Electoral Reform

Introduction and Meaning:-
According to General Clause Act, 1897, power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed.[1] Dictionary meaning of the Recall is the right or procedure by which a public official may be removed from a position by a vote of the people prior to the end of the term of office. Recall is the retiring of an elected officer by a vote of the electorate. Some state constitutions prescribe the procedure that must be followed in a recall—for example, requiring the filing of a petition containing the signatures of a specific number of qualified voters.¬ ¬The right or procedure by which a public official, commonly a legislative or executive official, may be removed from office, before the end of his term of office, by a vote of the people to be taken on the filing of a petition signed by a required number or percentage of qualified voters.
[2] Specifically and in simple terminology it is a kind of mechanism designed to enable voter not satisfied with an elected representative to remove him/her before completion of fixed period of office initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition. Through an electoral procedure, this power of removal, constitutionally, is either granted to or reserved by the people, depending on the theory of government and sovereignty in the country in question.
[3] Recall Election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before his or her term has ended.
History of Recall:

Recall has a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy and is a feature of several contemporary constituitions. The concept of recall originated in Switzerland but became operative in several American States. The recall device began in the United States in a municipality in Los Angeles in 1903. Michigan and Oregon, in 1908, were the first the States to adopt recall procedures for state officials
Cuba
The Constitution of Cuba has provisions for recall of elected officials. Recall may either be proposed by 20% of delegates of their municipal assembly or 20% of voters in their electoral district
Switzerland
While recall referenda are not provided for at the federal level in Switzerland, six cantons allow them:
• Bern: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1846. 30,000 signatures (4% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful attempt to recall the executive in 1852.
• Schaffhausen: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1876. 1,000 signatures (2% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful attempt to recall the executive in 2000.
• Solothurn: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1869. 6,000 signatures (3% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful attempt to recall the executive and legislative in 1995.
• Ticino: Recall of the executive is possible since 1892. 15,000 signatures (7% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful recall attempt in 1942. In addition, recall of municipal executives is possible since 2011. Signatures of 30% of all adult citizens are required to trigger a recall referendum.
• Thurgau: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1869. 20,000 signatures (13% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There have been no recall attempts.
• Uri: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1988. 600 signatures (3% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. In addition, recall of municipal executives and legislatives is possible since 2011. Signatures of 10% of registered voters are required to trigger a recall referendum. There have been no recall attempts either at the cantonal or municipal levels.
The possibility of recall referenda (together with the popular election of executives, the initiative and the legislative referendum) was introduced into several cantonal constitutions after the 1860s in the course of a broad movement for democratic reform. The instrument has never been of any practical importance – the few attempts at recall so far have failed, usually because the required number of signatures was not collected – and it was abolished in the course of constitutional revisions in Aargau (1980), Baselland (1984) and Lucerne (2007). But the possibility of recalling municipal executives was newly introduced in Ticino in 2011, with 59% of voters in favor, as a reaction to the perceived problem of squabbling and dysfunctional municipal governments
United States


