the recall, and it is not due to a better class of politicians than other states. While recall laws exist on the local levels in 39 states, only 19 provide the recall for some or all state level officials. These states can be divided into two separate buckets. Eleven states use what is called a political recall law. In these states, an official can face a recall for almost any reason. Petitioners do not need to allege misconduct, such as actual criminal behavior or incompetence in order for the recall to get to the ballot. Nearly every recall of note, like the ones that targeted California Gov. Gray Davis, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker or state senators in Colorado over gun control laws, have taken place under the political recall laws.
The other eight states, including Georgia, operate under what can be called a malfeasance or judicial recall (not to be confused with a recall of a judge) standard law. The states require that petitioners show a specific violation of a law, a demonstrable lack of fitness or clearly provable incompetent behavior. These laws vary greatly from state to state. In Illinois, only the governor is covered by recall, and in Virginia, there is no election but rather a judicial hearing as to whether the official should be ousted. But all of these malfeasance standard states share a similar very high bar to get a recall on the ballot—an agency or courts must hold that a statutorily delineated bad act was violated by the elected official in order for the official to be removed.
As an example of how strong this divide is, there have been 46 recalls of state level officials and legislators in U.S. history since 1913. Only one of them, against a state senator in Washington in 1981, has been in a malfeasance-standard state.
Georgia's lack of success with the recall was not foreordained. Arguably, it may be viewed as a case of judicial overreach that has prevented the voters from using the recall as a regular weapon.
Localities have had the recall since at least 1913 in Georgia, with the city of Columbus adopting such a law. But it was in 1978 that voters overwhelmingly approved a statewide recall law, with over 68% in favor of its passage. But a Georgia Supreme Court decision in 1988 invalidated the political recall code that the state Legislature wrote to enact the law, with the justices ruling that the phrase "grounds" in the constitutional amendment meant that the law was a limitation on the use of the recall akin to a malfeasance standard. Two justices, including the chief justice, dissented. The dissent took a vastly more expansive view of the law, one that tracks the recall laws of political recall states, noting that "grounds" were "the vote of majority of electors in a recall election." But this argument did not rule the day.
To get the recall back on track, the Legislature adopted a new recall law in 1989 tracking the Supreme Court ruling and greatly limiting the recall law. While recalls have been attempted, they rarely get to the ballot and are frequently stopped by judges. However, in Hoschton last year, a lower court held that the officials could face a recall due to their failure to establish an ethics board. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on the ruling, effectively greenlighting the recall.
If a recall does get on the ballot, the chances of success are quite high. Over the last nine years, we've seen that about 60% of recalls that get to the voters result in removal. Additionally, another 5% to 7% of officials resign rather than face a vote. The result is that, if petitioners can get the signatures, they have a strong possibility of ousting the official.
While Georgia has avoided the recall fights thanks to limitations in the law, the actions of the Waycross Circuit district attorney may lead the voters to get their say earlier than usual.
Joshua Spivak is a senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College in New York.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readFulton Jury Returns Defense Verdict After Pedestrian Killed by MARTA Bus
8 minute read'The Best Strategy': $795K Resolution Reached in Federal COVID-Accommodation Dispute
8 minute readPopulation and Caseload Boom Birth New West Georgia Judicial Circuit
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250