‘Impeachment’ vs ‘recall’

During the last few weeks, there has been quite a lot of talk regarding impeachment of the NMI’s elected leadership. Some are saying there is ample cause for the House to bring “charges” and thus “impeach” the Governor or Lt. Governor or both, and for the Senate to hold “trial” and either uphold the charges brought by the House, thus immediately removing the person(s) charged, or to deny the charges and allow the person(s) to continue in office.

On the other hand, other people have voiced their choice of methods to “get rid of” an elected official as being “recall”, apparently feeling that the combined forces of the House and Senate would not undertake such an impeachment process for various personal “motives.” They are probably right; besides it takes some degree of expertise—and intestinal fortitude—to bring charges and carry out the process and there is some doubt as to whether this exists on Capital Hill.

But I just wonder if the people asking for a recall petition, while at the same time complaining that these leaders must be removed immediately because we simply don’t have time to wait another 16 months or so for an election to place someone new in the offices, understand the differences between “impeachment” and “recall.”

On the one hand, impeachment is carried out by the Legislature who is elected by the people they represent and who are supposed to carry out the expressed wishes of the majority of the public. It can be a rapid process, requiring only days or weeks to accomplish and need not involve proven criminal actions but could be for such actions (or in-action) as dereliction of duty, malfeasance in office or public corruption; all rather vague terms, but potent when properly applied by one’s public or political foes.

The office holder being impeached can be removed from office immediately and in the case of the Governor, the Lt. Governor would then step in. If both the Governor and Lt. Governor should be removed at the same time or in succession, the Senate President would then step in—and on goes the succession until the next general election.

But what about “recall?” It appears that many believe that the voters have the right to recall an elected leader and that if the voters do so, through petition, then the person “recalled” must leave office. Well, think again, it doesn’t work that way. The next paragraph is a direct excerpt from the NMI Constitution:

Article Ix: Initiative, Referendum and Recall

Section 3: Recall. Elected public officials are subject to recall by the voters of the Commonwealth or of the island, islands or district from which elected.

A) A recall petition shall identify the public official sought to be recalled by name and office, state the grounds for recall, and be signed by at least forty percent of the persons qualified to vote for the office occupied by the public official.

B) A recall petition shall be filed with the attorney general for certification that the requirements of section 3(a) have been met.

C) A recall petition certified by the attorney general shall be submitted to the voters at the next regular general election unless special elections are provided by law for this purpose.

D) A recall petition shall take effect thirty days after the date of the election if approved by two-thirds of the persons qualified to vote for the office involved.

E) A recall petition may not be filed against a public official more than once in any year or during the first six months of a term in office.

Source: Original provision, unaltered (ratified 1977, effective 1978).

As you can see, “recall” just will not “get rid of” the person recalled, at least not quickly! In the first place, 40 percent of the registered voters must sign the petition; then it must be “certified” by the AG, who serves at the Governor’s whim. Even if it were “certified”, no action can take place until the next regular general election and even then two-thirds of the registered voters must vote “yes.” I sincerely doubt that such percentages could ever be achieved in the NMI—and it is abundantly clear that the framers of the Constitution knew this.

So what is the purpose of having the ability to “recall” an elected official in the NMI? There isn’t any that I can see unless the recalled official was not up for re-election at the next general election. If we must wait until the next regular general election to “vote” to remove (recall) the elected official who was up for re-election anyway, then why not just vote for the other guy instead? Do we really think the Legislature will establish a “special election” for this purpose? Recall, as enacted in the NMI Constitution, just doesn’t make any sense.

So there you have it. Want to get rid of them now? Then there is no choice except for the public to demand their elected legislators take the action to do so. But what if they don’t, or won’t? I’m afraid the “public” is left out in the cold on this one—until the next election where you will at least have the choice to vote against some of them, not all, but the message will be clear.

So look at the record of the incumbent(s) and use your vote wisely. From what is occurring today, this may be the only message from the voters that will be understood and heeded.