Submitting petitions for the recall of Seattle, Washington mayor Hiram Gill in December 1910; Gill was removed by a recall election the following February, but voters returned him to the office in 1914.
Recall first appeared in Colonial America in the laws of the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1631. This version of the recall involved one elected body removing another official. During the American Revolution the Articles of Confederation stipulated that state legislatures might recall delegates from the continental congress. According to New York Delegate John Lansing, the power was never exercised by any state. The Virginia Plan, issued at the outset of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, proposed to pair recall with rotation in office and to apply these dual principles to the lower house of the national legislature. The recall was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. However, the anti-Federalists used the lack of recall provision as a weapon in the ratification debates.
Several states proposed adopting a recall for US senators in the years immediately following the adoption of the Constitution. However, it did not pass.
Along with the initiative, the referendum, and the direct primary, the recall election was one of the major electoral reforms advocated by leaders of the Progressive movement in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, although it was initially proposed in William S. U'Ren's Oregon newspaper. Recall elections do not take place at the federal level. The majority of states allow recall elections in local jurisdictions, but only eighteen states permit recall elections to remove state officials and a nineteenth state, Illinois, allows it for Governors only. The modern day father of the recall is considered to be Dr. John Randolph Haynes, who formed the Direct Legislation League of California in 1900. Los Angeles became the first major city to adopt the recall in 1903.
Only two governors have ever been successfully recalled. In 1921, Lynn Frazier, Governor of North Dakota, was recalled during a dispute about state-owned industries, and in 2003, Governor Gray Davis of California was recalled over the state budget. Additionally, a recall was approved against Arizona Governor Evan Mecham, but he was impeached and convicted before it got on the ballot.
In Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and Washington, specific grounds are required for a recall. Some form of malfeasance or misconduct while in office must be identified by the petitioners. The target may choose to dispute the validity of the grounds in court, and a court then judges whether the allegations in the petition rise to a level where a recall is necessary. In the November 2010 general election, Illinois passed a referendum to amend the state constitution to allow a recall in light of ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich's corruption scandal. In the other eleven states that permit state-wide recall, no grounds are required and recall petitions may be circulated for any reason. However, the target is permitted to submit responses to the stated reasons for recall.
The minimum number of signatures and the time limit to qualify a recall vary between states. In addition, the handling of recalls once they qualify differs. In some states, a recall triggers a simultaneous special election, where the vote on the recall, as well as the vote on the replacement if the recall succeeds, are on the same ballot. In the 2003 California recall election, over 100 candidates appeared on the replacement portion of the ballot. In other states, a separate special election is held after the target is recalled, or a replacement is appointed by the Governor or some other state authority.
Successful recalls
• 1911 recall of Hiram Gill, mayor of Seattle, Washington
• 1916 recall of J. W. Robinson, mayor of Boise, Idaho
• 1921 recall of Lynn Frazier, governor of North Dakota
• 1983 recall of Michigan state senators Phil Mastin and David Serotkin due to their support for a state income tax hike. Loss of these two Democratic lawmakers, along with two special elections won by Republicans, flipped the state senate to GOP control, where it has remained ever since (as of September 2011.)
• 1987 recall of Mike Boyle, mayor of Omaha, Nebraska.
• 1987 recall of James Holley, mayor of Portsmouth, Virginia
• 1994 recall of officials in River Vale, New Jersey: Mayor Walter Jones, Councilwoman Patricia Geier, and Councilman Bernard Salmon
• 1995 recall of California State Assemblyman Paul Horcher
• 1995 recall of California State Assembly Speaker Doris Allen
• 1996 recall of Wisconsin State Senator George Petak
• 2002 recall of Woodrow Stanley, mayor of Flint, Michigan.
• 2002 recall of multiple Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, elected county officials including Executive F. Thomas Ament (resigned before election); Board Chair Karen Ordinans; and Board Supervisors Penny Podell, LeAnn Launstein, David Jasenski, Kathy Arciszewski, James McGuigan, and Linda Ryan. All were recalled due to a retirement pension controversy.
• 2003 recall of Gray Davis, governor of California
• 2003 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Gary George
• 2005 recall of James E. West, mayor of Spokane, Washington.
• 2006 recall of Neil Marko, mayor of Roosevelt, New Jersey.
• 2008 recall of Carmen Kontur-Gronquist, mayor of Arlington, Oregon.
• 2010 recall of James Holley, mayor of Portsmouth, Virginia.
• 2011 recall of Carlos Alvarez, mayor of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Randy Hopper
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Dan Kapanke
• 2011 recall of Neal Knight, mayor of Cornelius, Oregon, and city councilors Mari Gottwald and Jamie Minshall, less than a year after their election, due to unhappiness over their votes to fire the city manager.
• 2011 recall of multiple Killeen, Texas elected city officials including Mayor Pro Tem Scott Cosper and four city counsel members.
• 2011 recall of Arizona state senator Russell Pearce for sponsoring Arizona's SB 1070.
• 2011 recall of Michigan Representative Paul Scott
Unsuccessful recalls
• 1932 recall election of Wisconsin State Senator Otto Mueller
• 1978 Cleveland Recall Election of Mayor Dennis Kucinich
• 1988 recall of San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein
• 2008 recall of California State Senator Jeff Denham
• 2008 recall of Michigan House of Representatives Speaker Andy Dillon
• In 2009, a petition for the recall of San Jose, California city Council member Madison Nguyen obtained enough signatures to qualify the recall for the ballot; but the subsequent recall election failed.
• 2009 recall of Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic
• 2010 recall of Mayor Anthony R. Suarez in Ridgefield, New Jersey
• 2011 recall of Omaha Nebraska Mayor Jim Suttle
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Dave Hansen
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Robert Cowles
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Sheila Harsdorf
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Luther Olsen
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Alberta Darling
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Robert Wirch
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Jim Holperin
Unsuccessful attempts to qualify recall elections
• 1967 United States Senator Frank Church of Idaho was the subject of an unsuccessful recall effort. Courts ruled that a federal official is not subject to state recall laws.
• 1988 Evan Mecham, Governor of Arizona, was scheduled for a recall election on May 17th of that year, after a successful petition drive (301,000 signatures). However, the Supreme Court of Arizona canceled the election, since Mecham had already been impeached and removed from office by the Senate on April 4
• 1992-93 California Governor Pete Wilson was targeted for recall by the Bite 'Em Back campaign, which was a grassroots effort that came about as a result of a piece by San Jose Mercury News columnist Pat Dillon, in response to the then-ongoing California budgetary crisis.[19][20] The Bite 'Em Back campaign also intended to recall then-Speaker of the Assembly Willie L. Brown, and then-President Pro Tem of the state Senate, David Roberti.[citation needed]
• 2009 Joseph Cao U.S. representative for Louisiana's 2nd congressional district, was determined to inelligble for recall as per his status as a Federal office holder.
• 2009 a petition failed to garner sufficient signatures to oblige an election for recall of Eddie Price III, mayor of Mandeville, Louisiana.
• 2009 a petition for recall of Stacy Head, New Orleans city councilwoman, likewise failed to gain the requisite number of signatures.
• 2010 there were two unsuccessful recall petitions for Sam Adams mayor of Portland, OR.
• 2010 there was one unsuccessful recall petition for Lisa Poppaw city council member of Fort Collins, CO.
• 2010 there was one unsuccessful recall petition for Antonio Villaraigosa mayor of Los Angeles, CA.
• 2010, a recall proposal aimed at mayor Ron Littlefield of Chattanooga, Tennessee failed after a judge of the Hamilton County, Tennessee circuit court ruled that too many of the petition signatures were invalid and that the petitioners had failed to properly adhere to the state's recall law, leaving "pages without dates."
• 2011, as part of the Wisconsin Senate recall elections, 2011, there were a number of failed recall petitions. Petitions against senators Lena Taylor (D), Spencer Coggs (D), Mark Miller (D), Glenn Grothman (R), Julie Lassa (D), Fred Risser (D), and Mary Lazich (R), were unsuccessful. Many senators had multiple recall petitions filed against them, and in the case of both Wirch and Hansen, one succeeded while others failed.
• 2011, an effort to recall Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was ended after organizers did not obtain enough petition signatures to appear on the ballot.
In Progress
• 2011 recall of Alaska State Representative Kyle Johansen, sponsored by an opposing faction within the local Republican Party.
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Scott L. Fitzgerald
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Van H. Wanggaard
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Terry Moulton
• 2011 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Pam Galloway
Venezuela
Article 72 of the Constitution of Venezuela enables the recall of any elected representative, including the President. This provision was used in the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004, which attempted to remove President Hugo Chavez:
Article 72: All [...] offices filled by popular vote are subject to revocation.
Once one-half of the term of office to which an official has been elected has elapsed, a number of voters representing at least 20% of the registered voters in the affected constituency may petition for the calling of a referendum to revoke that official's mandate.
When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favour of the recall, provided that a number of voters equal to or greater than 25% of the total number of registered voters vote in the recall referendum, the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked and immediate action shall be taken to fill the permanent vacancy as provided for by this Constitution and by law.


RECALL PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN CALIFOURNIA
1. What is Recall and What Circumstances Justify It?
The California Constitution defines recall as "the power of the electors to remove an elective officer." (Art. II, Sec. 13) Neither the California Constitution nor the Elections Code says under what circumstances recall is justified. Instead, the Constitution says, in connection with recalls of state officers, "[s]ufficiency of reason is not reviewable." (Art. II, Sec. 14) The only language in the Elections Code that has any bearing on this is in §11024. Referring to the proponents’ statement of reasons for the recall and the incumbent’s answer, it states that, "[t]he statement and answer are intended solely for the information of the voters. No insufficiency in form or substance thereof shall affect the validity of the election proceedings."
2. Who Can be Recalled?
Any elective officer including any officer appointed in lieu of election or to fill vacancy. (§11006)
3. Circumstances Under Which a Recall is Prohibited
A recall may not be commenced if any of these apply (§11007):
• The incumbent has not held office during his or her current term for more than 90 days.
• A recall election has been decided in the incumbent’s favor within the last six months.
• The incumbent’s term of office ends within six months or less.
4. Who Conducts the Recall Election?
Recalls are conducted by the “elections official” which is defined as (§11002) :
• A county elections official in the case of the recall of elective officers of a county, school district, county board of education, community college district, or resident voting district, and of judges of trial courts.
• (b) A city elections official, including, but not necessarily limited to, a city clerk, in the case of the recall of elective officers of a city.
• The secretary of the governing board in the case of the recall of elective officers of a landowner voting district or any district in which, at a regular election, candidate's nomination papers are filed with the secretary of the governing board.
In the event the county elections official is the incumbent whose recall is being sought, then the duties imposed upon him or her shall be performed by some other person designated by the Board of Supervisors. (§11201)
5. Who Can Initiate a Recall?
Any qualified elector may initiate a recall. A qualified elector is defined as being a registered voter of the jurisdiction and eligible to vote on the office of the incumbent they seek to recall. (§§11005, 322)
6. Separate Nature of Each Recall
Each recall is a separate process and requires successful completion of the steps shown on the flow chart (Appendix A). If, for example, there are three separate incumbents to be recalled, there must be three of each of the following (§§ 11020, 11021 and 11044.):
 Notice of Intention
 Affidavit of Time and Manner of Service
 Affidavit of Proof of Publication (or Posting, if applicable) of the Notice of Intention
 Set of Two Blank Copies of the Proposed Petition Formats
 Recall Petition
Any error in following any of the steps in connection with a particular recall may require that some or all steps taken up to that point be done over. Again, recall proponents may wish to consult an attorney to help them avoid such errors.
When multiple recalls are under way, petition circulators typically will be circulating multiple petitions, and requesting voters to sign each of however many petitions are involved. Not all voters will choose to sign each petition, with the result that when the petitions are filed with the Office of the County Elections Official, the total number of signatures submitted for each recall petition will vary.
7. Cost of a Recall
The cost of a recall election is charged to the government agency whose officials are sought to be recalled. Contact the Office of the County Elections Official for an estimate of the cost. If the recall election can be consolidated with a regularly scheduled election or another special election, the cost may be considerably reduced.
II. STARTING THE RECALL
1. Preparing the Notice of Intention
The initial step for proponents interested in the recall of an elected officer holder is the drafting of a Notice of Intention. (§11020) The Notice of Intention consists of the following:
• The name and title of the officer to be recalled.
• A statement of no more than 200 words expressing the reasons for the recall. (See Appendix B for rules on counting words.)
• The printed name, signature, and business or residence address of each of the proponents. Note: Proponents should also provide a mailing address if different from above.
• The language contained in §11023 informing the incumbent of his or her right to file an answer.
A sample Notice of Intention form is included as Appendix C.
The number of proponents required to sign the Notice of Intention is ten (10) or equal to the number of signatures required to be filed on the nomination petition for the office of the incumbent whose recall is being sought, whichever is higher. (§11020) For example, in the case of a county elected office, the minimum number of signatures required on nomination petition is 20 (§8062(a)(3)), hence the minimum number of proponents required to sign the recall’s Notice of Intention is 20.
All proponents must be registered to vote in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote on the office of the incumbent they seek to recall. (§11005)
2. Serving the Notice on the Incumbent
A copy of the Notice of Intention must be served on the office holder sought to be recalled by personal delivery or by certified mail (§11021). If serving by certified mail, recall proponents are advised to obtain from the Office of the County Elections Official the office holder’s most current and correct mailing address, as listed on the incumbent’s voter registration record.
3. Filing the Notice and Proof of Service
The original Notice of Intention must be filed with the Office of the County Elections Official within seven (7) days of the incumbent having been served, along with an affidavit of time and manner of service (§ 11021). (See Appendix D and Appendix E for examples of affidavits used for personal delivery and certified mail, respectively.)
A separate Notice of Intention shall be filed for each incumbent sought to be recalled.
The affidavit of Proof of Service by Certified Mail (Appendix E) attests to the date the Notice of Intention was mailed, the name of the office holder sought to be recalled and his or her mailing address.
Note to elections officials: It is recommended that on the day a Notice of Intention and affidavit of service is filed, that you immediately (1) notify the office holder sought to be recalled of the filings, (2) communicate to the office holder the seven-day deadline for filing an answer and (3) offer to provide the office holder a copy of the filings, upon request.
4. Publishing the Notice
Proponents are also required to publish, at their expense, the Notice of Intention at least once in a newspaper of general circulation serving the jurisdiction of the incumbent whose recall is being sought (§11022; Government Code §6061). There is no timeframe specified for publication. However, proof of publication is required at the time blank copies of the petition are filed. Proponents must request and obtain from the newspaper a signed affidavit proving publication . . . this document will need to be filed with the Office of the County Elections Official later in the process. (§11042)
If timely publication in a newspaper of general circulation is not possible, the Notice of Intention shall be posted in at least three public places within the jurisdiction of the incumbent whose recall is being sought. If posting is used, an affidavit attesting to the postings will be required to be filed with the Office of the County Elections Official.
5. Office holder’s Answer
The office holder has the right to provide a response to the grounds for the proposed recall contained in the proponents’ Notice of Intention. Should he or she choose to do so, the response is limited to 200 words and must be filed with the Office of the County Elections Official within seven (7) days after the filing of the Notice of Intention by the proponents. It must be signed, and shall be accompanied by the incumbent’s printed name and business or residence address (§11023).
Within that same seven (7) day period, the incumbent shall also serve a copy of his or her response on one of the proponents named in the Notice of Intention. Service is to be by personal delivery or certified mail. (§11023) (There is no requirement that the incumbent file any proof of service with the Office of the County Elections Official.)
Note to proponents: In the event office holder’s answer is apparently not received by any proponent, contact the Office of the County Elections Official, since the incumbent’s answer must also be filed there under the same deadline. It is the proponents’ responsibility to verify with the Elections Office whether an answer has been filed prior to proceeding to the next step in the recall process.
6. Campaign Finance Reporting
Both recall proponents who organize to qualify a recall for the ballot, and those who organize to oppose such a recall effort will have campaign disclosure and filing obligations under state law. See Section X, Part 8 for additional information.
III. BUILDING THE PETITION
1. Overview
The language and design of the recall petition are strictly controlled by the Elections Code (§§100, 100.5, 11040, 11041, 11043, 11043.5 and 11046).
See Appendix F for a sample recall petition form. A similar version is also provided in "Procedures for Recalling State and Local Officials" published by the Secretary of State.
Important: Before proceeding with circulation of any recall petition, proponents are required to submit their petition’s design and format to the Office of the County Elections Official for its review and approval as to whether the petition conforms to the requirements of the Elections Code (§11042). Proponents may want to communicate early with the Elections Office and/or a knowledgeable attorney on format and content.
2. Format of the Recall Petition
The recall petition format provided by the Secretary of State or County Elections Official is mandatory and must be used (§§11041, 11043.5).
The recall petition may consist of any number of separate sections, which must be duplicates except as to signatures and matters required to be affixed by signers and circulators. The number of signatures attached to each section is left up to the discretion of the person soliciting the signatures. Each section may consist of any number of separate pages. A page is defined as each side of a sheet of paper on which any signatures appear (§11040).
a. Heading:
A margin at least one inch wide shall be left across the top of each page and a margin at least one-half inch wide shall be left blank along the bottom of each page (§§100, 11043).
All petition sections must be printed in uniform size and darkness with uniform spacing (§11041).
On each page, in no less than 8-point type, there must appear:
 Language requesting that an election be called to elect a successor.
 Copy of the Notice of Intention, including the statement of reasons for the recall.
Note to proponents: The Notice of Intention to appear on the petition must be identical to that which was published, with the exception of the language related to the incumbent’s right to file an answer (§11021).
 The names of at least ten (10) of the proponents listed on the Notice of Intention (signatures and addresses do not need to be included).
 The incumbent’s answer, if any. If no answer was filed, the petition must so state.
b. Signature Space:
Immediately above the signature space(s) shall be the following statement:
"Each of the undersigned states for himself/herself that he or she is a registered and qualified elector of the [insert name of electoral jurisdiction, e.g., Central Fire Protection District] of [insert name of geographical location, i.e., County of Humboldt], California."
Note to proponents: When a petition is circulated in more than one county, each section of the petition shall bear the name of the county in which it is circulated, and only registered voters of that county may sign that section (§11047).
The petition must be designed so that each signer can personally affix his or her
 Printed name
 Signature
 Residence address, giving street and number, or if no street or number exists, adequate designation of residence so that the location may be readily determined; and
 Name of incorporated city of unincorporated community (§11043) .
Pursuant to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, the petition form must direct signers to include their "residence address" rather than "address as registered" or other address. Noncomplying petition forms will be rejected as invalid.
Signature spaces must be consecutively numbered commencing with the number one for each petition section.
A space at least one inch wide must be left blank at the right margin of the page after each name and address for the use of the County Elections Official in verifying the petition.
c. Declaration of Circulator:
Each section of the petition must have attached to it a declaration signed by the circulator (person soliciting signatures) of that section of the petition, setting forth in the circulator’s own hand, all of the following:
 Printed name of the circulator;
 Residence address of the circulator, giving street and number, or if no street exists, adequate designation of residence so that the location may be readily determined; and
 Dates between which all signatures to the petition were obtained.
The declaration must also include the following:
 That the circulator circulated that section and witnessed the appended signatures being written;
 That according to the best information and belief of the circulator, each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be;
 That the circulator is a registered voter in the electoral jurisdiction of the incumbent sought to be recalled; and
 That the circulator certifies to the content of the declaration as to its truth and correctness, under penalty of perjury. The circulator shall state the date and the place of execution on the declaration along with his or her signature. (§§104, 11046)
3. Filing of Blank Copies of Petition and Proof of Publication
Two blank copies of the recall petition must be filed with the Office of the County Elections Official within ten (10) days after the filing of the incumbent’s answer, if any. If no answer was filed, the copies are due within ten (10) days after the deadline for the incumbent to file an answer (§11042).
The affidavit attesting to the proof of publication (or posting, as applicable) of the Notice of Intention is due at this same time (§11042).
4. Review and Approval of Petition Format
The Office of the County Elections Official shall review the petition format within ten (10) days and notify the proponents in writing that the petition is either approved for circulation or requires modification (§11042).
If changes are necessary, proponents have ten (10) days to file two blank copies of the corrected petition with the Office of the County Elections Official. This process shall be repeated until no further alterations are necessary (§11042).
Note to elections official: As a courtesy, the incumbent should also be notified when approval on format is given.
IV. SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS AND CIRCULATION DEADLINES
1. When Circulation of the Recall Petition May Begin
Proponents may not begin collecting signatures until the form and wording of the recall petition have been approved by the Elections Office as meeting the requirements of the Elections Code (§11042(d)). The time period available for circulating the petition is measured from when the Elections Office notifies the proponents that the petition meets the form and wording requirements (§11220(a)).
2. Number of Days to Circulate Petition
The circulation period of a recall petition is based on a sliding scale using the number of registered voters in the electoral jurisdiction eligible to vote on the office of the incumbent subject to recall (§11220), as follows:
Registration No. of Days to Circulate
Under 1,000
1,000-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000 and above 40
60
90
120
160
Thus, for a countywide office, proponents would have 160 calendar days to circulate petitions.
3. Number of Signatures Needed
The number of valid signatures required on a recall petition to qualify and trigger a recall election is also based on a sliding scale using the number of registered voters in the electoral jurisdiction eligible to vote on the office of the incumbent subject to recall, as follows (§11221):
Registration Signatures Needed As % of Total Registered Voters
Under 1,000
1,000-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and above 30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
The number of registered voters shall be determined using the last official report of registration by the Office of the County Elections Official to the Secretary of State prior to the approval of the petition for circulation (§11221(b)).
An exception to the above occurs in the case of trial court judges, where the signature requirement is 20% of the total number of votes cast for all candidates in the last election for that office (Cal. Const. Art. II, Sec. 14(b)).
Often, however, judges have not been required to appear on the ballot for several terms because they drew no opposition when up for election (§8203). The number of signatures needed is then calculated as 20% of the total number of votes cast within that judicial jurisdiction (countywide for Superior Court, for example) for all candidates in the countywide office (e.g., Sheriff or District Attorney) with the least number of votes in the most recent general election (§11221). "Countywide office" is defined as "an elective office wholly within the county, which is voted on throughout the county."

4. Withdrawal of Signatures from Petitions
Any voter who has signed a recall petition who wishes to have his or her signature withdrawn from the petition may file a written request with the Office of the County Elections Official no later than the day before the petition is filed (§§103 and 11303).
The written request must identify the subject recall petition -- and clearly indicate the requestor indeed signed such petition – and contain the person’s name, residence address, and signature.
Note: The Office of the County Elections Official will have no way of knowing for sure when the proponents will choose to file the recall petitions. Consequently, it will not be able to advise persons who wish to withdraw their signatures as to any "deadline" for filing their requests – other than the fact that the request must be received no later than the day before the petition is filed.
V. COLLECTING SIGNATURES
1. Who Can Circulate a Recall Petition?
Registered voters in the jurisdiction who are qualified to vote on the office of the incumbent sought to be recalled (§11045).
2. Who Can Sign?
Only registered voters who, at the time of signing the recall petition, are qualified to vote on the office held by the incumbent whose recall is sought (§§ 322, 11045). Each signer must personally sign and print his or her name and residence address – giving street and number (or, if no street and number exists, an explanation of how to locate place of residence) (§§100, 322, 11045).
A voter physically unable to sign a petition may request someone else to print the voter’s name and residence address on the petition. The voter then must affix his or her mark in the appropriate space on the petition, and have two persons witness the mark by signing their names on the same line next to the mark (§ 100.5, Gov. Code § 16)). According to the Secretary of State’s legal counsel, witnesses do not have to be registered, and the circulator may serve as a witness.
If a recall petition is circulated in more than one county, a separate section should be used for each county. Each section of the petition must include the name of the county in which it is circulated, and only registered voters of that county may sign that section. (§11047 and Section III, Part 2.b of these guidelines.)
3. Registering or Re-Registering Potential Signers
For potential signers who are eligible but currently not registered to vote, or those who are registered but have since moved, a newly completed voter registration card will ensure his or her signature on a recall petition can be counted as valid. For this to work, the new registration card must be signed on or before the date the voter signs the petition . . . and the registration card itself must be received by the Office of the County Elections Official on or before the date the petition is filed (§ 2102(b)).
Note to proponents: It will assist the Office of the County Election Official in verifying signatures on the petition if the circulator notes in the left hand margin of the petition, adjacent the signature, these newly-completed registration card’s affidavit number and notifies the election’s office at the time of delivery that these registration cards are related to the specific petition. Proponents should also be aware that completed registration cards must be delivered to the Office of the County Elections Official within three (3) days of receipt from the voter. (§ 2138)
4. Circulator Must Complete and Sign Declaration of Circulator
The circulator must personally affix – in his or her own handwriting -- his or her printed name and residence address and the specific dates of circulation of each petition section in every circulator’s affidavit. Preprinted dates, or generalized dates other than the particular range of dates on which the petition section was circulated are not permitted (§§104, 11046).
5. Including a "Cushion" to Allow for Invalid Signatures
Proponents need to allow for invalid signatures by including extra signatures above and beyond the minimum needed to qualify the petition.
6. Causes of Invalid Signatures
Signatures that appear on the petition may be determined to be invalid for a number of reasons . . . some of the most common are listed below (See §§ 100, 105, 321, and 359.):
 The signer is not eligible to vote on the office held by the incumbent whose recall is being sought.
 The signer has moved since last registering to vote and failed to re-register.
 The signer writes in a P.O. box or business address as his or her address of residence.
 The signer signs the petition more than once. Only the first signature encountered during verification will count; moreover, any duplicate signatures found in the "random sample" are penalized under the sufficiency formula (see Section VII.)
 The residence address appearing on the petition was "pre-printed" and not written in personally by the signer.
 The signer’s signature does not compare to the voter’s signature on his/her voter registration card on file with the Office of the County Elections Official.
Certain defects in the declaration of the circulator, such as failure of the circulator to sign the declaration (§§104 and 11046), may invalidate all signatures appearing on that section. Recall proponents should advise their circulators of the importance of fully and accurately completing the declaration.
Circulators should be advised that under no circumstances should they make any changes or "corrections" in the signatures or addresses that the voters have written on the petition.
In verifying petitions, the Office of the County Elections Official may use the most current version of the Secretary of State’s "Official Petition Verification Guidelines."
7. Legibility of Signatures
To ensure that signatures are readable, use a firm writing surface beneath the petition page being signed and ball point pens, not felt tip markers. If circulating recall petitions against multiple officeholders, it is suggested printing the recall petitions on lightly-tinted colored paper with a different color for each office.
8. Circulation of Recall Petitions on Private Property
Petition circulators often seek to circulate petitions at shopping centers and other private property. With shopping centers being private property, the courts have had to balance the private property rights of the shopping center owners against the free speech and petition rights of petition circulators. Both supporters and opponents of a recall are advised to contact the property manager or owner in advance of circulating petitions and to seek legal counsel when issues arise as to their speech and petitioning rights at shopping centers or private property.
9. Penal Provisions
The following are selected penal provisions relating to circulation of recall petitions. (See §§18600 et. seq. for all the relevant code sections.)
a. Provisions Relating to Circulators
It is a misdemeanor for anyone circulating a recall petition to intentionally misrepresent or intentionally make a false statement concerning the contents, purport or effect of any petition to any person who signs, desires to sign, is requested to sign, or who makes inquiries with reference to it, or to whom it is presented for his or her signature. It is also a misdemeanor to willfully and knowingly circulate, publish, or exhibit any false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of any recall petition for the purpose of obtaining any signature to, or persuading or influencing any person to sign, that petition. (§18600)
Any person working for the proponents of a recall petition who refuses to allow a prospective signer to read the petition is guilty of a misdemeanor (§18601).
Every person who offers or gives money or other valuable consideration to another in exchange for his or her signature on a recall petition is guilty of a misdemeanor (§18603).
No one shall knowingly or willfully permit the list of signatures on a recall petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the recall question for the ballot. Violation is a misdemeanor (§18650).
b. Provisions Relating to Fraudulent Signatures
Every person who solicits any circulator to affix to a recall petition any false or forged signature, or to cause or permit a false or forged signature to be affixed, is guilty of a misdemeanor (§ 18610).
Anyone who circulates or causes to be circulated a recall petition knowing it to contain false, forged, or fictitious names is punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months or two or three years or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both fine and imprisonment (§ 18611).
Every person who knowingly signs his or her name more than once to a recall petition or signs his or her name to that petition knowing himself or herself at the time of signing not to be qualified to sign it is guilty of a misdemeanor (§ 18612).
Every person who subscribes to any recall petition a fictitious name, or who subscribes thereto the name of another, or who causes another to subscribe such a name to that petition, is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years (§ 18613).
Every person who files in the office of the election official any recall petition to which is attached any signature which the person filing the petition knows to be false or fraudulent or not the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be is punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment (§ 18614).
c. Threats to Prevent Petition Circulation or Filing
Every person who threatens to commit an assault or battery on a person circulating a recall petition or on a relative of such a person or to inflict damage on the property of the circulator or relative, with the intent to dissuade the circulator from circulating the petition or in retribution for the circulation, is guilty of a misdemeanor (§ 18630).
VI. FILING THE RECALL PETITION
All sections of the recall petition circulated within a particular county must be filed at the same time with that county’s Elections Office. No additional signatures may be filed or accepted after that time. The petition sections must be filed by the proponents or by any person or persons authorized in writing by a proponent. A copy of the written authorization must be included with the filing (§11222(a)).
If the Elections Office determines that the number of signatures, on its face, appears to be equal to or greater than the minimum required, the petition will be accepted for filing. If the number is less than the minimum required, the petition will not be accepted for filing and will be returned to the proponents (§11222(b)).
If the petition was circulated in more than one county, the elections official of each county shall affix, with the certificate showing the results of his or her examination, the number of registered voters of the county residing within the electoral jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled (§11223).
VII. VERIFICATION OF PETITION SIGNATURES
The Elections Office has 30 days from the date of the filing of the petition in which to examine it and determine the total number of valid signatures (§§ 11224 and 11225).
The examination involves verifying the validity of all the signatures on the petition (§ 11224) or verifying a random sample of 500 or 5%, whichever is greater, and determining the sufficiency of the petition through the statistical method provided by §11225. To save time and money, election officials typically choose the latter when presented with petitions with large volumes of signatures.
If the number of valid signatures, as determined by the random sample, is equivalent to 90-110% of the number needed to qualify the recall for the ballot, the election official is required to conduct a 100% signature examination of the petition. (If the random sample shows that the number is less than 90%, the petition will be certified as insufficient. If it is over 110%, it will be certified as sufficient (§11225)).
VIII. CERTIFYING RESULTS OF SIGNATURE VERIFICATON
1. Insufficient Number of Valid Signatures
If the petition is found to contain an insufficient number of valid signatures to qualify the recall for the ballot, no further action is taken and the petition remains on file (§11226).
No insufficiency in a petition against any officer shall bar the later filing of a new petition against that officer (§11300).
2. Sufficient Number of Valid Signatures
If the petition is found to have sufficient valid signatures to qualify the recall for the ballot, the Office of the County Elections Official will immediately certify the results of the signature examination to the governing body for consideration at its next regular meeting (§§ 11224, 11225, and 11227). The certificate shall contain the following:
 Name of officer whose recall is sought;
 Title of his or her office;
 Number of signatures required by law;
 Total number of signatures on the petition;
 Number of valid signatures on the petition; and
 Number of signatures that were disqualified.
3. Restrictions on Access to Recall Petitions
Some voters may have concerns about possible harassment if they sign initiative, referendum, or recall petitions. Government Code § 6253.5 provides that such petitions (and any memoranda prepared by the election officials in examining the petitions) are not deemed to be public records and are not open to inspection. There are two exceptions:
 Employees of the County Elections Office responsible for verifying the signatures; and
 Recall proponents, should the petition be deemed insufficient and fail to qualify for the ballot. In that event, proponents have the right to examine those signatures found to be invalid and the reasons therefore. "Proponents" are those individuals listed on the Notice of Intention (or a person authorized in writing by the proponent.) Any such examination shall begin within 21 days following certification of insufficiency (§11301).
IX. RESIGNATION OF OFFICEHOLDER
If the incumbent whose recall is being sought resigns (or a vacancy occurs for any other reason) at any time following the filing of the recall petition, the recall process will nevertheless proceed. Anyone appointed to fill the vacancy serves only until a successor is selected and qualifies for the office (§11302).
X. THE RECALL ELECTION
1. Calling the Election
Within 14 days after the meeting at which the governing body considers the certificate of sufficiency received from the Office of the County Elections Official, the governing body is to issue an order calling the election (§ 11240).
If the governing body fails to act within those 14 days, the County Elections Official shall call for the election within five days (§ 11241).
A recall election shall be conducted, canvassed, and the results declared in substantially the manner provided by law for a regular election for the office (§ 11328). One election is sufficient for the recall of several officers (§ 11329).
If the recall is to be voted on by voters in more than one county, the elections official of the county with the largest number of registered voters who will be voting in the election shall set the date in consultation with elections officials of the other counties (§ 11241).
In any case, the election must be held between 88 and 125 days from the date of the order (§ 11242). Also, no election shall be held on any day other than Tuesday or the day after a state holiday (§1100).
Note: If a regular or special election is to be held throughout the electoral jurisdiction of the incumbent sought to be recalled within this time period, the recall election shall be held on the same day (§11242).
2. Filing Requirements for Candidates
Once the recall election is called, there will be a nomination period for candidates to file for election to the office.
Exception: Although it is clear that trial court judges – both Municipal and Superior court –are subject to recall, Article VI, Section 16 of the California Constitution creates some legal uncertainty as to whether the successor to a recalled judge is elected by the voters . . . or appointed by the Governor. If it is the latter, obviously the need for a contest involving successor candidates is eliminated. This question was first raised in 1997 in Nevada County (see County Counsel of Nevada County opinion, Appendix G) but never resolved since the recall petition never qualified for the ballot. It is, therefore, suggested that elections officials seek their own legal counsel to clarify this issue should it arise.
The nomination period must not open before the day the order of election is issued and must close not later than the 75th day before the election. If the County Elections Official is required to certify to the governing board the names of candidates to be placed on the ballot, that shall be done by the 71st day prior to the election (§ 11381(b)).
The incumbent may not be a candidate to succeed himself or any other member of the same governing board that is also the subject of recall (§ 11381(c)) . . . but he or she may submit a statement for publication in the sample ballot booklet (§§ 11327, 13307).
Note: The nomination period for recall elections may very likely be truncated. For example, the election could be called to be held in the minimum 88 days. Since the nomination period under any circumstances must close on the 75th day (§ 11381b), the nomination period will consist of just 14 days. See Petitions In-Lieu of Filing Fee below for other possible date consequences.
Nomination petitions may or may not be required of candidates, depending on the office held by the incumbent. The number of nominating signatures, if any, will be the same as required of candidates seeking that particular office in a regular election (§ 11381). Check with the Office of the County Elections Official regarding this requirement.
There are no filing fees for school or special district office. Filing fees for County Supervisor and countywide office are based on 1% of the official’s annual salary (§ 8104(b)).
a. Petitions In-Lieu of Filing Fee
If there is a filing fee, petitions in-lieu of payment of that fee must be made available to candidates, who may circulate these petitions and gather signatures for credit against the fee (§§ 8061, 8106).
NOTE: Petitions in lieu are required to be made available 45 days before the first day for circulating nomination papers (§ 8106(b)). Given the deadlines for calling the election, this could create a situation where petitions in lieu should be available before the signatures on the petitions have been verified.
b. Candidate Qualifications
In addition to filing nomination documents (declaration of candidacy and nomination petition), each candidate may have to provide documentation of his or her qualifications (§ 13.5).
c. Candidate Statements
Candidates’ statements for publication in the sample ballot pamphlet are optional. The cost of statements in a recall election will be determined by the Office of the County Elections Official once the election has been called.
For candidates, the statement is due at the time his or her nomination papers are filed (§13307(a)(2)).
The incumbent whose recall is being sought may also submit a statement for inclusion in the sample ballot pamphlet (§ 11327). Statement must be filed to no later than 5 p.m. on the last day of candidate filing.
Note to elections officials: Notify incumbent of his or her right to submit a statement and deadline for filing.
All candidate and incumbent statements shall remain confidential until the close of the filing period.
3. Design of the Ballot
The question on the ballot will be: "Shall [name of incumbent sought to be recalled] be recalled (removed) from the office of [title of office]?" with the voter marking either "Yes" or "No" (§ 11320). Below that will appear the names of the candidates who have filed to seek election to the office in the event the recall is successful. Appropriately identified write-in space must also be provided (§ 11322).
If there are multiple recalls that have qualified for the ballot, following the list of candidates to succeed to one office would be the recall question for the next office, and so on. Candidates will be listed in randomized alphabet order based on a drawing of letters by the Secretary of State. In the case of candidates for countywide office, they will be listed in randomized alphabet order and then rotated in conformance with §§ 13111(g) and 13112.
4. Sample Ballot Pamphlet
The sample ballot pamphlet shall include both the grounds for the recall (from the Notice of Intention) and the incumbent’s answer, if one was filed. The grounds for the recall and answer shall be printed on the same page or on facing pages and shall be of equal prominence (§11325).
If the recall of more than one incumbent is sought, the grounds for the recall and answer for each shall be printed together and clearly distinguished from those of any other (§ 11325).
5. The Voter’s Responsibility While Voting in a Recall
For a vote for a candidate running to succeed to the office to be counted, the voter must vote either "Yes" or "No" on the question of recall (§ 11382).
6. Majority Vote Required to Recall the Incumbent
If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the incumbent shall be removed from office upon the certification of election results and swearing-in of his or her successor (§ 11384).
7. Plurality Vote to Elect a Successor
If the incumbent is recalled, the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes shall be elected to the incumbent’s unexpired term. There is no runoff election (§ 11385).
If the candidate with the highest number of votes fails to qualify within ten days after receiving his or her certificate of election, the office to which he or she was elected shall be vacant, and shall be filled according to law (§ 11386).
8. Campaign Finance Reporting Requirements and Limitations
Both the recall proponents who organize to qualify a recall for the ballot and those who oppose a recall effort -- as well as candidates -- will have to meet the filing obligations and campaign disclosure requirements required by the state Political Reform Act, as well as any additional limitations or requirements established by local ordinance, if any.
It is imperative for all parties involved with a recall to check with the Office of the County Elections Official on any and all applicable state and local laws in this regard.
Additional information about specific disclosure requirements is available by contacting the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces the Political Reform Act, at (916) 322-5662. The address is 428 "J" Street, Suite 800, Sacramento 95814.
XI. THE AFTERMATH
1. Repeating a Recall if the Incumbent is not Recalled
If the recall election is conducted and the incumbent is not recalled, a new recall may not be commenced against the official within six months of that election nor during the last six months of the official’s term of office (§ 11007).
2. Right of the Recalled Incumbent to Run in Future Elections
A successful recall election applies only to the current term of office. There is nothing in the law to prevent a public official recalled in one election from running for the same or any other office in an election for a subsequent term of office
Justice Sachar View on right to recall, reject
Justice (Retd) Rajinder Sachar today echoed anti-graft crusader Anna Hazare in demanding electoral reforms to incorporate a right to recall elected representatives and reject poll candidates.
“We need electoral reforms empowering people with the right to reject a candidate or recall an elected representative to save the country from being led by corrupt leaders,” Mr. Sachar said.
Reminded that Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi had ruled out the right to recall on the ground that it was not feasible for a country like India, Mr. Sachar said, “It is very much possible to have ‘Reject’ in the EVM or a Ballot paper for the voters who will not like to vote for any candidate in the list.
Mr. Sachar, who prepared the report on the status of Indian Muslims, spoke on behalf of the ‘Socialist Party (India)’ on the occasion of its first state conference.
Though not holding any post in the party, he was described by party leaders as one of their chief patrons.
Mr. Sachar said the Socialist Party (India) would contest at least 50 seats in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.
He claimed the party would not field any capitalist, muscleman or a candidate with criminal antecedent as candidates.
He also opposed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati’s idea of dividing the state into four parts.


SK Agarwal’s View on Right to recall and reject
Right to ‘recall’ and ‘reject’ will not work The right to recall elected representatives and reject all those on the ballot paper is impractical and will create utter chaos, says SK Aggarwal

The issue of electoral reforms is several decades old. Of late, there has been a renewal of emphasis on this issue, and two suggestions in particular are in the focus of discussion: The ‘right to reject all’ and the ‘right to recall’. The protagonists of these two ideas are very sure of their positive impact on the electoral system and the quality of governance in the country. Many people are inclined to support these suggestions.
The spirit that lies behind these suggestions is unexceptionable. The electoral system must guarantee that no ‘wrong’ person enters the precincts of Parliament as its member, and an elected person must remain steadfast in the discharge of his public responsibilities. The point of debate, however, is whether the ‘reject all’ option on the ballot paper and the ‘recall’ of an elected representative mid-stream are suggestions worth implementation. Many believe that they are not and, therefore, better options should be found.
The primary goal of holding elections is to give the country a system of democratic governance by putting in place the required political instruments for it. In its basic intent, the electoral process is a positive mechanism aimed at enabling the democratic system to run and not at putting the brakes on it, which the ‘right to reject all’ has the potential to do. Election process cannot be made into a rejection process.
The objective of preventing undesirable persons from winning the elections does not necessarily require ‘right to reject’. It can be achieved by prescribing stringent eligibility requirements for candidates. Wherever the existing eligibility rules are not found adequate, suitable changes can be made in them. An alert Election Commission is also a powerful instrument to achieve the purpose.
If some people or groups entertain doubts on the efficacy of even a strong legal and administrative framework for improving the country’s electoral process and insist on the option of ‘right to reject all’, they would be advised that, instead of making this demand they participate in elections and provide the voters such candidates that may be better than those offered by various political groups.
It would not be appropriate for them to merely find faults with others without themselves assuming the responsibility of providing an alternative. What happens if, through a strong exercise of the ‘right to reject’, a seat remains unfilled and when a re-election is held, no good candidate is found again by the voters?
Keeping seats vacant cannot be an achievement by itself. The energy that is intended to be put in mobilising people for the victory of the ‘right to reject’ option during the elections should better be used to find good candidates and ensure their victory.
In this context, we cannot lose sight of the reality of vote-bank politics based on caste, religion language or ideology. A large component of our voters is attached to one or the other vote-bank. Such voters prefer to remain firm in their party loyalty rather than assessing the quality of its governance. All parties have their big or small vote-banks.
However, the BJP and Congress are the parties whose voters comprise the biggest fluctuating component who tend to change their preference based on their assessment on governance issues.
In fact, this fluctuating element is very useful in the democratic governance. Because of its nature, it would provide the bulk of voters who may be willing to adopt the ‘reject all’ option on the ballot paper. And the size of the voters for this option in a given election may not always be large enough to cancel the election on the seat, making such votes unnecessarily go waste. The only role played by such votes will thus be to take away sizeable chunks of votes of Congress and BJP and, in turn, benefit those forces which have a political agenda to serve through vote-bank politics.
Another point to note is that ‘reject all’ option may lead to reduction in voting percentage. Once this option is put on the ballot paper, there are bound to be efforts from some groups to mobilise support for this option in various constituencies. If the activists are able to convince some voters that none of the candidates named in the ballot paper deserves their vote, such convinced voters may only become indifferent and choose not come to vote at all.
High proactive enthusiasm cannot be built among people for negative acts like ‘reject all’. The net result may be a reduced percentage of voting which is not good for democracy. A more productive effort would be to encourage people to come and vote in huge numbers. This will create the muchneeded fear of uncertainty among all candidates which will be a very positive factor in the election process.
There are practical problems in its implementation too. Should the ‘right to recall’ be implemented in the form of a mid-term election on a seat in which every voter is to have a say? Who should have a say in it and who should not is a matter of debate. Those voters who did not vote in the election in a constituency perhaps should not be given a say in the demand for the recall of the sitting MP or MLA, because they did not perform their duty of voting and so should not have a right to demand the recall either.
And the voters who had voted against the sitting MP or MLA are already mentally conditioned against the sitting MP and can be easily persuaded to join the chorus for recall.
The total number of such voters is generally much higher than the votes polled by the sitting MP, and all the candidates who fought against him and lost would be too eager to mobilise their supporters for the recall. That leaves for us only those voters who had voted for the sitting MP. Should only such voters be given a say in the demand for recall? That also seems to be illogical.
Besides, if, under the system of ‘recall’, a certain number of people are ready to demand the recall of the sitting MP, it must also be ascertained whether a larger number is still interested in his continuation or not.
In the kind of ‘party system’ that we have, people vote for the party also and not just for the candidate and, therefore, any move to recall a sitting MP is bound to escalate into an inter-party warfare.
Pranab Mukherjee’s view on recall and reject

KOLKATA: Anna Hazare's demand for right to recall elected representatives and reject candidates is not feasible in a huge country like India, Union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee today said and claimed that the provision, if implemented, would only create political instability.

Without taking Hazare's name, Mukherjee said, "India is the largest functional democracy in the world with over 122 crore population and each Lok Sabha MP has an average electorate of 15 lakh. Under such circumstances, I do not know if such a demand is feasible."

"If implemented, it will create political instability in the country," he observed.

Mukherjee was addressing a Panchayati Raj conference here organised by the West Bengal Pradesh Congress.

Soon after he had ended his 12-day fast on the Lokpal issue, Hazare had said his fight would now be for the right to recall elected representatives and right to reject candidates as part of electoral reforms in order to contain corruption.

Shakeel Ahmed, AICC general secretary in-charge of West Bengal, alleged in his speech that Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev were trying to divide the country.

"In 1977, the same had been tried by making false allegations against Indira Gandhi and then again in 1989, the BJP had tried to divide the country over the Ram Janmabhumi Babri Masjid issue," he claimed.
Status In India:-
In India it was the late Jayaprakash Narayan who had first given a call for the right to recall the elected representatives on November 4, 1974 during his Sampoorna Kranti (Total Revolution) movement against the Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi at the Centre[4] followed by the Janata Government in 1977 and again during the National Front Government in 1989. The right to recall the elected representative has remained notional. The process of formulation any legislation on the subject has been derailed by the political parties. It is well established fact that political leaders are reluctant to enact any legislation which depicts that they are hesitant to maturing into participatory democracy.
In State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Shri Ram Singh Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, “Corruption in a civilized society is like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignise the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but also aimed and targeted at them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society”[5]
There are several examples, Mr. Madhu Koda, the former Chief Minister of Jharkhand, is alleged to have looted Rs 4,000 crore[6] from the state followed by The Reddy brothers, YSR’s family[7], which are just the latest additions. It has been observed that all of them get away with the loot, and continue to be in positions of influence. There is not a single politician who has been put behind bars for corruption.
It is in the interest of the nation to remove those incompetent, inefficient and dishonest legislators, who once elected by hook or by crook, continue to bleed the state exchequer for the fixed term. Current conditions in India where even the peasantry is articulating need for new mechanisms for empowerment demands to have laws enshrining the right to recall must be viewed as important ingredients of the fight for renewal of the polity.
Steps towards Right to Recall:-
The Nitish Kumar Government has decided to empower the voters of the urban civic body polls to call back their elected representatives if they are not satisfied with their performance.
The state cabinet has agreed to the ‘right to recall’ proposal in this regard by giving its nod to the amendment to the Bihar Municipal Act.
It will enable the government to remove the elected representatives of the municipal corporations – Nagar Parishad and Nagar Panchayat -if two-thirds of the voters of their constituencies submit a signed petition to the urban development department against them. The department will look into the merit of the petition and take steps for the ouster of the councillors if it is convinced that they have lost the confidence of two-thirds of the voters.
Earlier, the Act had a provision for the removal of a councillor only if two-thirds of fellow councillors filed a written petition against him. But now, the government has vested the power directly with the voters.
There is already a provision under the Panchayati Raj system in the state for the recall of elected mukhiyas (village headmen). It will now be applicable to the elected representatives of the urban civic bodies as well.[8]

Merits:-
• Recall is a process which enables voters dissatisfied with an elected official to replace him before the expiry of his term of office, which will make them more accountable to the people.
• The ‘recall’ device has also the potential to encourage the citizens to keep themselves side by side of contemporary public issues in order to monitor the conduct of their elected representatives.
• It provides a way for citizens to retain control over elected officials who are not representing the best interests of their constituents, or who are unresponsive or incompetent.
• This mechanism holds that an elected representative is an agent, a servant and not a master in a democratic state.
Demerits:-
• How will the government determine whether the petition submitted to it for the recall of the elected representatives carry the signatures of the genuine voters?
• How will it be ensured that the signatures of such a large number of people have not been forged?
• It can lead to an excess of democracy, where the threat of a recall election lessens the independence of elected officials.
• It undermines the principle of electing good officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next election, and that it can lead to abuses by well-financed special interest groups.
• It will only compound an already problem-ridden system.
Country like India is not in a position to hold election so frequently.
CONCLUSION
The Former Lok Sabha Speaker Mr.Somnath Chatterjee at Thiruvanthapuram where he recommended the introduction of right to call of elected representatives in India. He said “It is time for us to look for devices such as ‘recall’ to ensure accountability of the members of democratic institutions at all levels, before the common man gets totally disillusioned with the prevailing system. The performance and the functioning of the parliament as well as its members would improve if people who elected their representatives to voice their grievances watched the parliamentary proceedings regularly. But, it is not such an easy thing to be resolved in our parliamentary democracy as all the political parties have to arrive at a consensus, which may be a difficult task.”
India, the largest democracy isn’t the most effective one. The irony and the clumsiness of the electoral process in India is that it has not been able to keep out criminal, anti-social and undesirable elements from participating in and even dominating the political scene and polluting the electoral and parliamentary processes. It can be corrected only by putting voters in control and ‘Right to recall’, is an excellent accountability tool. At present, provision for recall is necessary in democracy because elected representative at all levels give the impression that they have protection from all laws of the country and majority of them acts only for profit earning not for the welfare of the state
In my view I need recall procedure because in India the same party repeatedly coming to rule us. People also voting for money, gifts, and all other free items which they providing at the time of election. Then the people suffers a lot. When the came to the thrown they started collecting by way of bribes. In reality they are grabbing our labour, welfare and countries wealth in toto. For example our present Chief Minister and Former Chief Minister Jayalalitha and Karunanithi respectively. They having so much of black monies. Their cases where still pending before the Hon’ble courts. If we take centre there also we can see family ruling right from Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, now people are waiting to select Rahul Gandhi. Like this the people always selecting monotonously. They are not realizing their powers. Even if this right is given in their hands we don’t know how they will use it. How it will help to them. Once they enjoyed its benefits means definitely they will aware of it. Government announced s. 49(0) form will be issued in polling booths but it was not implemented. At the time of election they said election officials not supplied as please wait for some time. Then finally that forms was not distributed in some areas. In some areas forciably fake votes were entered. If this oppournity was given to the people can enjoy its benefit.